How can I help America?
- Thread starter HappyHyundai
- Start date
- Status
Kestas
Staff member
I'd much rather have a 1969 Ford over anything offered now.
My Buick Rendezvous is assembled in Mexico. My new Envoy is listed as having a percentage of parts made in China, then assembled in Oklahoma. By the same token, American workers are assembling Toyota's in Indiana, Honda's in Ohio,
and Hyundai just built a new plant in Alabama. All in all, the best you can hope for is to spend your money on what you want, continue to make purchases wisely, and support local organizations close to home. If there is a Mom and Pop hardware store, vs. a chain such as Lowe's, condider supporting Pop. Ice cream? Every town has a local creamery, and it is usually better than DQ. You get the picture, but I like the old saying, "Think globally, act locally."
Titan's post is on the ball. Take heed.
Everyone can help America by not buying a vehicle any larger than they absolutely need to carry their loved ones and friends and reasonably expected amounts of cargo. Ideally, no one should be buying any vehicle, regardless of origin, that gets less than 25 mpg city/30 highway, barring genuine special needs. All of the automakers, not just the domestics, need to get on the ball. Now.
We're facing serious issues with oil supply in the future, folks. The new oil field discovery in the Gulf of Mexico is just a drop in the bucket: three years' estimated supply for the US based on current consumption at best. It is not a long-term cure.
It wouldn't hurt my feelings if down the road buyers of new SUVs, light trucks, motorhomes, ATVs, and high-performance gas hogs were required to prove a need for these vehicles. Most will not be able to, obviously. Waaahhh! More rational choices in transport will help postpone what to me looks horribly inevitable in not too many years. Such choices are the best way to help America in the long term, not even considering the planet. As I said many months ago in another thread: rational or rationing: it's your choice. The best for the country? Rational transport choices, of course.
Everyone can help America by not buying a vehicle any larger than they absolutely need to carry their loved ones and friends and reasonably expected amounts of cargo. Ideally, no one should be buying any vehicle, regardless of origin, that gets less than 25 mpg city/30 highway, barring genuine special needs. All of the automakers, not just the domestics, need to get on the ball. Now.
We're facing serious issues with oil supply in the future, folks. The new oil field discovery in the Gulf of Mexico is just a drop in the bucket: three years' estimated supply for the US based on current consumption at best. It is not a long-term cure.
It wouldn't hurt my feelings if down the road buyers of new SUVs, light trucks, motorhomes, ATVs, and high-performance gas hogs were required to prove a need for these vehicles. Most will not be able to, obviously. Waaahhh! More rational choices in transport will help postpone what to me looks horribly inevitable in not too many years. Such choices are the best way to help America in the long term, not even considering the planet. As I said many months ago in another thread: rational or rationing: it's your choice. The best for the country? Rational transport choices, of course.
And the "native Americans" walked over from Asia......that's all rather moot. Not much land left on earth where at some time earlier it was occupied by someone else......
As for helping America, well you could become a southern border guard and not drive a HUGE V-10 truck all by yourself as a commuter "car" and do 60 uphill in a 35 mph zone.....but I have digressed enough.
As for helping America, well you could become a southern border guard and not drive a HUGE V-10 truck all by yourself as a commuter "car" and do 60 uphill in a 35 mph zone.....but I have digressed enough.
Someone was talking about where the design work was being done for the auto makers.quote:
Originally posted by cousincletus:
???
My point is that buying a Chevrolet is no guarantee that you are getting US designed stuff.
It looks to me like the Ecotec had it's root deep in a German designed Opel engine, with major European designer influence.
So, like the Japanese and Korean cars many "Buy America" champions want to point fingers at and say the design work is NOT being done here, even if the car is manufactured here, folks like GM and Ford are doing the very same thing.
If you read about the 2.5L Duratec, you'll find it was designed for Ford by Porsche. I've met Terry Haynes, one of Ford's Powertrain Engineers for the CDW-27 project. He's from the UK.
So, personally, I think we should be cheering and demanding the best cars our money can buy, and then buy those cars.
If GM build the car that best suit my needs, I'll buy it. If I believe Toyota does, I'll buy it.
I used to by GM since I started driving in 1981. Now, the only "GM" car I have was built in the NUMMI plant in California along side Toyota Corollas.
Kestas
Staff member
GM is moving their design engineering offshore, just under 500 jobs at a time. 500 is the magic number where any employer in Michigan has to give advance notice to the State of Michigan before any layoffs. Plus it doesn't make the headlines.
25 years ago when I was working at Chrysler I walked through one of the manufacturing facilities and saw a lot of expensive ($¼-million per unit) machinery bought from overseas. This was when the "Buy American" campaign first started in full swing. Wouldn't you think that a company that is spreading the "Buy American" pitch would do the same thing at home?
It really frosts me when a company thinks it's okay to tell others to "Buy American", but still buys from overseas themselves because they get a better deal. Aren't we all looking for a better deal?
The only way we can help America is if everybody immediately took a pay cut. And I mean EVERYBODY across the whole strata of America, not just the manufacturing sector. This way we could compete on a global scale. After all, our wages are headed toward the global level.
25 years ago when I was working at Chrysler I walked through one of the manufacturing facilities and saw a lot of expensive ($¼-million per unit) machinery bought from overseas. This was when the "Buy American" campaign first started in full swing. Wouldn't you think that a company that is spreading the "Buy American" pitch would do the same thing at home?
It really frosts me when a company thinks it's okay to tell others to "Buy American", but still buys from overseas themselves because they get a better deal. Aren't we all looking for a better deal?
The only way we can help America is if everybody immediately took a pay cut. And I mean EVERYBODY across the whole strata of America, not just the manufacturing sector. This way we could compete on a global scale. After all, our wages are headed toward the global level.
If everyone takes a pay cut, where is the money to buy the products they sell going to come from?
Credit cards and HELOCs?
Credit cards and HELOCs?
Kestas
Staff member
Well, it stands to reason that a cut in wages would result in a drop in product price in a competitive economy.
Unless we end up with stagflation.
Everyone can help America by not buying a vehicle any larger than they absolutely need to carry their loved ones and friends and reasonably expected amounts of cargo. Ideally, no one should be buying any vehicle, regardless of origin, that gets less than 25 mpg city/30 highway, barring genuine special needs. All of the automakers, not just the domestics, need to get on the ball. Now.
I agree. This is the best way to help America!
To amplify my previous post:
Since 1990 a massive amount of engineering and design talent has gone toward creating ever more powerful vehicles, which also tend to be heavier than in the 1980s. I recall well that in the late 1970s-early 1980s, a 0-60 mph time of 10 seconds was quick, and only the most powerful cars of the time were significantly faster. Now 10 seconds is considered bog slow. Also, everyday cars that could exceed 110 mph, "double the double nickel" (55 mph), were so uncommon that Car and Driver had a cover story in 1977 about testing the few there were. Now there are dozens of cars in the US market capable of 150+ mph, which is totally irrelevant when the highest posted speed limit is 80 mph on some Texas interstates and there seems to be general agreement that even higher speed limits are out of the question. To a great degree, we are living in an automotive renaissance, but it has come at a large energy cost.
The automakers, foreign as well as American, concentrated on power, not economy. This was horribly misguided. That same engineering talent could and should have been used to create economical transportation alternatives and alternative engines and fuels. It isn't too late, or so I hope, but we have much less time. A sedan or wagon that can seat a family comfortably and get, say, 75 mpg (with acceptable performance and a minimum of complexity) is exactly what we need, not yet another 200-mph supercar, 500-hp sedan, 3-ton SUV, or bling-bling 10-mpg pickup that will never haul a load. Making the effort in economical alternatives to today's transport mix is what's best for America.
Since 1990 a massive amount of engineering and design talent has gone toward creating ever more powerful vehicles, which also tend to be heavier than in the 1980s. I recall well that in the late 1970s-early 1980s, a 0-60 mph time of 10 seconds was quick, and only the most powerful cars of the time were significantly faster. Now 10 seconds is considered bog slow. Also, everyday cars that could exceed 110 mph, "double the double nickel" (55 mph), were so uncommon that Car and Driver had a cover story in 1977 about testing the few there were. Now there are dozens of cars in the US market capable of 150+ mph, which is totally irrelevant when the highest posted speed limit is 80 mph on some Texas interstates and there seems to be general agreement that even higher speed limits are out of the question. To a great degree, we are living in an automotive renaissance, but it has come at a large energy cost.
The automakers, foreign as well as American, concentrated on power, not economy. This was horribly misguided. That same engineering talent could and should have been used to create economical transportation alternatives and alternative engines and fuels. It isn't too late, or so I hope, but we have much less time. A sedan or wagon that can seat a family comfortably and get, say, 75 mpg (with acceptable performance and a minimum of complexity) is exactly what we need, not yet another 200-mph supercar, 500-hp sedan, 3-ton SUV, or bling-bling 10-mpg pickup that will never haul a load. Making the effort in economical alternatives to today's transport mix is what's best for America.
Kestas
Staff member
May I remind you that it's not the fault of the automakers and that your blame is misguided. The automakers only build what consumers are willing to buy.
This whole topic is based on a flimsy premise to begin with. By asking how do we help, we are making the assumption that something is wrong. All reasonable economic indicators point to a pretty strong overall economy. We enjoy the highest standard of living and most disposable income on the planet. What we should be asking is, "How do we help everyone else achieve what has been done in the United States?"
We don't need pay cuts, "they" need pay raises.
I tried to buy an "American" car, but Ford apparently doesn't build the Fusion with a V6 and a stick. Same deal in the Impala. Honda, however, pulled through with the V6 6MT Accord so I bought it. It was assembled 12 miles from my house (Marysville), has 80% US parts content, my friends work for a company here in Columbus that built the seats for my car. Either this car or my Civic was designed in Torrence, California (I can't recall which). But all of that doesn't matter, I wanted a Fusion but Ford didn't make it how I wanted it.
One question I have concerning this issue is whether or not the U.S. and Japan play on a level field when it comes to import/export policies. I know that in other industries, agriculture for one, that the import fees Japan imposes on U.S. goods is astronomical, and thereby makes it all but impossible for the U.S. to compete on a level playing field in Japan. I would imagine that this is also the case in the automotive industry. Can anyone shed any light on this? If so why would anyone want to purchase anything from a country which excludes other countrys goods but so readily takes advantage of the free trade allowed in the United States. I am all for free trade when it truly is free trade. Again, am I way off? Is this the case in the automotive world or is it just product specific?
I think it's amusing that electrical wall outlets for Japan, which otherwise appear identical to the ones we use in the USA, have to meet a Japanese specification.
AFAIK CSA approved outlets are OK in the USA and UL approved outlets are OK in Canada.
AFAIK CSA approved outlets are OK in the USA and UL approved outlets are OK in Canada.
They do..it's called the Mazda 6.
Kestas
Staff member
I'm not exactly sure of the answer, but America has always had a long history of free trade. This fosters good competition on a global level. If America decided to protect a certain industry by imposing tariffs on imported goods, the industry can get fat and soft, at the expense of consumers who buy the goods.
Painful as it is, opening the market to goods such as desirable and high-quality japanese cars forces the American industries to compete ona global lavel. The only exception is if the American government finds that dumping practices are practised by the exporting countries. Then measures are taken to protect our industries from dumping.
- Status
Similar threads
