Gromdor Posted July 25, 2016 #51 Share Posted July 25, 2016 See that was always worried me about China and other countries with planned economies. They went out of their way to strategically acquire resources to win a trade war. Whereas here in the states we have the wild chaos of dog-eat-dog capitalism. Which is great for making money, but doesn't have America's interest in the least. So now we are talking tariffs and regulations (from our free market party no less) as the start of a trade war which we haven't even prepared ourselves to win. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted July 25, 2016 #52 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, aztek said: defense industry, not the best example. especially since brand new Abrams are not manufactured since 1993 or 1996 can't remember which, there are 2 rebuild factories for them , and both in usa. example of cars manufacturers, foreign ones, show it is very much possible. We can't even get all the parts to make a car here strictly from the US anymore... Edited July 25, 2016 by Gromdor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted July 25, 2016 #53 Share Posted July 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Gromdor said: We can't even get all the parts to make a car here in the US anymore... because we do not really try, but sure something will always be made overseas, can't get around it, it is the ratio domestic\imported product, is what needs to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted July 25, 2016 Author #54 Share Posted July 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, aztek said: defense industry, not the best example. especially since brand new Abrams are not manufactured since 1993 or 1996 can't remember which, there are 2 rebuild factories for them , and both in usa. example of cars manufacturers, foreign ones, show it is very much possible. Yes, and the problem there is not that the US could not but the US wants not. Have you noticed that for the last 30 years relevant innovations in car building either came from abroad or are only available in foreign cars? When you plan running your company from quarter to quarter you tend to ignore things that will become relevant in 10 years. Well those durn foreigners are planning 10 years ahead. Just start building hydrogen fuel stations and you will be surprised how many of those foreign companies have a hydrogen car ready to launch 5 moths later (in fact Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Renault or Fiat could have a hydrogen car without disturbing the current construction cycle by just building a new engine on one of their lines, its tested and ready to market). Five years later Detroit will show up with something that breaks every 2 months, 10 years later it might be reliable (just see how good they were at building compacts when the gas process skyrocketed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted July 25, 2016 #55 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) yea, Detroit lags behind in innovations on domestic market, may be r&d funds are spent someplace else. could that 59 billions uaw pension trust has anything to do with it? have you noticed latest fords are really European models, Edited July 25, 2016 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted July 25, 2016 Author #56 Share Posted July 25, 2016 1 minute ago, aztek said: yea, Detroit lags behind in innovations on domestic market, may be r&d funds are spent someplace else. could that 59 billions uaw pension trust has anything to do with it? have you noticed latest fords are really European models, No, I drive a Toyota (because it is cheap and reliable) the 30 days a year I am at home. But as you mention it: expect future Chrysler models to contain lots of Fiat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted July 25, 2016 #57 Share Posted July 25, 2016 yea i expect that, thou i wonder how long the union will last, cuz Daimler Chrysler did not live long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted July 25, 2016 Author #58 Share Posted July 25, 2016 1 minute ago, aztek said: yea i expect that, thou i wonder how long the union will last, cuz Daimler Chrysler did not live long Well Daimler is a totally different beast from Fiat. Daimler builds only high end, and that is what they understand (in fact, even a small 180 is expensive). In the 132 years of their history they have only deviated from that twice: by buying Hayek's Smart (which to this day has yet to make a profit) and by buying Chrysler. They could unload Chrysler but I doubt they'll ever be able to unload Smart. Fiat is to the contrary a utility car company that affords some luxury brands (i.e. Ferrari). They fit much better with Chrysler and understand their needs. Something Daimler never did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted July 25, 2016 #59 Share Posted July 25, 2016 i do not think it was the reason Daimler unloaded Chrysler. i'm sure they knew before joining what class of cars Chrysler build. i think it was more to do with associated liabilities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted July 25, 2016 Author #60 Share Posted July 25, 2016 1 minute ago, aztek said: i do not think it was the reason Daimler unloaded Chrysler. i'm sure they knew before joining what class of cars Chrysler build. i think it was more to do with associated liabilities could be, I am not really into the micro-economy, so don't expect an authoritative assessment on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted July 26, 2016 #61 Share Posted July 26, 2016 On 7/24/2016 at 2:39 PM, questionmark said: Do as I say and not do as I do? He addressed all this early in the debates. It simply isn't smart business to manufacture in the US and that's something he looking to change. Mostly this is old news and you and everybody here knows it. Your Trump threads have become impulsive now. Can't even wait for half decent news. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted July 26, 2016 #62 Share Posted July 26, 2016 5 minutes ago, F3SS said: He addressed all this early in the debates. It simply isn't smart business to manufacture in the US and that's something he looking to change. Mostly this is old news and you and everybody here knows it. Your Trump threads have become impulsive now. Can't even wait for half decent news. I guess the big question is, "Do we want a president that does the smart thing to benifit himself or does the right thing that benifits America?" (not that Hillary fits this bill either) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted July 26, 2016 #63 Share Posted July 26, 2016 12 minutes ago, Gromdor said: I guess the big question is, "Do we want a president that does the smart thing to benifit himself or does the right thing that benifits America?" (not that Hillary fits this bill either) That it was to his benefit is the nature of capitalism and business and this particular instance shows nothing negative about his character. As a business man he made the smart decision. Let's hope he can transpose those types of decisions on presidential matters. The difference between Clinton and Trump as far as being self serving goes is that Clinton produces nothing, builds nothing and the only thing she sells is influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedutchiedutch Posted July 26, 2016 #64 Share Posted July 26, 2016 (edited) Mister loudmouth should practice what he preaches and start with forcing his own family businesses to move production to the USA Edited July 26, 2016 by thedutchiedutch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now