patrick.net

elliemae says

http://consumerist.com/2010/02/pontiac-vibe-owners-dont-laugh-at-your-toyota-owning-friends.html
“Just letting you know that today I received a recall letter regarding the Toyota recall. This came as a surprise to me since I don’t OWN a Toyota vehicle. It turns out that the GM-made Pontiac Vibe is essentially a Toyota Matrix under the hood - and apparently in the pedals as well! GM Canada is calling in all Pontiac Vibes to help take care of the issue. Just thought I’d let you know!”
BUY AMERICAN!

Your missing my point on how buying Toyota worsens our economy since the profits, wage paying jobs are held overseas.

Troy says

Many foreign vehicles provide design and/or manufacturing jobs, like the Subaru line in Indiana.

Interesting enough! The Japanese simply copy the designs from the Germans/Italians and made em cheaper. Somewhere down the line we should do the same.

deanrite says

You can dis all auto manufaturers as far as I care. I fix them ALL. People seem to just love the Asian cars, but frankly they are overrated tinny little pieces of crap after a couple of years. The euro cars are better built but boy are they expensive,

Rather remarkable how many "Vintage 80s" BMW 318-325s I still see on the road. They still get pretty good gas milage 30-35 and the enginees still purr even after 300K miles. Not a bad looking car either. I think we could make a no frills car like that and sell them like hotcakes. Not a 2010 BMW clone .. just simple plain-vanilla kind of car that runs.

elliemae says

Maybe if you had a MAN instead of a PARTNER you could understand these views. I understand, a feminist doesnt want a MAN because she is the MAN and there is not one thing a MAN can tell her about life because SHE can stand on HER own two feet without him. Therefore any MAN that gets with a feminist is a PARTNER.

4X says

1. The protection of our family
2. Professing our love for our family
3. Providing for our family

I’m just thinking out loud here - I’d rather be with a man because I wanted him around than because I couldn’t live without his financial dominance, brute force, etc. I actually was married to a man who believed that it was his job to provide financially 100% to the household and make all of the financial decisions. I had refused to buy a house we couldn’t afford on my income alone, and at that time he had been angry about that because it challenged his status. But when he wasn’t working for over a year and my paycheck kept us afloat. While we didn’t maintain our former lifestyle, we still met our essential bills.
And no, 4x, I didn’t rub it in and demand respect because I was the breadwinner at the time. That’s because we were partners.

Your not LETTING your husband buy an overpriced house is very similar to me no LETTING my wife buy a Toyota. It is all based on making sound financial decisions. In my case, I dont want to suppor the Japanese economy, I want to support the economy here in the USA. I am a partner to my wife, except when something steps on my principles as a man.will.....I just accept the fact that men and women have different roles in the household, and sometimes these roles are reversed.

I just finished cleaning the house, doing the dishes and rocking my son to sleep....all after a 12 hour day in which my wife simply came home, made dinner, bath the kids and went to sleep. Each role is as equally difficult, but when decisions have to be made our families success will be judged by my decisions. If we go homeless today, everyone on this thread will say to me "get a job". If the house goes unkept, everyone will say "She keeps a dirty household". Why? Because at the lowest of levels we are still man and wife, each with our very own role.

Nomograph says

You can make the same ridiculous statement about any imported item that competes with a similar domestically produced product: Wine, hammers, coffee mugs, shoes, pencils, and any other widget you can think of. Where do you think the gasoline that runs your American vehicle comes from?
You purchase foreign goods on a daily basis, so please pack your bags sir.

Too much polution as the tree huggers say, we dont want to kill off the spotted owl or some worm...
Back inthe 50s we were exporting 50% of our oil to the world. 20 years later importing was much cheaper, we certainly didnt run out of domestic oil.

Nomograph says

4X says

what makes you think you can live in our country and buy foreign vehicles?

You can make the same ridiculous statement about any imported item that competes with a similar domestically produced product: Wine, hammers, coffee mugs, shoes, pencils, and any other widget you can think of. Where do you think the gasoline that runs your American vehicle comes from?
You purchase foreign goods on a daily basis, so please pack your bags sir.

Good point. However, my point still stands that America needs to strive to be the worlds #1 supplier of manufactured or raw goods. That being said, Troys points on three-sector modeling make a lot of sense in that we have moved away from the second sector which focuses on manufacturing and into the third sector which focuses on services. However, I dont think that the three-sector model took into account the phenomenom known as OFFSHORING.

Pack your bags and get ready to join me.....because your job wont be available for much longer.

4X says

elliemae says

I’m proud to be able to remain in the US, unlike the rest of you traitors. HA! I say! HA! HA! HA! I’ll joyfull laugh at all of you as you drive past me, blissfully unaware of your impending deportation, as I continue to remain on a first name basis at the GM dealership repair shop.

Not, GM makes vehicles that are just as sound as Toyota….Cadillac, Buick, GMC, Chevy are some of the most top rated vehicles. It your perception that needs to change…
Cadillac Escalade, CTS have been top rated for the past 10 years now…you just cant afford them and choose to buy Honda, Toyota products.
I wink because i know you own a GM, because you told me so in previous posts.

So - Chevy only builds quality vehicles for the elite? That's a great business model. Probably what has made them #1.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/25/MNGF1C6PT1.DTL&tsp=1

Oh, I get it. 'cause they're better than we are.

thomas.wong1986 says

Back inthe 50s we were exporting 50% of our oil to the world. 20 years later importing was much cheaper, we certainly didnt run out of domestic oil.

jeez, dude. I don't know where you get your facts, but its not the reality the rest of us seem to live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

-

to the main point of the article, lets just take it one step further: why do we need any manufacturing base at all? ship it all overseas, what good is it anyway to make stuff here? its just stuff that we could get cheaper when its made somewhere else that makes it cheaper.

then, if things get bad for... whatever reason... connected, or not... to not having a solid manufacturing base that allows people to live with a decent standard of living, you know, afford things, we can just follow Jonathan's advice:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Yes, one that is with out Government intervention. Other than possible tariffs for protectionism, if it's called for. But if people are willing to pay as much, if not more for foreign products, after at least import tariffs are imposed. Then it is a bad reflection on the Auto business and needs to be culled by the natural process of Free Market forces, replacing them with a better suited brand, people trust.

What I would truly like to see, is the Auto industry become a platform of modular, interchangeable, components. With a standard that they must conform to, but as motley as Computer hardware vendors and manufacturers.

I see an industry like that creating a Boom greater than Tech stocks could have only dreamed of being.

Tenouncetrout says

Yes, one that is with out Government intervention.

...

With a standard that they must conform to...

Sorry, I'd just like to ask... there seem to be a lot of contradictions in your post and I'd like to check in.

In the lines above you mention gov intervention in the context of being a bad thing, something to be avoided. But then slightly later you recommend that the auto industry have a 'standard that they must conform to' - where do you think this 'standard' will come from and how do you think it'll be enforced? Also, if the mythical 'free market' is to show the best doesn't that rule out tariffs?

And I'd like to side with you on the other idea - the 'modular personal vehicle' - its a neat idea - but I just can't. I think a system like that would be a boon only to the legal industry who would reap the benefits of trying to sort through what would probably be a nightmare system trying to figure out responsibility for failures. I think the 'free market' forces, particularly if unregulated, would tend toward producing cheap parts that wouldn't really work well with each other. I mean, its whats pretty much happened with computers, right? Also, this old gag comes to mind:

http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp

Tenouncetrout says

I see an industry like that creating a Boom greater than Tech stocks could have only dreamed of being.

Nah, cars are mostly consumption and not wealth-creating capital like computers and networks.

By Government intervention I mean the government giving any company money to stay afloat. Or intervening where a company has an unfair advantage over any company.

By having standards in a Modular Auto Car industry, that's not any different than standards that are in any industry.

There's a whole industry in transportation that has been locked in a bottle in the U.S. since Henry Ford first fired up an assembly plant. The Big Three have controlled the industry by both owning and setting the standard. Toyota is already setting standards on their components, to make them interchangeable between different models, and Car Genre even.

We should be able to pick and chose power sources, and types, from electric to hybrid to gas to what ever competitive industry can dream off, that passes Safety standards, and fit to standard form factors. Match them up with Chassis, Interior, and Body options from multiple companies.

Kit Car industry if you will, but with an ISO support, instead of guys in body shop with sheet metal and hammers pounding out one offs. Then bolting it to a Pontiac Fierro.

As far as legality of who is responsible for the finished product when the end user eventually sets in the seat and turns the key for that first time? Well just like in Construction, there are codes and standards that ultimately the General Contractor is responsible for, build quality. Each manufacture is responsible for the component they made, to spec and ISO standard for that formfactor.

I mean it works in the Building industry? Could you imagine if GM, FORD, and Chrysler were the only ones allowed to build a home in America?

elliemae says

4X says

elliemae says

I’m proud to be able to remain in the US, unlike the rest of you traitors. HA! I say! HA! HA! HA! I’ll joyfull laugh at all of you as you drive past me, blissfully unaware of your impending deportation, as I continue to remain on a first name basis at the GM dealership repair shop.

Not, GM makes vehicles that are just as sound as Toyota….Cadillac, Buick, GMC, Chevy are some of the most top rated vehicles. It your perception that needs to change…
Cadillac Escalade, CTS have been top rated for the past 10 years now…you just cant afford them and choose to buy Honda, Toyota products.
I wink because i know you own a GM, because you told me so in previous posts.

So - Chevy only builds quality vehicles for the elite? That’s a great business model. Probably what has made them #1.

sorry, that came out the wrong way. I meant that the Cadillac brand is out of a lot of peoples price range. As a doctor, I am sure you can afford one.

...not that you personally are poor. My point is that GM has the right concept with their Cadillac line, now they have to get it right with all others. Pontiac was on track as far as design was concerned unfortunately some smart guy thought to end that line.

4X says

sorry, that came out the wrong way. I meant that the Cadillac brand is out of a lot of peoples price range. As a doctor, I am sure you can afford one.

I'm a medical case manager/Social Worker. Not a doctor. I went to school for 4 years and have practiced for over 20 years, and make less than a graduating R.N. I'm not poor, because accorrding to the 2009 poverty guidelines "poor" constitutes $10,830/yr. However, I don't have the opportunity to do alot of things such as vacation, go out a whole lot, etc. I bought a chevy because that's all I could afford.

To be fair, it appears to be somewhat repaired for the moment. But you get what you pay for. And I did.

Troy says

But just like light manufacturing, much software development can EASILY be exported to low wage areas like India and China, knocking the generous gross margins enjoyed by US-based software developers.

This claim has been debunked so many times it's not even really worth arguing anymore. It's almost always made by people who know absolutely nothing about how software (or really, any technology) is created.

Saying that you can "easily" export a software engineering job is like saying that you can "easily" export a product design job or "easily" export an executive or "easily" export a professional athlete.

People who don't know what they're talking about have been making this claim for over 30 years, and yet software continues to be among the top growth industries (both for employment and revenue) year after year.

Kevin says

The insinuation that “foreign” companies are going to buy up our natural resources and deprive us of them is silly.

It's all about capital flows OUT of the country.

England enjoyed pride of position in the 19th century, US in the 20th. The 21st is up for grabs.

Kevin says

Saying that you can “easily” export a software engineering job is like saying that you can “easily”

I'm looking down the road. Sure it's difficult shifting existing development to India or China.

I just don't see our natural monopoly here. And I've been programming professionally since 1990.

Troy says

England enjoyed pride of position in the 19th century, US in the 20th. The 21st is up for grabs.

Oh, shit, I forgot that every other country was poor in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thanks for reminding me.

Troy says

I’m looking down the road. Sure it’s difficult shifting existing development to India or China.

I just don’t see our natural monopoly here. And I’ve been programming professionally since 1990.

It's not about "shifting development". Any technology company worth the price of the products that they create has offices all around the world. They hire the best people they can find, wherever they can find them.

People who are in the business of creating new technology will never want for work any more than people who are in any other applied creative discipline.

As a country, our concern must be on making sure that we strive to have the best people that we can here -- either by molding our own youth, or encouraging gifted individuals to immigrate here.

You're right that there's no "natural monopoly", but there's no natural monopoly on anything, except for natural resources. Natural resources alone don't make you a rich, prosperous nation. At best they might let you have a quasi dictatorship like Saudi Arabia.

Seriously, I think think it's not so important which industry we're talking about. Autos or software engineering it makes no difference. Anybody who believes other countries can't match or even exceed our technological prowess are only arogantly fooling themselves. When it comes to cars, people the world over love American cars. It's only in America that we percieve them as somehow lacking. I've driven literally thousands of cars, and it doesn't matter which make be it beemer or Benz Toyota Honda chevy or ford, after 15 years they're all becoming pieces of crap. If you are concerned with your image and status you probably drive euros, cause you think that shows you're somehow superior. Me, I drive a 15 year old jalopy cause it gets me where I want to go and it's paid for- and I could care less what you think of that.

But the larger point here is it really doesn't matter which industry it is. It could be autos, tooling, toothpaste, almonds, movies, software, drugs, education, hotels, tourism, literature. The key to get people from other countries to give us their money. Take the Vancouver olympics for example. Now I'm not a skier but I had never heard of whistler before, but I guarantee you that the Vancouver region of Canada will be getting lots of foreign dollars for years because of this exposure. That means more jobs to service the tourists. Now you can argue whether those are less important than 'tech' jobs, but every dollar a foriegner spents there is one more dollar they didn't have before. That's more money for bread, gas, Internet service, travel, to start a new business, etc etc etc. This I where china is kicking the living shit out of us. We've arrogantly decided that we're to good to make things because somehow that's not technologically worthy of us. What a load of pretentious crap. It would be nice to see the majority of stuff you buy say, "made in USA", instead of "made in china."

deanrite says

That means more jobs to service the tourists. Now you can argue whether those are less important than ‘tech’ jobs

Nah, tourism is great. A lot of labor-intensive customer-service, all of it "wealth creation" in the sense that wealth is that which satisfies human needs and wants. We forget that Wealth is also an end -- a condition of happy being -- and not just a means!

Every 767 landing on Maui is carrying 300 or so wallets that are going to dump at least $1000 each into the local economy.

At $30K per job that's 3000 jobs supported by each inbound flight (assuming the economy retained that money for several buy-sell cycles to allow the velocity of money to benefit locals).

I've been thinking of doing a SimIsland-type economic simulation since I am horrified at what Maui's become and think technocratic governance could make that an awesome, self-supporting economy.

deanrite says

It would be nice to see the majority of stuff you buy say, “made in USA”, instead of “made in china.”

Not going to happen as long as factory wages there are $1.17 an hour.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/business/global/27yuan.html?adxnnl=1&ref=global&adxnnlx=1267262669-mbJ3g7Ye4pHQ4cKxit1xng

deanrite says

Seriously, I think think it’s not so important which industry we’re talking about. Autos or software engineering it makes no difference.

It makes a *huge* difference. Spending our resources developing new technologies will benefit our society much more than spending our resources making automobiles. Mindless production boosts short-term GDP, but it doesn't provide long term benefits to the society.

deanrite says

ut the larger point here is it really doesn’t matter which industry it is. It could be autos, tooling, toothpaste, almonds, movies, software, drugs, education, hotels, tourism, literature. The key to get people from other countries to give us their money.

Getting people from other countries to give us their money only makes sense if those people have things that we need their money to buy.

deanrite says

Seriously, I think think it’s not so important which industry we’re talking about. Autos or software engineering it makes no difference. Anybody who believes other countries can’t match or even exceed our technological prowess are only arogantly fooling themselves. When it comes to cars, people the world over love American cars. It’s only in America that we percieve them as somehow lacking. I’ve driven literally thousands of cars, and it doesn’t matter which make be it beemer or Benz Toyota Honda chevy or ford, after 15 years they’re all becoming pieces of crap. If you are concerned with your image and status you probably drive euros, cause you think that shows you’re somehow superior. Me, I drive a 15 year old jalopy cause it gets me where I want to go and it’s paid for- and I could care less what you think of that.
But the larger point here is it really doesn’t matter which industry it is. It could be autos, tooling, toothpaste, almonds, movies, software, drugs, education, hotels, tourism, literature. The key to get people from other countries to give us their money. Take the Vancouver olympics for example. Now I’m not a skier but I had never heard of whistler before, but I guarantee you that the Vancouver region of Canada will be getting lots of foreign dollars for years because of this exposure. That means more jobs to service the tourists. Now you can argue whether those are less important than ‘tech’ jobs, but every dollar a foriegner spents there is one more dollar they didn’t have before. That’s more money for bread, gas, Internet service, travel, to start a new business, etc etc etc. This I where china is kicking the living shit out of us. We’ve arrogantly decided that we’re to good to make things because somehow that’s not technologically worthy of us. What a load of pretentious crap. It would be nice to see the majority of stuff you buy say, “made in USA”, instead of “made in china.”

...and again, this is exactly my point. We need to be #1 or a close #2 in all industries. Some here think this is unreasonable but i think that we need those jobs here in the USA. We need to influence all industries to follow our lead in order to maintain our economic stability. Someone stated that when all the electronics manufacturing went over seas that I didnt get the point of the offshoring of this industry....however, we lost 3 million jobs to Japan and China.

those could be American jobs, meaning less unemployment and more money circulating in our economy. Not sure why the statement was made that we dont need that industry let alone the auto industry......maybe we are accustom to unemployment and being under employed.

Your thoughts?

DEY TUK OUR JERBS! - South Park

@kevin

It makes a *huge* difference. Spending our resources developing new technologies will benefit our society much more than spending our resources making automobiles. Mindless production boosts short-term GDP, but it doesn’t provide long term benefits to the society.

I think it was you who stated when Reagan offshored the electronics industry in the 80s that we didnt need that industry, I am sure it has something to do with that 3 sector economy you all were speaking of.

Can you explain your theory on the 3 million jobs lost offshoring the electronics industry and your above statement that we shouldnt focus on manufacturing....I feel that we need to be highly competitive in all industries?

Prove that 3 million jobs were lost by "offshoring the electronics industry" (whatever that is). What was the unemployment rate when Reagan took office? What was it when he left? How many total jobs existed in 1981? How many in 1989?

It is absolutely *IMPOSSIBLE* to be "# 1 or a close #2 in all industries". We don't even have a big enough population to make it possible, even if the entire rest of the planet was filled with idiots.

Furthermore, the idea that we MUST be #1 or #2 to "maintain our economic stability" is absurd. What you really mean is "maintain our economic dominance", which is a stupid objective. The global economy is not a zero-sum game.

Would you rather live in Greece in 700 BC, or in Greece today? After all, in 700 BC Greece dominated the global economy, and was a leader in nearly every industry. Clearly that must have been a better position to be in than their current state as a financially troubled component of the eurozone.

Kevin says

Prove that 3 million jobs were lost by “offshoring the electronics industry” (whatever that is). What was the unemployment rate when Reagan took office? What was it when he left? How many total jobs existed in 1981? How many in 1989?
It is absolutely *IMPOSSIBLE* to be “# 1 or a close #2 in all industries”. We don’t even have a big enough population to make it possible, even if the entire rest of the planet was filled with idiots.
Furthermore, the idea that we MUST be #1 or #2 to “maintain our economic stability” is absurd. What you really mean is “maintain our economic dominance”, which is a stupid objective. The global economy is not a zero-sum game.
Would you rather live in Greece in 700 BC, or in Greece today? After all, in 700 BC Greece dominated the global economy, and was a leader in nearly every industry. Clearly that must have been a better position to be in than their current state as a financially troubled component of the eurozone.

Good points, however, with 15 million unemployed in the US i would have to assume that by inshoring those 3 million jobs would come in handy. This was not meant to prove anything, just a question that I was seeking answers for.

Per Wiki:....we need to take this back.

Due to its high concentration of electronics companies, dominant global market share in electronics, and high quality of its products, Japan is the largest consumer electronics manufacturer in the world. Japanese companies have a reputation for high quality and innovation, having introduced products such as the Sony Walkman and VHS recorder.

Japan's success overpowered the United States consumer electronics industry. Unproved charges of dumping and other predatory practices led to orderly marketing arrangements by Japan in 1977. Restraints limited the export of color televisions to 1.75 million units annually from 1977 to 1980. The agreement gave some protection to the United States' domestic industry. Japanese companies responded by investing in the United States, by the end of the 1980s, only one United States-owned television manufacturer remained.[citation needed] The Japanese electronic industry as a result has maintained its dominance in the market over the United States, and maintained its export strength in this field due to the high reputation of its electronics.

Japan's overseas investment in the consumer electronics industry was motivated by protectionism and labor costs. After three years of voluntary export restraints, seven Japanese firms located plants in the United States by 1980. Japanese firms continued production of the most technologically-advanced products especially in Japan but also U.S., while shifting production of less-advanced products to developing countries, such as Taiwan

4X says

Good points, however, with 15 million unemployed in the US i would have to assume that by inshoring those 3 million jobs would come in handy. This was not meant to prove anything, just a question that I was seeking answers for.

If the United States stopped buying things from other countries we would have a higher unemployment rate than we do today. You simply fail to see this because you don't understand economics at all.

Kevin says

You simply fail to see this because you don’t understand economics at all.

Economics is a complex subject and I honestly don't think anyone really understands it.

Economics is essentially the study of scarcity but modern productivity has turned this on its ear. If everyone had access to the capital to engage in productive enterprise suited to them we could collectively create immense amounts of hard wealth, much more than we are capable of consuming.

So much of the national income goes to wastage in excess labor output devoted to luxury goods and economically meaningless services.

No economy can detach itself from the fundamentals of wealth-creation indefinitely. Smith's theories of comparative advantage are useful but not the final word on the long-term wealth of nations.

Kevin says

4X says

Good points, however, with 15 million unemployed in the US i would have to assume that by inshoring those 3 million jobs would come in handy. This was not meant to prove anything, just a question that I was seeking answers for.

If the United States stopped buying things from other countries we would have a higher unemployment rate than we do today. You simply fail to see this because you don’t understand economics at all.

well help me understand...it sounds like what you are saying is that if we were the #1 producer of all goods for the planet we would be no better off than we are now. Explain?

I am confused, not being argumentative.

Kevin says

If the United States stopped buying things from other countries we would have a higher unemployment rate than we do today. You simply fail to see this because you don’t understand economics at all.

Fact: There is a massive and unsustainable imbalance that gives us cheap tube-socks right now in exchange for ruining our society and impoverishing our future.

Squanderville vs. Thriftville

text-formatted article

4X says

it sounds like what you are saying is that if we were the #1 producer of all goods for the planet we would be no better off than we are now. Explain?

Comparative advantage means eg. instead of paying $10 for a domestic manufacture we pay $2 to China and then spend $8 on something else we want. If this "something else" is a good or service of domestic origin then we're probably ahead, wealthwise. Just paying people to work isn't a solution, they've got to be productive, too, otherwise we're better off just paying the $2 to China and paying people not to work.

The problem with this is that the economy is more than an exchange of goods and services at efficient price levels and not all goods and services enrichen us equally. There's a lot of rentierism going on which taxes efficiency and diverts the velocity of money into unproductive products of labor. Ie. the factory owner being driven around in his Audi A8 doesn't make the factory town any richer.

The story of globalization so far is winners among people whose jobs can't be sent to India or China (eg. politicians, newspaper publishers and opinion column writers), an uneasy middle class, and a largely f----ed working class that has to figure out how to make a living in this world.

Troy says

4X says

it sounds like what you are saying is that if we were the #1 producer of all goods for the planet we would be no better off than we are now. Explain?

Comparative advantage means eg. instead of paying $10 for a domestic manufacture we pay $2 to China and then spend $8 on something else we want. If this “something else” is a good or service of domestic origin then we’re probably ahead, wealthwise. Just paying people to work isn’t a solution, they’ve got to be productive, too, otherwise we’re better off just paying the $2 to China and paying people not to work.
The problem with this is that the economy is more than an exchange of goods and services at efficient price levels and not all goods and services enrichen us equally. There’s a lot of rentierism going on which taxes efficiency and diverts the velocity of money into unproductive products of labor. Ie. the factory owner being driven around in his Audi A8 doesn’t make the factory town any richer.
The story of globalization so far is winners among people whose jobs can’t be sent to India or China (eg. politicians, newspaper publishers and opinion column writers), an uneasy middle class, and a largely f—-ed working class that has to figure out how to make a living in this world.

ok, now that makes sense in the fact that since we have lost our comparative advantage and wage payin jobs are going overseas to our 40:1 comrades. Looks like a rework of WTO, NAFTA and GATT agreements is in order to prevent those jobs from leaving. Sir James Goldsmith reccomended that we only have free trade with "like" economies and not with 3rd world nations whose wages are 40 times lower.

Elliemae shall bend over and take this one.

Her car is outta the shop. It's doing well. Or so she thought...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/02/autos/GM_recall/index.htm

At this rate, I'll not have to worry about gas costs. I can't get a tank full before it visits the shop again.

Any society (country, empire, etc.) that no longer produces its own goods is done, over with.
We can have all the professional sector service economy stuff we want, yet we make nothing.
Sorry, it's over in the long run. Manufacturing is where it's at.

I'm often bemused by the eagerness of those who are (presumably) not millionaires/billionaires to jump to the defense of certain policies that have helped steadily transfer the wealth of our nation from the many independent manufacturers/business owners into a few blue serge pockets on Wall St.

Sir William Goldsmith (incidentally, a billionaire) had some very interesting and prescient observations to make regarding our trade policies back in the early nineties, perhaps best summarized by this:

"...one of the characteristics of developing countries is that a small handful of people controls the overwhelming majority of the nation's resources. It is these people ... who assemble the cheap labour which is used to manufacture products for the developed world. Thus, it is the poor in the rich countries who will subsidize the rich in the poor countries".

Quite a template for advancing the global community.

But hang in there folks; the age of automation will eventually wrest us all from the drudgery of toil, manufacture and craft. We can lay around and eat chips and dips while a fleet of cheap, self-propagating Daleks take over the heavy lifting.

I'll stick with my US made Honda. I think they build Civics in Ohio.

I dispute the parts of the article which implies that it's OK not to have electronics, textiles, etc produced in the US. We need those industries also. Not everybody is cut out for a management position.

Austinhousingbubble says

But hang in there folks; the age of automation will eventually wrest us all from the drudgery of toil, manufacture and craft. We can lay around and eat chips and dips while a fleet of cheap, self-propagating Daleks take over the heavy lifting.

I assumed this was the way the world worked until the dotcom bubble, where we were creating a lot of wealth yet home prices just rose to match incomes, and then some.

This troubled me but I did not have an intellectual framework to plug in what was the difference between real estate valuation and other forms of capital.

Then I came across Georgism, and then, later, Mason Gaffney's _The Corruption of Economics_, and the difference between land and what the neoclassical schools call other forms of capital became pretty clear.

Whoever owns the land will always take their share of the producer surplus. There's never enough land, not until we start making floating colonies or moonbases.

Troy says

There’s never enough land, not until we start making floating colonies or moonbases.

Bzzzt, wrong. There's never enough land if everyone wants to live on a plantation. Otherwise there's plenty of LAND for just living on. The USA is still from a 50,000 foot view largely empty.

Land suitable for farming? Maybe. The USA has not even begun to see starvation for "land" in raw sense. Clean drinkable water, now there's an issue that may bring some consternation in my lifetime.

Back on topic. I love my 1997 Toyota Camry and will not part with it until it falls to pieces beneath me. A very solid and fixable car. But before that I had never owned anything that wasn't a GM product. I still think they have potential for comeback but should they? Must we surrender industry entirely?

Maybe the debate is wrong. Maybe it's time for a NEW American car company not burdened with the legacy of 50+ years of making the same crap? The choice to bailout GM was I think wrong because it keeps the Big 3 in place and they will by their mere presence crush upstarts.

I have hopes Tesla or SOMEONE will come along and show what is possible. After all corporations like people get old and fossilized, the difference is we prevent the corporations from dying when they probably should.

The current trade imbalances are temporary. As soon as China can’t sell tube socks for $1 anymore because they can’t find people willing to work for ten cents an hour,

Except that, despite how capitalist China looks these days, they're a communist nation. A rather big factor to leave out of the equation.

sorry, they’ll NEVER be made by humans in america again, despite all the wishful thinking).

I doubt if anyone is pining for the golden days of tube sock manufacture (although nothing beats a hand-linked toe). That said, you will never see a fully automatized manufacturing base in your lifetime.

Furthermore, if we stopped importing most of the cheap crap we import from China, NOBODY would make that stuff at all.

Sounds like progress already!

You think McDonald’s is going to put little plastic toys into happy meals when they cost more than the food?

Now there's a sacred cow. Are Happy Meal toys considered durable consumer goods? They certainly don't hold up well as fodder for your viewpoint. Fuck 'em, besides -- kids shouldn't be eating that dogshit anyway.

If it wasn’t for the child slave labor making those things, they just wouldn’t be made, and not importing them would not lead to any new jobs in America (though it would lead to fewer jobs in China, which means less need for infrastructure, which means less money for American firms like GE and Caterpillar)

No. If according to you, the current trade imbalances are only temporary, (vague), then you will simply see the Chinese eventually buying their own goods and services.

Why such a vocal proponent of what is clearly a fucked and failing system? Are you importing the plastic bits that go on the end of shoelaces or something?

Austinhousingbubble says

Why such a vocal proponent of what is clearly a fucked and failing system? Are you importing the plastic bits that go on the end of shoelaces or something?

I agree with Kevin. I don't think he's really a proponent, just a realist.