yeppers

[Thebastidge]

When WE bought our first Toyota, the US alternatives were garbage. Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto or AMC Gremlin. It took Detroit decades to catch up on quality. I would have been stupid to buy a Vega rather than a Corolla. However, wages and benefits were and are high in Japan, so the cars and the labor to build them weren't cheaper. In fact this is true to the extent that many Japanese cars are now built in the US. Head to head, built in the US, the Ford F150 still outsells Toyota's pickup.

It wasn't until we got "free" trade which should be called "unfair" trade that our industrial base began to collapse. There's a big difference between a rival importing things here, and our companies shuttering their plants and moving to China, leaving the US to no longer make a competing product.

Do you think American autos would have improved without competition? They can't force you to buy their produccts, but with no alternative, would they have any incentive to improve? They could stumble along with the same market share of people replacing worn-out vehicles because those folks would have no better option, and they can't really go back to horse and buggy. Introducing competition didn't CAUSE the Americna auto industry to collapse, it merely exposed the flaws in their products and provided a better product. Everybody wins from that, except the people producing the inferior product, and they don't deserve to win in that scenario. Part of the problem is that massive union contracts forced or exacerbated an inflexibility which is more directly attributable as the casue of American manufacturing's collapse than the competition. Crappy competition couldn't beat them, after all. Better quality products at a better price point did. If our industry had been "better" than the Japanese, they would have skimmed a few marginal percentage points and business would have gone as usual. So I don't mourn those dinosaurs at all.

 

[kenno]

I had a 1962 Ford Falcon that got 22MPG on bias ply tires, yet it out weighed modern sedans by hundreds of pounds.
There has been no earth shaking Improvement. Auto technology has gone sideways due to federal regs. Is LA smog reduced? NO. Do air bags save lives? Only if your an adult, they kill children! Nothing has changed except that Unions now own the MFGs, cars cost much more and 10'000s of jobs have disappeared. Almost like it was planned that way. America is being turned into a Soviet Ghetto.

 

[Gunner3456]

I had a 1962 Ford Falcon that got 22MPG on bias ply tires, yet it out weighed modern sedans by hundreds of pounds.
There has been no earth shaking Improvement. Auto technology has gone sideways due to federal regs. Is LA smog reduced? NO. Do air bags save lives? Only if your an adult, they kill children! Nothing has changed except that Unions now own the MFGs, cars cost much more and 10'000s of jobs have disappeared. Almost like it was planned that way. America is being turned into a Soviet Ghetto.

About then, US cars had begun to improve. IMHO the worst were in the 70's.

That Falcon (and its counterpart the Mustang a couple of years later) were really good cars. The 200 cubic inch straight 6 had power, economy, and you couldn't wear it out. Even the smaller 6 (170 inch?) was a good engine. Same with Chrysler's slant 6. GM still hadn't learned. They built the Citation garbage pile and the variable valve Caddy. In the late 70's they built that horrible diesel engine from the Chevy 350 and stuffed it mostly into big Oldsmobiles. They kept making into the early 80's.

 

[Gunner3456]

Do you think American autos would have improved without competition?

Yes, they had competition. Each other, and each wanted the biggest market share. Where the US makers were slow and got beat was in developing a truly good small car such as the Toyota or Datsun. Even VW beat them before that. They were slow learners.

IMHO the thing that temporarily ruined the US makers was the list of new requirements from the Feds starting in 72-73. In order to meet emissions requirements quickly, they detuned the cars, even the Corvette, and power was lost and fuel economy suffered. Some of the "improvements" didn't work well and were expensive to fix.

That knocked VW out of the game with its convention rear engine, but Japan had the answer. Small cars with small engines already met the smog requirements and gave good fuel economy.

However, by the early 80's Chrysler was building Lancers and Valiants with a great slant 6 and Ford developed that marvelous 200 engine and put it in a falcon and Mustang. Chevy built the Chevy II with a great new 230 six, and soon after there was the Barracuda and the Camaro, both with good 6's and 8's. The Mustang and Falcon also got good V8s. All of those cars could do 20 mpg which was very good for the time.

Remember too that the US makers were union and that added a lot to costs. When foreign makers came here, they went to right to work states and I've read more than once that it costs GM $1600 more to build a car in Detroit that it would in a right to work state.

 

[Thebastidge]

I agree about the federal regulations AND about the union costs. I don't agree with you that we would have seen the same improvements without outside competition. As you point out, they were practically owned by the unions (and now literally ARE owned by the unions, in a very large percentage, thanks to Obama) and the unions made them more expensive and very resistant to change. Not to mention an oligarchy like that is practically MADE for collusion.

They get together at trade shows, accept certain mindsets as just a given (even without intent to collude, there's nothing to shake up the status quo) and nobody does radical (expensive) things that might result in innovation, because evolution is a process of elimination, not a positive process of trying new things, except by accident.

The 350 diesel conversion's not so bad, in the right vehicle. The military put them into 80's Blazers, and soldiers beat the crap out of those vehicles, and they still run.

 

[Crazyeye24]

JJ, It all starts at different points for everyone. We all have different things we are willing to stand by and allow. For me, being prepared is always the best plan. Not that I spend tons of money on MRE's but when my wife goes to the store I have her pick up things that store for long periods of time. I get guns and ammo when they are priced well. When I see people going door to door that's it for me. I believe there are going to be multiple things that will cause behavior like that, not just one thing.

 

[Crazyeye24]

When I say door to door, I mean people breaking in, robbing, rioting and trying to destroy.

 

[cotillion]

Sometimes I wonder if we simply don't wish it would all come crashing down. I've thought about it several times and had many conversations with my dad who shares the same belief and I think as a society we are just bored. Gun laws and other silly things that keep us from being men are something we always fight for because let's face it, savagery is in our blood. We don't want to wake up and grind the clock 40 hours a week to spend it on shiny things, we want to blow stuff up in front of our wives so they drool over us and brag to their friends. We don't buy guns to play at the range, we daydream of using them to take what's ours!

I'm probably just crazy, but daydreaming is fun

 

[Crazyeye24]

Well said Cotillion!

 

[Gunner3456]

I don't agree with you that we would have seen the same improvements without outside competition.

Maybe to some degree, but a manufacturer is going to try to build what will sell. Ford was completely revitalized financially by the Mustang, and Chrysler by the mini van. I guess Lee Iacocca gets credit for both.

To me it is sickening to see how many of our industrial manufacturing jobs have fled the US. It was the industrial revolution that truly built this country into a financial super power, and a military power. Now we're throwing away our industrial base, telling people they need to retrain for the new economy, and letting our industrial centers become junkyards.

I believe our economic survival is at stake because too many people have blue collar talents and skills and no natural ability to become a techie. It's not reasonable to contend that people need to retrain for the new economy when we all have different talents. I'd like to see a bunch of effeminate, wimpy, $2,000 suited Wall Street guys become good at disassembling worn out diesel locomotives and rebuilding them to be like new again. I'd even like to see them work in the factory where new ones are built.

 

[slimmer13]

Sometimes I wonder if we simply don't wish it would all come crashing down. I've thought about it several times and had many conversations with my dad who shares the same belief and I think as a society we are just bored. Gun laws and other silly things that keep us from being men are something we always fight for because let's face it, savagery is in our blood. We don't want to wake up and grind the clock 40 hours a week to spend it on shiny things, we want to blow stuff up in front of our wives so they drool over us and brag to their friends. We don't buy guns to play at the range, we daydream of using them to take what's ours!

I'm probably just crazy, but daydreaming is fun

+1 Tyler Durden's Words of Wisdom - YouTube

 

[Thebastidge]

I believe our economic survival is at stake because too many people have blue collar talents and skills and no natural ability to become a techie. It's not reasonable to contend that people need to retrain for the new economy when we all have different talents. I'd like to see a bunch of effeminate, wimpy, $2,000 suited Wall Street guys become good at disassembling worn out diesel locomotives and rebuilding them to be like new again. I'd even like to see them work in the factory where new ones are built.

A little consistency please, brother. Not everybody will be good at tearing apart an engine. It doesn't mean they're worthless either. So far, this simply smacks of envy, not principle. Everybody's default position is that what they do is more meaningful than what others do. We need to get above that and see that division of labour is what build societies past the hunter/gatherer stage. Despite the fact that many people don't understand or emotionally value what bankers and finance people do, the fact is that credit, and accounting have value. They allow people to leverage the stored surpluses we have accrued and apply them to growth and new endeavours. Without money, the economy moves very slowly on a barter basis. It has severe limitations, and that translates directly into people not living as well as they might. Without banks, money moves very slowly- wealth stuffed into a mattress may provide security for one family, but it doesn't generate NEW wealth.

Balance in all things, please.

 

[Gunner3456]

A little consistency please, brother. Not everybody will be good at tearing apart an engine. It doesn't mean they're worthless either. So far, this simply smacks of envy, not principle. Everybody's default position is that what they do is more meaningful than what others do. We need to get above that and see that division of labour is what build societies past the hunter/gatherer stage. Despite the fact that many people don't understand or emotionally value what bankers and finance people do, the fact is that credit, and accounting have value. They allow people to leverage the stored surpluses we have accrued and apply them to growth and new endeavours. Without money, the economy moves very slowly on a barter basis. It has severe limitations, and that translates directly into people not living as well as they might. Without banks, money moves very slowly- wealth stuffed into a mattress may provide security for one family, but it doesn't generate NEW wealth.

Balance in all things, please.

I never said that financial people don't have value. It's just that as our manufacturing, logging, sawmill etc. jobs leave this country, you can't expect that the guy who was a great cat skinner in the woods has the ability to become a white collar worker, and you can't expect that the white collar worker could ever be good cat skinner on the steep mountain forests, pulling logs to the landing.

We all have different talents.

A "new economy" which doesn't provide blue collar jobs for the people with those skills is going to leave those people behind.

The wealth of the middle class was formed by the industrial revolution. Henry Ford did so well, and his employees did so well, that the employees could afford to buy one of those new cars. That was a big deal then, but normal now if the workers can find the jobs.

Too many people today just don't understand how new wealth is created by manufacturing, so they are happy to see manufacturing go, and then say "we have a new economy" not realizing that we're just passing around the same wealth with few people in the middle class gaining any ground.

We can not all stand in a circle with our hands in each others' pockets believing that we'll all get rich. At some point we have to introduce new wealth if we're going to get ahead.

We are going to watch our big banks get bailed out again because instead of investing their (and their depositors') money in things that create new wealth such as lending to profitable manufacturers, they are buying government bonds and other non-productive assets. Then, as European countries begin to default, our banks will take massive hits.

We've simply forgotten what lifted our middle class, and we no longer value it, and it's gone.

 

[Thebastidge]

But manufacturing is NOT the only wealth generating activity. Agriculture, trade, construction, mining... all of these things are generating wealth. Even service industries generate wealth because saving someone the time they would have spent on a menial task allows the economy to grow when they pursue other things.

Wealth is surplus of time as well as material.

Besides, Henry Ford also conspired to create an educational system that turns out factory drones rather than small businessmen.

I don't think anybody is 'happy' to see manufacturing go except for maybe a few suicidal eco-nuts. And my point STILL stands that manufacturing hasn't disappeared- it simply employs less people! The wealth generated by manufacturing, or rather the weatlh that IS manufacturing hasn't gone away. We're still making things- more efficiently than before. If manufacturing itself were going away, I would agree with you, and we would quickly see that in a declining standard of living. But we have more 'made' things than ever before. Your point is incorrect, sir. You are stuck on manufacuring *jobs* being the only wealth-creating activity, but you are WRONG.

In fact the only job I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't create wealth (synonymous with prosperity and increased time), is tax accountant or IRS auditor.

 

[Thebastidge]

Don't get me wrong- I'm as pissed about the government's chicanery with deficit spending as you are. I just think you're focussed on the wrong aspects of the problem.

 

[Sling Blade]

Well said Cotillion!

Ditto! Right on the money.

 

[Gunner3456]

But manufacturing is NOT the only wealth generating activity. Agriculture, trade, construction, mining... all of these things are generating wealth.

We pay people to not grow. We subsidize things which aren't otherwise profitable. We import a LOT of our food. Trade deficits export wealth. Construction is way down. Mining is being hampered both coal, and iron has been all but given to the Chinese. Pittsburgh's steel mills are idle and the city is in ruins.

Wealth is surplus of time as well as material.

Baloney. Wealth is tangible. You can convert it to money and put it in your pocket. The only way time creates wealth is by automation, and then you have to find jobs for the displaced workers. We've exported most of that.

It isn't that wealth isn't created; it's just being created in China and India and so on. Not here.

Besides, Henry Ford also conspired to create an educational system that turns out factory drones rather than small businessmen.

Not everyone is cut out to be a businessman for a lot of reasons. For every businessman you have a lot of employees. But, we keep crushing our businesses and exporting the jobs.

I don't think anybody is 'happy' to see manufacturing go except for maybe a few suicidal eco-nuts. And my point STILL stands that manufacturing hasn't disappeared- it simply employs less people!

And that would be fine if the new businesses were created here to pick up the slack for those employees who are no longer needed in a more efficient plant. Automation makes things cheaper and would allow a higher standard of living if people had the income. Sure, we now can have cell phones and computers and wide screen LCD TV's etc., but we don't make most of them here so we don't create that wealth. We don't provide those jobs.

The wealth generated by manufacturing, or rather the weatlh that IS manufacturing hasn't gone away. We're still making things- more efficiently than before. If manufacturing itself were going away, I would agree with you, and we would quickly see that in a declining standard of living.

We do have a declining standard of living for the masses.

But we have more 'made' things than ever before.

But if we don't make them, then someone else creates and has the wealth. Do you like borrowing trillions of dollars from the Chinese?

Your point is incorrect, sir. You are stuck on manufacuring *jobs* being the only wealth-creating activity, but you are WRONG.

In fact the only job I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't create wealth (synonymous with prosperity and increased time), is tax accountant or IRS auditor.

No government employee creates wealth. Government is a net consumer of wealth. It's an expense. That's military, fire, police, the courts - you name it. That's why we have to pay taxes which consume our wealth.

Don't get me wrong- I'm as pissed about the government's chicanery with deficit spending as you are. I just think you're focussed on the wrong aspects of the problem.

And I think you are.

 

[kenno]

co·til·lion noun \kō-ˈtil-yən, kə-\

Definition of COTILLION
1: a ballroom dance for couples that resembles the quadrille
2: an elaborate dance with frequent changing of partners carried out under the leadership of one couple at formal balls, training in propper manners for the cotillion ball
3: a formal ball
See cotillion defined for English-language learners »
See cotillion defined for kids »
Variants of COTILLION
co·til·lion also co·til·lon \kō-ˈtil-yən, kə-, kȯ-tē-(y)ōⁿ\
Examples of COTILLION
<young men hoping to meet the women of their dreams at the cotillion>
Origin of COTILLION
French cotillon, literally, petticoat, from Old French, from cote coat
First Known Use: 1728

<broken link removed>

http://cotillion.mu.nu/

 

[locobob]

I think you make some good points Gunner - except I think you should try thinking about government a different way.
Bad government i.e. waste, fraud, collusion, etc. consumes or more accurately makes poor use of resources.
Good government does the big things that are most efficiently done by the collective public.
For example I think most people would rather pay for roads collectively through taxes rather than rely on a system of private toll roads.
There a lot of things that are best accomplished by government, we need to get past the "government is evil" mentality and look at it in a common sense way - What jobs are best done collectively and what are we willing to collectively pay for. The only way we are going to get out of the current mess without a major upheaval is to: 1. Start thinking of the government as a service company and decide what types/levels of service we are willing to pay for. 2. Make government actually representative of the people instead of the "pay to play" system we have now.

 

[cotillion]

co·til·lion noun \k&#333;-&#712;til-y&#601;n, k&#601;-\

Definition of COTILLION
1: a ballroom dance for couples that resembles the quadrille
2: an elaborate dance with frequent changing of partners carried out under the leadership of one couple at formal balls, training in propper manners for the cotillion ball
3: a formal ball
See cotillion defined for English-language learners »
See cotillion defined for kids »
Variants of COTILLION
co·til·lion also co·til·lon \k&#333;-&#712;til-y&#601;n, k&#601;-, ko&#775;-t&#275;-(y)&#333;&#8319;\
Examples of COTILLION
<young men hoping to meet the women of their dreams at the cotillion>
Origin of COTILLION
French cotillon, literally, petticoat, from Old French, from cote coat
First Known Use: 1728

<broken link removed>

Cotillion

thanks for making my name synonymous with fruitcake!

Cotillion is the patron god of assassins in a book series called the malazan book of the fallen. If anyone is into epic fantasy ( game of thrones ) I highly suggest the series