DeeDawg...It doesn't have a thing to do with "left wing" politics. I am probably more conservative than 98% on this forum. I am conservative to a fault. However, I agree with the article in principle. No, I don't think you or most people for that matter are bigots. But, I do think that "buy American" is no the simple answer to American jobs. 25 years ago, I may have agreed. Not any more. Now, we have to get after the global economy and change the thinking of other countries buying our products. And yes, we are starting to make inroads into China. Look at Yum Brands (Pizza Hut, KFC, Long John Silver's, Taco Bell). They are based here in Louisville and have started making HUGE gains there.

Your example about buying a beer in Europe is only partially correct. The main reason it is expensive is because the dollar is weak in the currency market. Over time, that will change up and down. Additionally, EVERYTHING is expensive in Europe thanks to THEIR left wing politics. They pay 2 1/2 times what we do for gas.

 

America's distinction among all the nations of the world is that it enshrined political and economic freedom. Although we have departed greatly from our original laissez-faire principles, to the whole world America still symbolizes capitalism. Americanism means understanding that a free market, domestically and internationally, is the only path to general prosperity.

Our belief in economic freedom runs in both directions as DeeDawg points out. As long as we are FREE to sell our products and build our plants in these other countries, then I accept they can do the same. However, that is not the case

International trade is not mortal combat but a form of cooperation, a means of expanding worldwide production. The benefits of international trade flow to both trading partners, even when one of the countries is more efficient across the board. This is the "Law of Comparative Advantage," covered in every economics textbook. Free trade does not destroy but creates employment.

There is no argument about the benefits of international trade. The argument is that it should flow freely in both directions. When that does not happen, then we have protectionism. In the states, we have very little protectionism except what people feel. However, in other countries there is legislative protectionism that provides barriers to free trade.

The lucrative workings of free markets do not depend upon lines drawn on a map. The economic advantages of international commerce are the same as those of interstate, intercity, and crosstown commerce. And if we kept crosstown trade accounts, the "trade deficits" that would appear would be as meaningless as are our international "trade deficits." Fact confirms theory: the U.S. ran a trade "deficit" practically every year of the nineteenth century, the time of our most rapid economic progress.

The US can continually run trade deficits as long as economic expansion can pay the deficit. But clearly, no deficit is better. I think anyone with half a brain knows its better to not have a deficit. This tod bit of fact in no way justifies why we should have a trade deficit.

Philosophically, Americanism means individualism. Individualism holds that one's personal identity, moral worth, and inalienable rights belong to one as an individual, not as a member of a particular race, class, nation, or other collective.

Finally this guy says something useful.. I thought we would have to send this to the "nut" thread.

But collectivism is the premise of "Buy American." In purchasing goods, we are expected to view ourselves and the sellers not as individuals, but as units of a nation. We are expected to accept lower quality or more expensive goods in the name of alleged benefits to the national collective.

Competition is good. However, competition must come on a level playing field. And this statement somehow is suggesting that we Americans produce inferior products? LOL, this is a poor argument to buy off-shore products.

Most "Buy American" advocates are motivated by misplaced patriotism. But for some the motive is a collectivist hostility towards foreigners. This xenophobic attitude is thoroughly un-American; it is plain bigotry.

This is plain BS. We typically do not have a hostility toward foreigners. LOL, quite the contrary, most of us can trace our roots to other countries and we are typically proud of our heritage. One of the things that makes the US so great is its great diversity of people, traditions and faiths.

Giving preference to American-made products over German or Japanese products is the same injustice as giving preference to products made by whites over those made by blacks. Economic nationalism, like racism, means judging men and their products by the group from which they come, not by merit.

Once again pure BS. This is worthless extrapolation from a worthless premise. Giving preference to American-made products is not an injustice at all. And our motives for buying those products have nothing to do with how we view Germans or Japanese.

Collectivism reflects the notion that life is "a zero sum game," that we live in a dog-eat-dog world, where one man's gain is another man's loss. On this premise, everyone has to cling to his own herd and fight all the other herds for a share of a fixed, static, supply of goods. And that is exactly the premise of the "Buy American" campaign. "It's Japan or us," is the implication. If Japan is getting richer, then we must be getting poorer.

It is clear that we cannot be overly protective. However, it is clear that in life you cannot be a passivist. This statement suggests that we are overly protective and should just simply accept all off shore companies products. What, did you just move to the US yesterday buddy.. We are competative by nature... What do expect that we should do? After all, isn't our competative nature why we are so good?

But individualism recognizes that wealth is produced, not merely appropriated, and that man's rise from the cave to the skyscraper demonstrates that life is not a zero-sum game -- not where men are free to seek progress.

LOL, this guy throws around so much BS. Total freedom is to sell and produce where we want without off-shore restrictions.

Accordingly, individualism holds that the interests of men do not conflict -- provided we are speaking of self-supporting individuals who pay for what they get. Where there is free trade, the exchange of value for value, one man's gain is another man's gain.

As if we are not individuals if we don't buy off-shore products.

The same harmony of men's interests applies in the international arena. One nation's enrichment raises the standard of living of all other nations with which it trades. Which nation adds more to your standard of living: Japan or Bangladesh? And how would you fare if Japan were suddenly reduced to the economic level of Bangladesh?

Once again free trade implies there are no significant restrictions on the other side of the border. GM sold 400,000 cars in Asia. Anyone want to guess how many cars went to the one of the biggest auto markets in the world (Japan)? The thought that we want to reduce Japan to the economic level of Bangladesh is ridiculous.

The patriotic advocates of buying American would be shocked to learn that the economic theory underlying their viewpoint is Marxism. In describing the influx of Japanese products and investment, they don't use the Marxist terminology of "imperialism" and "exploitation," but the basic idea is the same: capitalistic acts are destructive and free markets will impoverish you. It's the same anti-capitalist nonsense whether it is used by leftists to attack the United States for its commerce with Latin America or by supposed patriots to attack Japan for its commerce with the United States.

Dang.. now I'm a communist!! I'm shocked!!! Once again, this idiot needs to define what FREE markets are. It seems that his idea of a free market is that everyone can come to the US and sell, but we are not free to sell in other countries.

Contrary to Marxism, one does not benefit from the poverty or incompetence of others. It is in your interest that other men -- in every country -- be smart, ambitious, and productive, not stupid, lazy, or incompetent. Would you be better off if Thomas Edison had been dim-witted? Nothing is changed if we substitute a Japanese inventor for Edison.

Once again a worthless extrapolation from a worthless comment.

More and better production is good for all men, everywhere. What's good for Toyota is good for America. That's individualism, and that's Americanism.

LOL, when Toyota runs for congress, we know how he will vote!! I hope that the US doesn't come down to making decisions about American policy based on what Toyota thinks!!

Government interference with free trade is un-American. Sacrificing one's standard of living in order to subsidize inefficient domestic producers is un-American. The tribal fear of foreigners is un-American. Resentment at others' success is un-American.

You finally said something usefull... Now go over to Japan and tell them that government interference in free trade is un-American.

A patriotic American acts as a capitalist and an individualist: he buys the best, wherever it may be found.

According to this guy, anyone who beleives we should buy American is a communist, not an individual, a racist, not a capitalist, against trade, and is un-American. Seems to me that he is calling 80% of the US un-American!! Whats up with that? This guy has insulted 80% of the US population in a matter of a few short paragraphs.

 

Bryce I've noticed you have a lot a very large vehicles that get poor gas milage. I was just wondering where the fuel for those motors comes from, and the effect that fuel (or profits made from fuel) have on us Americans (cost of war).

By the way I have alot of toys (boats, atvs, suvs, etc..) foreign and domestic and I am not trying to stir up anything, just pointing out some of the not so obvious things.

 

LOL, good argument. However, I am not in control of where my fuel comes from. Some percentage comes from the US and some from off-shore. The only thing I can do to solve this is to quit running anything with gasoline. But that is not likely to happen in the near future. BTW, my car I drive daily gets 30mpg. And I use more fuel in that than my boat and my MH combined. I guess I could ride a horse to work [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

QUOTE from 05PRED: It doesn't have a thing to do with "left wing" politics

I disagree. Read any left wing garbage and you'll find more of the same.

QUOTE from 05PRED: Your example about buying a beer in Europe is only partially correct

I never said anything about buying it in Europe. I paid $10 for an American beer in 1985 in a third world country!!! Most countries have far higher tarriffs on imports than we do, which is why there is no such thing as a "free market".

QUOTE from 05PRED: Look at Yum Brands (Pizza Hut, KFC, Long John Silver's, Taco Bell). They are based here in Louisville and have started making HUGE gains there.

There are stores there, but almost no products come from the US.

 

I know of MANY people on the right like me that fully believe in free trade. And, befor you say something, I agree, our government does not do enough to open more markets. But, it will also be difficult to sell a lot of products in these developing nations because of cost. Keep in mind, MOST third world nations have no tarrifs on imported goods. However, Most of the countries that could give us significant business do.
Tarriffs of our products going into China are drastically reducing through 2006 which is good news. As for YUM Brands, it is similar to say a Toyato Camry with significant American content. Yum still makes money and they stand to grow exponentially since they have entered the Chinese market earlier than most.


Regarding beer, which is near and dear to my heart, I have only been to 3rd world countries in the Carribean and the folks I spoke with said there were no tarriffs. But, they are simply more expensive than a local beer. I am not sure what beer you drink, I like all kinds. Have you bought a Harp, Bass, or even Guiness? It is considerably higher than a Bud Light here in the states.

BTW...How is it over there in Virginia anyway?[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

QUOTE from 05PRED: BTW...How is it over there in Virginia anyway?

I would have no idea.

QUOTE from 05PRED: I have only been to 3rd world countries in the Carribean and the folks I spoke with said there were no tarriffs.

So far I have been to 52 countries, most have tarriffs on imports.

QUOTE from 05PRED: Have you bought a Harp, Bass, or even Guiness?

Guiness is costly everywhere. You should try buying it in Japan!!!!

QUOTE from 05PRED: MOST third world nations have no tarrifs on imported goods.

Wrong.

QUOTE from 05PRED: MANY people on the right like me that fully believe in free trade

The problem is "free trade" isn't working for the US. It is only "free" in one dirrection.

Bottom line, you and I will never agree on this.

 

I was just kidding about Virginia. Lighten up man...I gotta quit reading this thread. We all get too angry about these issues.

We also tarriff imports so, it is not free in one direction. I guess, for me, I just don't worry too much about imported products because I know from a business and economy standpoint we will always be in great shape. Our economy will simply evolve as it has for 120 years.

You are right...We will never agree. No hard feelings though.

 

05PRED500,

Don't go away. You and I do disagree, but you have to admit this has been a very informative thread, thanks to all of us. You come across as a gentleman. I don't think that anyone is mad at anyone on this thread. You know how e-mail is. I think it's been good natured. You should here my friends and I argue! Sincerely

 

This only reinforced my belief that most Buy American opponents only read what they agree with and conveniently skip over that with which they don’t agree - even as and especially when their positions are being invalidated.
Some foreign car lovers proclaimed they would only start to buy American when GM decided to build high-quality cars. Setting aside for a minute the fact that various quality surveys prove they already do, the point I had made already was this: Since GM is saddled with at least a $1,000 per automobile cost disadvantage to pay for honorable obligations like pensions and health care for thousands of Americans, that is why they have at least $1,000 less (per automobile) to spend on snazzier dashboards and other creature comforts.
These Buy American bashers are decidedly off base in claiming GM and Ford don’t make cars Americans want since both companies have higher market share than their closest foreign rival. General Motors, for instance, has over twice the market share in the U.S. compared to Toyota. GM’s problem is not necessarily low market share (although a return to the higher market shares of the past would surely be beneficial) but it is the lower profit margins they are able to generate in light of their honorable obligations to their current and former workers and their dependents.
The media hasn’t always been forthcoming with the facts, but certain news anchors do expose the truth. On "Your World with Neil Cavuto," a program on which this author has appeared five times, Neil Cavuto promptly corrected one of his frequent guests who just couldn’t resist trashing American automakers in knee-jerk fashion. When Mr. Cavuto asked Tom Adkins of www.commonconservative.com why GM and Ford were being downgraded to junk status, Mr. Adkins spewed the typical and tired old venom proclaiming it was because American car makers only made American junk. Kudos to Neil Cavuto for pointing out some of the quality and efficiency gains American automakers have made over the years in response to such garbage.
Other tired refrains Buy American haters use include the accusation that GM and Ford have misguided objectives and have repeatedly missed the boat by concentrating on more-profitable larger vehicles rather than smaller, more-efficient ones. This argument is easily diffused by the fact that GM and Ford have merely been responding to broad consumer demand for these larger vehicles. Even as gas prices climbed into the $2 per gallon range in early 2005, polls taken around that time show that a majority of American consumers remained undeterred when it came to buying bigger and badder American trucks and SUVs. The Ford F-150, for instance, has been the number one selling truck for several years. Surely even Buy American opponents (usually laissez-faire advocates) recognize and subscribe to the law of supply and demand. Are these people really suggesting that Ford not concentrate on this obvious cash cow?
The anti-Buy American argument also conveniently ignores the fact that foreign-based automakers have been aggressively accelerating their entry into the large vehicle market to compete with American dominance in this area. The 2006 Lexus 470 Luxury SUV, for instance, boasts of 275 horsepower - a full 40 hp increase over the 2005 model - not to mention 12 ft. lbs. extra torque to boot. And of course no one can deny the various entries of foreign automakers in the big truck and SUV markets such as the Nissan Armada, Nissan Titan, Toyota Sequoia, Toyota Tundra and Honda Ridgeline, just to name a few. It smacks of hypocrisy to deride Ford and GM for making large American vehicles when all foreign-based automakers are scrambling to introduce even bigger models in an attempt to out-muscle them.
Ironically, within days of the "In Defense of General Motors" article, the Wall Street Journal ran a "Drive Buys" column featuring the Nissan Xterra comparing it to four other midsize SUVs. The Chevrolet Equinox was not only the only American vehicle in the comparison (no Ford product was profiled) but it was also the least expensive and had the best mileage rating. Go figure.
The point here is that when it comes to analyzing the automotive industry, hypocrisy often reigns. It would be different if Buy American nay-sayers had rhetoric to offer that lined up with the facts, but they normally do not. Most are stuck in the 70s and their questionable belief (also disproved in the "In Defense of General Motors" article) that American cars were inferior then and by default continue to be today.
One "Reader’s Report" submission to Business Week’s May 30, 2005 issue chided GM for not investing their profits wisely enough, claiming they could have bought Honda outright for 75% the money they spent creating Saturn. Such Monday morning quarterbacking overlooks the fact that Japan rarely allows foreign-based companies a majority ownership in their home-based companies. GM does own 49% of Isuzu, who recently announced an annual 9.7% net rise in profit ending March 31, 2005. The Business Week letter-writer also pointed out that one Saturn SUV is powered by a Honda engine as proof GM has gone astray in their strategies. I wonder if he knows that some BMWs use GM-built transmissions. Let’s call it a draw then, shall we?
Finally and perhaps more-importantly, many readers of the original article in defense of the U.S. auto industry cited that it was good to see a non-GM employee stick up for GM. It might be different of course if I had worked on the factory floor of one of the several dozen Ford or GM domestic plants, but I don’t. I defend American auto interests because it is in the best interest of America to do so. And even though the anti-Buy American crowd is aggressively undermining American prosperity with hypocritical and baseless views, those of us who stand for what is right for America deserve a prosperous country and should work hard to create that prosperity. That is what should keep us motivated to fight the good fight. We’re all in this together, so let’s make it work for all of us - together