The "Made In America" movement is getting headlines again: 'Made In America' Revival Gathers Pace
Too little? Too late? or anti-globalist?
_______________________________
And the original, written by Willie Dixon and performed by Sonny Boy Williamson II:
52 comments:
John Ratzenberger smiled.
Cheers, fruit bat.
Oh crap, now everybody wants in on my action. OK, come on back in. The water is warm, but watch out for Democrats - they will bite you right in the nuts.
Led Zeppelin - one of England's LOUDEST rock 'n' roll bands....
So Obama was right to save the US car industry?
Wow, who would think of singing by reverberating your voice like that? Drunk or stoned or both, that's what. Messing around. With drinks all over the place. Then just flaccidly mess with your voice making sounds and bending it to be musical. Try it. * sip, puff * B-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-i-i-i-i-i-n-n-n-n-n-gingit h-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-m-m-m-m-m-e-e-e-e-e-e-e.
So Obama was right to save the US car industry?
Ford saved itself; GM got a massive bailout.
ARM: You are almost reasonable except that you cannot perceive excess in union and government workers. Or can you?
Last I heard, GM was also focusing more on manufacturing in China. That'll help Detroit, no doubt.
More to the point, having owned GM cars, a Toyota and a Honda in the past (and the Honda and Toyota were mostly built in the USA), I'd never buy another GM car again. And that was an opinion firmly established long before the bailouts, and unlikely to ever change. GM makes rolling (IF you're lucky!) hunks of junk.
What does ARM drive?
What does ARM drive?
I'm guessing a Trek bicycle.
"So Obama was right to save the US car industry?"
He did no such thing. It was just one company, and it was the poorest run one, and he did it by stealing (illegally) the bond-holders' money, and by taking money from us taxpayers. He then simply gave what he stole to the unions.
If GM was not bailed out, the remaining better run companies would have replaced that production with a more efficient and effective one that would be paying down the debt rather than contributing to it. GM was not saved, it was stolen and given to the unions, and that will likely lead to another round of the same in the future. You get more of what you reward. Do you think those running GM are scared of losing money now, knowing they will be bailed out anyway?
Sixty Grit said...
What does ARM drive?
Ford Escape hybrid. Very good car. Made in the USA baby.
At the time I bought the Ford my wife bought a Toyota. The difference between the two cars is significant, with the Ford being the much better built car. The stereotypes regarding US and Japanese cars are long out of date.
I was very happy to see the US car industry rescued from itself. It has been poorly run but for a country this size to have no car industry would have been insane and there was a real risk of this happening, which is why Ford supported the bail-out of its two main rivals.
El Pollo Raylan said...
What does ARM drive?
I'm guessing a Trek bicycle.
I don't do bicycles. I had a near death experience when hit by a car when I was young and that did it for me. I also sabotaged all my sons efforts to get bikes.
GM going under would have been the better option.
I prefer honest competition based on superior products and business practices. That doesn't happen when corrupt political parties and crony protected pay-to-play unions turn an otherwise proud American company into utter garbage.
AReasonableMan said...
So Obama was right to save the US car industry?
It's always fun watching economic illiteracy in action.
Marshal said...
It's always fun watching economic illiteracy in action.
Probably should back that up with some actual argument rather than dogmatic certainty.
ARM -- I have one of my grandfather's books, it's called The Automobile Storage Battery -- It's Care and Repair
It was produced by THE AMERICAN BUREAU OF ENGINEERING, INC, Chicago, Illinios, USA
Published in 1922
In the back of the book, is a list of wiring diagrams that you can purchase, for 25 cents a piece.
Pretty exciting, yes?
Here are some of the automobile manufactuers that are no longer in business. There probably is about 200 or 300:
Abbott-Detroit
Belmont Truck
Cadillac (hey, still in business)
Daniels
Earl
Fargo Truck
Gardner
Halladay
Imperial
Jackson
Kankakee
LaFayette
Madison-2 Wire Motor
Napoleon
Oakland
Packard
Rainier
Saxon "Four"
Templar
Velle (Constant Speed Gen.)
Westcott
and finally Woods Dual Power
There is more, a lot more. I just used the first letter of the car, when that changed.
Let me ask you. How many of these should the government have stepped in and saved?
And, ARM, don't hesitate to do some dogmatic shit, man.
AReasonableMan said...
Probably should back that up with some actual argument rather than dogmatic certainty.
No one even marginally intelligent needs me to explain that Obama didn't "save the US car industry". Those who need that explanation can't be helped.
No one even marginally intelligent needs me to explain that Obama didn't "save the US car industry".
I think ARM is intelligent enough to know that POTUS didn't do that but he thinks it's extremely important that people think he did. Obama, more and more, is starting to create this farcical frisson for his supporters by testing them to see exactly how much water they will carry for him not out of conviction but out of shear loyalty and the irrational fear that the Tea Party will begin lighting ovens for blacks, Latinos, gays, etc.
Now diagram that last sentence dammit!
So Obama was right to save the US car industry?
No.
All you really need to know about the bail-out is that Ford supported it. No company would support the bail-out of their competitors unless they thought their own company was in mortal danger. So the choice was between a now healthy car industry and no car industry. It isn't really much of choice.
As for cost. It did cost the taxpayers but a hell of a lot less than the cost in unemployment benefits alone if the companies had collapsed eliminating thousands of manufacturer jobs, their suppliers and all the associated dealerships.
So Ford supported bailing out a competitor because it is good for Ford to have other companies taking their market share? That makes sense.
Or perhaps Ford supported the bailout because they wanted to look good to certain constituencies, and also wanted to use the bail out against their competitors later. (Every time I hear a commercial for a Ford dealership on the radio they emphasize that THEY never took a bail out.)
@ ARM - "All you really need to know about the bail-out is that Ford supported it."
No.
When a liberal starts a thought with "All you really need to know is...." that's code for, "please ignore the facts and look - *squirrel!*"
GM was saved for political reasons. The bond holders were screwed, the tax payers -screwed, and now GM is still a company that makes poor quality cars and is run by a political machine.
Bailouts are not a sustainable business model. Even if the unions win it all through theft. It's a house of cards build on a pile of sand. Paul Krugman approves.
AReasonableMan said...
So the choice was between a now healthy car industry and no car industry.
As for cost. It did cost the taxpayers but a hell of a lot less than the cost in unemployment benefits alone if the companies had collapsed eliminating thousands of manufacturer jobs, their suppliers and all the associated dealerships.
Everything substantive in ARM's comment is wrong. The US car industry is not healthy, GM will return to the edge of bankruptcy within a decade largely because they retained their legacy costs. The alternative was not no auto industry, but a smaller more healthy industry. If GM had entered bankruptcy they would not have eliminated all the associated jobs, suppliers, and dealerships. Instead they would have had an ordered and lawful sale of assets as governed by the bankruptcy process.
In fact what ARM describes as "saving the US car industry" was an illegal interference with bankruptcy law in order to ensure Democratic constituencies avoided their commensurate share of loss. In other words, this was the most massive crony capitalist policy ever enacted in America. And of course the left is cheering it on every step of the way because they understand capital cronyism benefits those in government also.
All you really need to know
Why do leftists come up with such inanities? It's a sign of how willing their constituents are to grasp at any talking point no matter how irrelevant. And remember, the left likes to pretend the right are "know nothings". It's just bizarre.
GM is a pension fund, paid for with tax dollars. Cccasionally they make a shitty car.
Excuse me, ARM, but aren't there a number of foreign cars being built in the USofA?
eliminating thousands of manufacturer jobs, their suppliers and all the associated dealerships
Obviously, you aren't aware of the fact that a lot of dealerships were closed.
The irony here is that liberals in general have not been big fans of the big three auto makers. They have been poorly run enterprises favoring short term profits over sustainable policies for decades. But, it would have been stupid to let these businesses fail for the lack of temporary government financial support.
There is no way to frame this other than as a success. The US auto industry is now in better shape than it has been in years.
With respect to the unions, everyone seems to forget that the whole point of unions is to improve the bargaining position of individual workers. That the union workers did better than the non-unionized workers is as predicable as the sun rising in the east. Another good reason to join a union.
Icepick said...
So Ford supported bailing out a competitor because it is good for Ford to have other companies taking their market share? That makes sense.
(Every time I hear a commercial for a Ford dealership on the radio they emphasize that THEY never took a bail out.)
I drive a Ford but this is BS. They supported the bailout in principle and secured a line of credit for themselves from the government that they ultimately did not use.
Advertising and truth are largely unrelated.
AllenS said...
Obviously, you aren't aware of the fact that a lot of dealerships were closed.
And this was a good thing because there were too many to be supported by the reduced market share of the US manufacturers.
AprilApple said...
GM is a pension fund, paid for with tax dollars. Cccasionally they make a shitty car.
The cars are not shitty. The small Cadillacs are excellent and the rest are no worse than Toyota's current lineup. In J.D. Power and Associates’ 2013 Initial Quality Study GM was the top-ranked automaker overall. Don't let ideology blind you to reality.
GM may not survive, but this is true of most other marques, other than some luxury car makers. Car manufacturing has become a cut-throat low margin business. I am happy that the US companies survived, but then I am a bit patriotic when it comes to the US manufacturing industry. I like that we make stuff here and want to see us make more stuff here.
AReasonableMan said...
There is no way to frame this other than as a success. The US auto industry is now in better shape than it has been in years.
By focusing only on the short term leftists draw the wrong conclusions. If you define success by the ability to pay your bills with money someone else gave you drug addicts funded by relatives are successful. The inability of GM to sustain itself is masked by the government equity infusion, but eventually they'll burn through that also and we'll be back to the same place. Chrysler did the same thing. The only differences will be that taxpayers will be out the money, and GM employees will believe they are owed yet another bailout.
That the union workers did better than the non-unionized workers is as predicable as the sun rising in the east. Another good reason to join a union.
And sometimes when you do this the company goes broke, so you traded above average wages for a term of unemployment. Naturally ARM ignores the negative tradeoff because he's only interested in pushing the leftist party line.
AReasonableMan said...
And this was a good thing because there were too many [dealerships] to be supported by the reduced market share of the US manufacturers.
Which is exactly what would also have occurred in a GM bankruptcy. But somehow what's acceptable to Ford is unacceptable to GM. Why would he evaluate these events differently? Are we to believe it's purely coincidental that he chose contradictory methods that just happened to support his preferred political ideology?
In J.D. Power and Associates’ 2013 Initial Quality Study GM was the top-ranked automaker overall
Another example of how far ARM will reach for talking points. Initial Quality measures how people like the quality of their new car within 90 days of purchase. It's the biggest BS statistic in the industry.
I am a bit patriotic when it comes to the US manufacturing industry.
Naturally ARM supports taking money from people who make less than unionized auto workers to fund organizations who donate to leftist candidates.
I keep wondering what a person like ARM does for a living, so I clicked on his profile...
About
me
There are a lot of things that make me proud of my country. A tax payer funded bailout given to a failing company isn't one of them.
There are a lot of things that make me proud of my country. A tax payer funded bailout given to a failing company isn't one of them.
AprilApple said...
There are a lot of things that make me proud of my country. A tax payer funded bailout given to a failing company isn't one of them.
If it makes you feel any better a lot of the foreign owned car companies have also received government support in various ways. Auto manufacturing is a strategic industry and while it is not as high tech as it once was, most advanced economies (Britain doesn't count) want to retain this manufacturing base. Retention and development of manufacturing skills is essential to a healthy economy, just look at Britain.
What about Britain?
AReasonableMan said...
If it makes you feel any better a lot of the foreign owned car companies have also received government support in various ways.
At least ARM has dropped the pretense he's against corporate welfare.
AllenS said...
What about Britain?
It is the Dubai of Europe. Not nothing, but not much either.
Marshal said...
At least ARM has dropped the pretense he's against corporate welfare.
I am very definitely against corporate welfare but the Bush Great Recession was an exceptional case. Rigidity is not a virtue.
AReasonableMan said...
I am very definitely against corporate welfare except when it presents the left with demogogic or electoral opportunities.
Fixed that for you.
Marshall, your denial of the Great Bush Recession is as an impressive feat of ideological blindness as any I have ever seen.
AReasonableMan said...
Marshall, your denial of the Great Bush Recession
An inability to think clearly is required for leftists since reality proves them wrong every day, but even among them this is eye popping. I guess making sense just isn't a concern to ARM.
Marshal said...
for leftists ... reality proves them wrong every day
The largest recession since the Great Depression is quite a bit of reality to have to swallow without blinking or changing course. I'm impressed that you can perform such a feat.
Why would statist government intervention into what should be a private competitive market make me feel any better?
The British can barely get out of bed in the morning. They are for the most part, pathetic non-starter tit-suckers.
AReasonableMan said...
The largest recession since the Great Depression is quite a bit of reality to have to swallow without blinking or changing course. I'm impressed that you can perform such a feat.
I see since you can't address the economic realities you've resorted to making nonsensical assertions. Anything to change the subject... so transparent.
Post a Comment