Cash For Clunkers Top Ten lists!
08-05-2009, 11:08 AM
#21
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tomball,TX
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was replying/adding to mitchntx's post.
Im 100% for buying american, BUT the foreign car companys that we're bitching about in this thread, have AMERICAN divisions, while they do send profits back to the motherland, the majority of the industry is providing jobs and paying in to the american economy in and around the areas where the plants are located, i know this first hand. Just the same as all of the outsourcing done by the big 3, sure the parent comapny makes money here in the US, but obviously not enough to save the companies. Im sure the citys where the gm,chrysler, and ford comapnies build the cars abroad, hinge a large part of the economy on the auto industry. Therefore, buying foreign in mexico, means buying "american" gm, but it pads pablo's pocket in turn.
and as for me driving a formula, at the time i was working for the foreigners, i was driving a 94 z 28, my stepdad drives a dodge truck, and my friend who works for honda drives a cavilier, a cavalier, and a GN. Also my friend, my mother, myself and pretty much everyone else in or around my hometown (close to dayton) is a descendant of a GM worker. When GM outsourced thier work and left everyone wth a big **** you, where else did people have to turn to make money in the field they had worked many many years in,? oh yeah thats right the companies that sourced the foreign auto industry. Its a viscous cycle and not all of the capital stays in america, but if working for a foreign comapny pays your bills, and feeds your children, then obviously the money in some part is feeding our shitty economy. /rant
Im 100% for buying american, BUT the foreign car companys that we're bitching about in this thread, have AMERICAN divisions, while they do send profits back to the motherland, the majority of the industry is providing jobs and paying in to the american economy in and around the areas where the plants are located, i know this first hand. Just the same as all of the outsourcing done by the big 3, sure the parent comapny makes money here in the US, but obviously not enough to save the companies. Im sure the citys where the gm,chrysler, and ford comapnies build the cars abroad, hinge a large part of the economy on the auto industry. Therefore, buying foreign in mexico, means buying "american" gm, but it pads pablo's pocket in turn.
and as for me driving a formula, at the time i was working for the foreigners, i was driving a 94 z 28, my stepdad drives a dodge truck, and my friend who works for honda drives a cavilier, a cavalier, and a GN. Also my friend, my mother, myself and pretty much everyone else in or around my hometown (close to dayton) is a descendant of a GM worker. When GM outsourced thier work and left everyone wth a big **** you, where else did people have to turn to make money in the field they had worked many many years in,? oh yeah thats right the companies that sourced the foreign auto industry. Its a viscous cycle and not all of the capital stays in america, but if working for a foreign comapny pays your bills, and feeds your children, then obviously the money in some part is feeding our shitty economy. /rant
08-05-2009, 12:37 PM
#22
Interesting discussion ...
Even more interesting data ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_factories
Since 1979, GM has opened 18 factories on US soil and 11 on foreign. Since 1998, they've opened 6. Since 1998, they've closed 22 local facories, 18 of which were within the US borders.
In the same time frame, Honda has opened 4 US soil factories (all since 1998) and 11 world wide.
The point?
GM, Honda, Ford, Toyota ... all of them outsource jobs. In a world-wide economy, the "home base" of the manufacturer is no longer relevant ... or as relevant as it once was.
Even more interesting data ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_factories
Since 1979, GM has opened 18 factories on US soil and 11 on foreign. Since 1998, they've opened 6. Since 1998, they've closed 22 local facories, 18 of which were within the US borders.
In the same time frame, Honda has opened 4 US soil factories (all since 1998) and 11 world wide.
The point?
GM, Honda, Ford, Toyota ... all of them outsource jobs. In a world-wide economy, the "home base" of the manufacturer is no longer relevant ... or as relevant as it once was.
08-05-2009, 01:47 PM
#23
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tomball,TX
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion ...
Even more interesting data ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_factories
Since 1979, GM has opened 18 factories on US soil and 11 on foreign. Since 1998, they've opened 6. Since 1998, they've closed 22 local factories, 18 of which were within the US borders.
In the same time frame, Honda has opened 4 US soil factories (all since 1998) and 11 world wide.
The point?
GM, Honda, Ford, Toyota ... all of them outsource jobs. In a world-wide economy, the "home base" of the manufacturer is no longer relevant ... or as relevant as it once was.
Even more interesting data ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_factories
Since 1979, GM has opened 18 factories on US soil and 11 on foreign. Since 1998, they've opened 6. Since 1998, they've closed 22 local factories, 18 of which were within the US borders.
In the same time frame, Honda has opened 4 US soil factories (all since 1998) and 11 world wide.
The point?
GM, Honda, Ford, Toyota ... all of them outsource jobs. In a world-wide economy, the "home base" of the manufacturer is no longer relevant ... or as relevant as it once was.
08-05-2009, 02:37 PM
#24
No, it's not "all" everyone thinks about ...
The government needs to step up? Are you kidding me? The government needs to GTFO ...
And when it DOES all come down to it ... yes, US automakers employ more US workers than foreign automakers do in the US.
But I suggest that COMBINED, all automakers, foreign and domestic, on US soil employ more US workers than only US automakers could ever consider.
So, bottom line, more US workers get a paycheck instead of a welfare check.
All this talk about out-sourcing is nothing more than a business watching its bottom line.
Example and a question ... If you were to employ a landscaping service to mow your grass, would you pay 20% more to a service because they mowed with a Dixie Chopper or would you go with a cheaper service that used Honda mowers?
But it also keeps thousands of jobs right here on our soil assembling the cars, selling the cars and servicing the cars. And there are a LOT of American shareholders in those companies that are reaping rewards as well.
20 years ago, "buying American" meant a lot more than it does today ...
20 years ago, "buying American" meant a lot more than it does today ...
When it all comes down to it there are more employees working for the U.S. companies in the U.S. then the Japanese companies. I'm pretty sure the U.S. base companies wouldn't be outsourcing so much if they didn’t have to compete with the Japanese companies. The goverment needs to step up and control how much is being imported. Then maybe our country wouldnt be doing so bad and this goes for all imported products not just cars.
And when it DOES all come down to it ... yes, US automakers employ more US workers than foreign automakers do in the US.
But I suggest that COMBINED, all automakers, foreign and domestic, on US soil employ more US workers than only US automakers could ever consider.
So, bottom line, more US workers get a paycheck instead of a welfare check.
All this talk about out-sourcing is nothing more than a business watching its bottom line.
Example and a question ... If you were to employ a landscaping service to mow your grass, would you pay 20% more to a service because they mowed with a Dixie Chopper or would you go with a cheaper service that used Honda mowers?
08-05-2009, 04:45 PM
#25
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tomball,TX
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it's not "all" everyone thinks about ...
The government needs to step up? Are you kidding me? The government needs to GTFO ...
And when it DOES all come down to it ... yes, US automakers employ more US workers than foreign automakers do in the US.
But I suggest that COMBINED, all automakers, foreign and domestic, on US soil employ more US workers than only US automakers could ever consider.
So, bottom line, more US workers get a paycheck instead of a welfare check.
All this talk about out-sourcing is nothing more than a business watching its bottom line.
Example and a question ... If you were to employ a landscaping service to mow your grass, would you pay 20% more to a service because they mowed with a Dixie Chopper or would you go with a cheaper service that used Honda mowers?
The government needs to step up? Are you kidding me? The government needs to GTFO ...
And when it DOES all come down to it ... yes, US automakers employ more US workers than foreign automakers do in the US.
But I suggest that COMBINED, all automakers, foreign and domestic, on US soil employ more US workers than only US automakers could ever consider.
So, bottom line, more US workers get a paycheck instead of a welfare check.
All this talk about out-sourcing is nothing more than a business watching its bottom line.
Example and a question ... If you were to employ a landscaping service to mow your grass, would you pay 20% more to a service because they mowed with a Dixie Chopper or would you go with a cheaper service that used Honda mowers?
The more money staying with in the country would cause more business to develop. If the goverment put limits on imported product would stop the american companies from importing thier cars to america. Which means they have to build factories here.
I would go with the one using the Dixie Chopper because I firmly believe in using domestic products over imported. You can argue with me all day about this but we need to do something. There is more money going out of the country then coming in.
08-05-2009, 05:34 PM
#26
You can't honestly believe that:
- as car demand goes up, numbers of workers does atoo and at the same rate.
- one of the most grossly mismanaged organizations (US Government) can manage a US only car market.
- US owned businesses, if given the monopoly you describe, would actually poor money back into its own self.
The primary reason for US made autos to have ramped up quality and efficiency over the last 20 years is BECAUSE of competition. If it weren't for competition, we'd still be driving in those wonderful cars of the 70s ...
- as car demand goes up, numbers of workers does atoo and at the same rate.
- one of the most grossly mismanaged organizations (US Government) can manage a US only car market.
- US owned businesses, if given the monopoly you describe, would actually poor money back into its own self.
The primary reason for US made autos to have ramped up quality and efficiency over the last 20 years is BECAUSE of competition. If it weren't for competition, we'd still be driving in those wonderful cars of the 70s ...
08-05-2009, 08:45 PM
#30
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tomball,TX
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't honestly believe that:
- as car demand goes up, numbers of workers does atoo and at the same rate.
- one of the most grossly mismanaged organizations (US Government) can manage a US only car market.
- US owned businesses, if given the monopoly you describe, would actually poor money back into its own self.
The primary reason for US made autos to have ramped up quality and efficiency over the last 20 years is BECAUSE of competition. If it weren't for competition, we'd still be driving in those wonderful cars of the 70s ...
- as car demand goes up, numbers of workers does atoo and at the same rate.
- one of the most grossly mismanaged organizations (US Government) can manage a US only car market.
- US owned businesses, if given the monopoly you describe, would actually poor money back into its own self.
The primary reason for US made autos to have ramped up quality and efficiency over the last 20 years is BECAUSE of competition. If it weren't for competition, we'd still be driving in those wonderful cars of the 70s ...
I dont know what you mean about 70's cars cause I would take a 70 Chevelle in a heartbeat.
08-06-2009, 07:14 AM
#31
You sound intelligent and very articulate. That's why I find it hard to believe you can't see that Government intervention IS (in effect) government run.
One can't have less government and then ask for the government to dictate rules to US (and foreign) businesses where they can sell or buy goods. Capitalism doesn't work that way.
And if we seal our borders, how can we as a country keep pace with the rest of the world? We have no monopoly on intelligence, technology and innovativeness.
You know Russia controlled import and export for 50 years, relying almost completely on home grown tech and resources. You see where it got them ...
A 1970 Chevelle is a very nice car ... today.
An SS396 got 7 mpg, had drum brakes and super grippy bias-ply tires. Let's load up the kids and go on vacation. And lets not forget the Vega, Maverick and Aspen.
One can't have less government and then ask for the government to dictate rules to US (and foreign) businesses where they can sell or buy goods. Capitalism doesn't work that way.
And if we seal our borders, how can we as a country keep pace with the rest of the world? We have no monopoly on intelligence, technology and innovativeness.
You know Russia controlled import and export for 50 years, relying almost completely on home grown tech and resources. You see where it got them ...
A 1970 Chevelle is a very nice car ... today.
An SS396 got 7 mpg, had drum brakes and super grippy bias-ply tires. Let's load up the kids and go on vacation. And lets not forget the Vega, Maverick and Aspen.
08-06-2009, 07:44 AM
#32
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tomball,TX
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You sound intelligent and very articulate. That's why I find it hard to believe you can't see that Government intervention IS (in effect) government run.
One can't have less government and then ask for the government to dictate rules to US (and foreign) businesses where they can sell or buy goods. Capitalism doesn't work that way.
And if we seal our borders, how can we as a country keep pace with the rest of the world? We have no monopoly on intelligence, technology and innovativeness.
You know Russia controlled import and export for 50 years, relying almost completely on home grown tech and resources. You see where it got them ...
A 1970 Chevelle is a very nice car ... today.
An SS396 got 7 mpg, had drum brakes and super grippy bias-ply tires. Let's load up the kids and go on vacation. And lets not forget the Vega, Maverick and Aspen.
One can't have less government and then ask for the government to dictate rules to US (and foreign) businesses where they can sell or buy goods. Capitalism doesn't work that way.
And if we seal our borders, how can we as a country keep pace with the rest of the world? We have no monopoly on intelligence, technology and innovativeness.
You know Russia controlled import and export for 50 years, relying almost completely on home grown tech and resources. You see where it got them ...
A 1970 Chevelle is a very nice car ... today.
An SS396 got 7 mpg, had drum brakes and super grippy bias-ply tires. Let's load up the kids and go on vacation. And lets not forget the Vega, Maverick and Aspen.
I see what your saying and maybe it cant be done. All I'm saying is everyday there is less items being exported and more imported. There is no way to stay a wealthy country if more money goes out then comes in. So maybe we are just fucked.
You cant say that better gas mileage and tires happen just because of competition. A lot of that just had to do with technology advance over the years.
Last edited by JeaneZ28; 08-06-2009 at 07:52 AM.
08-06-2009, 08:04 AM
#33
12 Second Club
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
Truely free trade allows the allocation of resources based solely on supply and demand. If all the workers in Africa farmed they still wouldn't make enough food to feed everyone. If Africa is the cheapest place to produce diamonds they should, even though diamonds are wothless to an African with no food. However in doing so that takes workers away from farming. That's OK though because you can't farm crap in an African desert. If they trade diamonds for corn from Nebraska, they can produce diamonds cheaply AND eat. Nebraska had too much corn to begin with everybody was full, but broke. By trading with Africa, they are still full, but now they are blingin'. Both places increase thier wealth above what they could have produced on thier own.
The problem is that protectionist policies like tarrifs are a viscious cycle, and governments use thier peoples goods as a way to leverage policies and beliefs. It's easy to do as even I as an economist catch myself rooting for tit-for-tat policies.
But then again that comment was rooted in another bad government policy of bailing out private industry. If our government hadn't bought in to GM and Chrysler, there would be no reason to protect them.
Truely free trade allows the allocation of resources based solely on supply and demand. If all the workers in Africa farmed they still wouldn't make enough food to feed everyone. If Africa is the cheapest place to produce diamonds they should, even though diamonds are wothless to an African with no food. However in doing so that takes workers away from farming. That's OK though because you can't farm crap in an African desert. If they trade diamonds for corn from Nebraska, they can produce diamonds cheaply AND eat. Nebraska had too much corn to begin with everybody was full, but broke. By trading with Africa, they are still full, but now they are blingin'. Both places increase thier wealth above what they could have produced on thier own.
The problem is that protectionist policies like tarrifs are a viscious cycle, and governments use thier peoples goods as a way to leverage policies and beliefs. It's easy to do as even I as an economist catch myself rooting for tit-for-tat policies.
Originally Posted by 91RS383
I bet in another country a government sponsored cash for clunkers program would only be aplicable to domestic vehicles.
Last edited by 91RS383; 08-06-2009 at 08:14 AM.
08-06-2009, 08:13 AM
#34
12 Second Club
The reason we buy stuff, is because we sell tech, and services. Our country as a whole has become very inefficient at production. We could not make Nike shoes for $15 like they can in Malaysia, because we have to pay $7.25/hour plus benifits. Without our designers, athletes and rap stars, Nike in Malaysia would not have any reason to produce the shoes. People don't think of technology and services as exportable goods, but they are. There are all sorts of labs all over the country producing wealth, by selling ideas. That's what America has become good at. That's why a 6th grade education won't cut it in this country any more.
08-06-2009, 08:49 AM
#35
Otherwise, as long as the cash keeps rolling in, businesses won't "risk" shareholder equity on crazy ideas like radial belted tires and 4 wheel disk anti-lock brakes.
The business case for investing that kind of money in a stagnant economy (not a recessive economy, just one not growing) without the motivtion to do so can't be justified.
Businesses don't do wonderful things because they are good guys. They do it because they have to or they can flip a nickel on it.
I too hate to hear news about our trade deficit. But I think we as a nation missed the opportunity to get in on what countries like Germany, Japan, India and China have going for them.
We as a nation have become too "proud" to do an honest day's work for an honest and realistic day's pay.
3 cars and 2,000 square foot homes are seen as an entitlement, not something you actually have to work for. We could all get make ends meet on a LOT less.
08-06-2009, 08:54 AM
#36
Its why I prefer to let the market adjust itself and let the government be a player, just like me. Handing over Carte Blanche power to ear-mark what can and can't be sold within our borders and outside our borders means the Lobbyists hold all the cards and the little guy would never get ahead.
Folks ... this is a great discussion ... I'm learning a lot.
08-06-2009, 01:44 PM
#37
Banned
iTrader: (60)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adkins - Tx
Posts: 2,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford sold a **** load of Explorers in the 90's. It would make sense that a lot of them would be traded in with a program like this since they usually have a **** load of miles on them and have no resale value.
08-06-2009, 02:04 PM
#38
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 1,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think the government was wrong in including ALL car companies but I do think they should of had less of a cash credit for foreign cars.
IE, The max you could get was 4500. Well make that ONLY for the US car companies and then make the others around 3000. Sure, it doesnt sound like much but look at the cars that are being bought under the CFC program. A ton of VERY base cars and the very bottom of the companies offerings.
IE, The max you could get was 4500. Well make that ONLY for the US car companies and then make the others around 3000. Sure, it doesnt sound like much but look at the cars that are being bought under the CFC program. A ton of VERY base cars and the very bottom of the companies offerings.
08-06-2009, 02:11 PM
#39
Banned
iTrader: (60)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adkins - Tx
Posts: 2,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't really matter if the offer was directed toward domestic auto makers. According to the reports I have been hearing, most people trading in clunkers have poor credit and barely qualify for the loan with the extra $4500as it is. 6-9 months from now, the repo business is going to be even more on fire and the banks are going to own a lot of little econo cars they will have a hell of a time selling.
08-06-2009, 02:25 PM
#40
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 1,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't really matter if the offer was directed toward domestic auto makers. According to the reports I have been hearing, most people trading in clunkers have poor credit and barely qualify for the loan with the extra $4500as it is. 6-9 months from now, the repo business is going to be even more on fire and the banks are going to own a lot of little econo cars they will have a hell of a time selling.
Which is why, to me, the whole CFC thing is a HUGE scam. Take people who own very little and have iffy jobs. Get them to get a loan on a new vehicle that they cant afford and have it repo'd in 3 months because they loose their job and cant make the payments.