I keep hearing that American doesn't need 3 car companies, but...
12-08-2008, 03:36 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: FL/MI
Posts: 1,808
And so we arrive at a point of insoluable disagreement. I do not accept the prevailing wisdom that we can survive effectively by abandoning our manufacturing base. To me, it is yet another example of foolishly putting all of our eggs in a single basket to do so.
As to the chaos and pain, mitigating it makes sense to me. I believe that slowing the process to allow time for crisis-management and transformation of our industrial base is far preferable to sifting through the debris of massive collapse and starting over at ground zero.
As I said, we will not agree on this - our positons are simply too far apart.
In my view, it is time for pragmatism and the conversion of liabilities into assets - rather than a "survival of the fittest" bloodbath and starting from scratch.
Handled properly, this crisis could be a slingshot to the future.
A reasoned review of our supplications at the alter of globalism is desperately needed.
As to the chaos and pain, mitigating it makes sense to me. I believe that slowing the process to allow time for crisis-management and transformation of our industrial base is far preferable to sifting through the debris of massive collapse and starting over at ground zero.
As I said, we will not agree on this - our positons are simply too far apart.
In my view, it is time for pragmatism and the conversion of liabilities into assets - rather than a "survival of the fittest" bloodbath and starting from scratch.
Handled properly, this crisis could be a slingshot to the future.
A reasoned review of our supplications at the alter of globalism is desperately needed.
As a preface, my father was a "lifer" in the army of these United States. He was a Colonel.
"Listen to your sargents" was his passing remark. Truly, for me, sage advice.
I took his remark on a number of different levels. All have served me well. The passing years allow some rumination.
I have found myself in a number of management positions over the years. I " listen to my sargents". IOW, a successful endeavor is more possible from the bottom up rather than a from the top down kind of approach.
An ability to "sift" and "seek" the info from folks below is the better path.
In essence, Asian management style is far more handcuffed when compared to western management style. At least that's what I have come away with after study and experience.
Most here on this forum have no clue whatsoever regarding how the transplants or actual homegrown car companies truly operate.
I claim no personal insight beyond my own understanding of P.R. and what the financial realities are in Japan, thus my thoughts are based according to my own opinions. IOW, any expertise is solely based on my own experience and gut. I have worked for GM and not been the worse for it.
What I do have a personal grip on is my own perception of GM. I'm straight up confident on that territory. So let's look at G.M. as I know it.
What I respect about Wagoner is his willingness to supplement his weakness. By that I mean that he is a finance guy... even so, he handed the product side of the biz to a "car guy" like Bob Lutz. In GM history this is unusual. In any car company, the absolute "car guy" having any say is not as common as some may think.
Let me be clear, GM has been run by a money guy or a car guy in the past.... What is different is a willingness from either ruling school to allow a voice to the other school...
Consider an anomoly such as a Bob Lutz...
I think that Bob has delivered on his part of the bargain of his return.
Nonetheless, a guy like Lutz has a voice at GM. However you view him, Rick let him back in.
GM has had some absolute giants in their management programs. Perhaps some folks I will mention will ring a bell.
There's always room for a Zora type at GM.
Ed Cole was a giant, Jimmy Perkins can raise the dead with a speech on Chevrolet. These kinda folk still walk the halls. I could go on and on.
The culture at GM does make room for the passionate. True believers have a podium at GM.
Whatever any here believe, GM is a "car guys" company.
If I didn't believe this to be true, I'd woudn't fight so hard, or follow so hard.
Last edited by 1fastdog; 12-09-2008 at 03:44 AM.
12-08-2008, 04:03 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,173
Chaos is often the result of major economic shifts.
There was chaos when society changed from primarily an agrarian society into an industrialized one as there was major disruptions in peoples lives as new technologies came along (such as replacing biological horse power with mechanical horse power or replacing line workers with robots)?
We are in a period where manufacturing strength is playing an ever decreasing role in an economy overall; those who adapt will thrive; those who done will not.
That fact there is chaos and pain when such shifts happen in a free enterprise based economy doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with free enterprise. The free enterprise system is simply the best economic system in existence; it is not without its faults but meddling with it generally makes things worse, not better.
Postponing the chaos/pain is not the same as doing away with it. It’s likely that the chaos and pain WILL come no matter what government tries to do about and probably be much worse than it would have been.
There was chaos when society changed from primarily an agrarian society into an industrialized one as there was major disruptions in peoples lives as new technologies came along (such as replacing biological horse power with mechanical horse power or replacing line workers with robots)?
We are in a period where manufacturing strength is playing an ever decreasing role in an economy overall; those who adapt will thrive; those who done will not.
That fact there is chaos and pain when such shifts happen in a free enterprise based economy doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with free enterprise. The free enterprise system is simply the best economic system in existence; it is not without its faults but meddling with it generally makes things worse, not better.
Postponing the chaos/pain is not the same as doing away with it. It’s likely that the chaos and pain WILL come no matter what government tries to do about and probably be much worse than it would have been.
12-08-2008, 04:14 PM
#48
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
I would not be so quick to abandon manufacturing. It, along with mining and agriculture, are what procide wealth for an economy. Without a strong manufacturing base we will never overcome the trade deficiet. Without overcoming the trade deficiet it is only a matter of time until our country is blead dry.
And no one is suggesting "abandoning" manufacturing - having less manufacturing or having very specialized manufacturing in areas when the U.S. can be competitive doe not mean we have to abandon manufacturing; I'm not sure where this "black or white"/"all or nothing" mentality comes from.
12-08-2008, 04:24 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,173
Couldn't disagree more - the wealth of a nation does not lie in its manufacturing base or its raw materials or any other tangible asset; a nation's wealth lies in its people - people and their personal strengths, intelligence, drive and ability to innovate are the only things that can sustain the U.S.; it will never be any one industry or any one genre of industry.
And no one is suggesting "abandoning" manufacturing - having less manufacturing or having very specialized manufacturing in areas when the U.S. can be competitive doe not mean we have to abandon manufacturing; I'm not sure where this "black or white"/"all or nothing" mentality comes from.
And no one is suggesting "abandoning" manufacturing - having less manufacturing or having very specialized manufacturing in areas when the U.S. can be competitive doe not mean we have to abandon manufacturing; I'm not sure where this "black or white"/"all or nothing" mentality comes from.
12-08-2008, 04:37 PM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 929
Couldn't disagree more - the wealth of a nation does not lie in its manufacturing base or its raw materials or any other tangible asset; a nation's wealth lies in its people - people and their personal strengths, intelligence, drive and ability to innovate are the only things that can sustain the U.S.; it will never be any one industry or any one genre of industry.
Andno one is suggesting "abandoning" manufacturing - having less manufacturing or having very specialized manufacturing in areas when the U.S. can be competitive doe not mean we have to abandon manufacturing; I'm not sure where this "black or white"/"all or nothing" mentality comes from.
We need all of our resources to remain a viable economic power.
12-08-2008, 04:51 PM
#51
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
Moving on, I’m sure you think a trade deficit is “bad” but why, exactly do you think that?
Numbers like the "trade deficit" is the kind of thing the news media throw out there because the issue is too complex to be dealt with in a 90 second news spot.
Considering that fact that the U.S. has had a trade deficit for most of its history; most economists don’t see the deficit as having much meaning one way or the other; many if not not most will say that economies are far too complex to draw simplistic conclusions about trade deficits and surpluses.
I also suspect too that the number you cite has been driven much higher this year purely as a result of the crude oil price boom and that if you excluded oil’s impact, the figure would be a lot smaller.
While I would say that most people would like to see a balance in trade, having a deficit or a surplus is not material to the overall health of an economy and certainly not a measure the worth of a nation.
Again, a nation’s people and how that nation governs itself is far more important to its economic health than its natural resources or how large its manufacturing base.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; 12-08-2008 at 04:54 PM.
12-08-2008, 05:33 PM
#52
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
trade surplus = wealth coming into your country
We get away with it because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency. That will most likely end in the next 10 years or less as the rest of the world realizes that we are taking tangible goods from them in exchange for worthless paper. Once they stop taking that paper the dollar will collapse.
12-08-2008, 07:43 PM
#53
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
trade deficit = wealth leaving your country
trade surplus = wealth coming into your country
We get away with it because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency. That will most likely end in the next 10 years or less as the rest of the world realizes that we are taking tangible goods from them in exchange for worthless paper. Once they stop taking that paper the dollar will collapse.
trade surplus = wealth coming into your country
We get away with it because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency. That will most likely end in the next 10 years or less as the rest of the world realizes that we are taking tangible goods from them in exchange for worthless paper. Once they stop taking that paper the dollar will collapse.
12-09-2008, 07:06 AM
#54
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Were it actually that simple (and it's not) then the U.S. would have become a third-rate economy 100 years ago...as I mentioned before, the U.S. has had a trade deficit for most of its history; claiming now the the sky is falling because of the trade deficit is grossly oversimplistic.
Also by your logic Zimbabwe should be the richest nation in the world if all it takes is printing money at trading it for foreign goods.
12-09-2008, 09:03 AM
#55
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
Boudreaux said...
Professor Don Boudreaux, chairman of George Mason University's Economics Department, wrote "If Trade Surpluses Are So Great, the 1930s Should Have Been a Booming Decade" (www.cafehayek.com). According to data he found at the National Bureau of Economic Research's "Macrohistory Database", it turns out that the U.S. ran a trade surplus in nine of the 10 years of the Great Depression, with 1936 being the lone exception.
By the way; no one was talking about printing money nor does running either a trade deficit or a surplus cause or stop the presses. In any case, you tell me which is "better"; printing money or borrowing it from Communist China (since that is the only two sources for any bailout money for Detroit).
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; 12-09-2008 at 09:15 AM.
12-09-2008, 09:15 AM
#56
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
I would direct you to the writings of folks like Milton Friedman or Walter Williams or Don Boudreaux.
Boudreaux said...
Spend some time on the website of the NBER or if raw stats are more your thing, try the U.S. Bureau or Economic Analysis.
I'm not suggesting that huge trade deficits are "good" but neither do they warrant a sky is falling mentality as some seem to be caught up in.
By the way; nice attempt to change the subject...no one was talking about printing money. In any case, you tell me which is "better"; printing money or borrowing it from Communist China (since that is the only two sources for any bailout money for Detroit).
Boudreaux said...
Spend some time on the website of the NBER or if raw stats are more your thing, try the U.S. Bureau or Economic Analysis.
I'm not suggesting that huge trade deficits are "good" but neither do they warrant a sky is falling mentality as some seem to be caught up in.
By the way; nice attempt to change the subject...no one was talking about printing money. In any case, you tell me which is "better"; printing money or borrowing it from Communist China (since that is the only two sources for any bailout money for Detroit).
I didn't change the subject, that is how we pay for our trade deficit, they give use good, oil or raw materials and we give the rest of the world our paper money and debt.
12-09-2008, 09:19 AM
#57
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
Since you are against debt and printing money (as am I) then I also assume you are opposed to any bailouts (including bailouts for Detroit), correct?
12-09-2008, 09:53 AM
#58
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Big 3 are a mess and need to be restructured, I wish I knew what the best way was. They will need some loans to pay for that restructuring, American laws make it easier for a company to grow than contract. America needs the heavy manufacturing infrastructure, it would be foolish to throw it away.
12-09-2008, 10:12 AM
#60
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
How does the non subsidized compete with the subsidized? Japans protective tariffs have done a pretty good job of keeping US products out and allowing them to support different 7 automakers.