At a very young age my father, God rest his soul, offered some of the best advise he ever offered. Granted, I don't believe he knew at the time the gravity on me of his advice. Even so, I have carried it in my heart and head as a precious object which I follow like the north star.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

The trade deficit for 2008 upto the second I type this is $662,540,893,070.03, how are you going to over come that without tangible goods? Keep in mind China does not give a damn about intellectual property.

 

It may not lie soley in a manufacturing base or raw materials, but those are undeniable aspects of wealth for any nation. And some of those people you are depending on derive their ability to innovate from the support those very aspects of wealth provide.

Perhaps from the overt neglect in recent decades of the manufacturing sector?

We need all of our resources to remain a viable economic power.

 

You still seem to be approaching this as if it's all or nothing as far as manufacturing goes...having less manufacturing or different manufacturing doesn't mean we have none; same applies to natural resources.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Where do you get your data from?

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.

 

Well...I would direct you to the National Bureau of Economic Research or; if raw stats are more your thing, try the U.S. Bureau or Economic Analysis or try the writings of folks like Milton Friedman or Walter Williams or Don Boudreaux.

Boudreaux said...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; 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).

 

So what, in the depression we couldn't afford imports. We also made money selling arms to Europe.

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.

 

In other words, sources aren't important to you after all which makes me wonder why you bothered to ask for them.

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?

 

I'm still waiting for your data, I can only find trade balance data that goes back to 1975

The playing field needs to be leveled, I'd rather see a $5000 tariff on every imported car from outside North America.

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.

 

you don't level playing fields with the government and tariffs. You don't mess with them period.

protectionism makes everything worse and played a major roll in why the Big three are in this mess.

 

I agree in theory , but..

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.