Don't buy American

[J-Ri]

So then a car that is assembled of (primarily) imported parts, transported, sold, and maintained in the U.S. helps the economy as much as a car that is designed, engineered, manufactured with (primarily) domestic parts, transported, sold, and maintained in the U.S.? The management is by far the highest paid, and that's where most of the difference is... buy an import and you're sending your cash overseas. To say that something that helps less does not hurt isn't really accurate.

I also don't believe that "imports" are any more reliable than "domestic". While I do agree that there are more problems with American made cars, that seems to be a direct result of people not maintaining them. Typically "import" drivers take much better care of their vehicles, they bring them in for maintenance things while "domestic" drivers wait until something breaks. Also, it's not uncommon for imports a few years old to blow engines. Try finding a used H-4 engine for a Subaru, they all have the engines picked out of them.

The worst vehicle I ever had was a Toyota Tercel, only import I've ever owned. That thing barely made it past 100k miles, and cost me thousands of dollars in parts. Things broke constantly and cost much more than a domestic part, and yes, I took good care of it. I've owned 5 American vehicles since then, all of which were much better. Two I still have and run great, I've spend under a thousand dollars between the two in the combined 9 years of ownership. One I sold cheap because I rolled it over and crushed the roof in and it leaked water, still ran great and the biggest problem i had in 2 years was a bad thermostat. In one the engine spun a rod bearing at 198,xxx miles while being driven at high speed for 10-15 miles on a very hot summer day with the A/C cranked up. One I bought at 170k miles (was dirt cheap because it had also been driven into a tree which pushed the bumper back into the radiator fan). I did all the repairs with a chain + another truck, a few hammers, and some JB Weld. Drove it for years (never replaced anything, and changed the oil every 10k miles... it was my beater) until I tried driving through what I though was mud... turned out it was more water than dirt. Water got in everywhere and for some reason it didn't want to start after that. Sold that for parts, but it ran great up till I tried to make it amphibious


The greedy American union assembly line workers make far too much for such a low-skilled job, which forced American companies to cut cost on cheap parts which lowered the overall quality of the cars. Now my money's going to pay their outrageous salaries (thanks to the bailouts), and they're still doing just as poor work as ever, and still forcing the quality to be less than it used to be. My old '86 pickup was built solid with good parts, the years of abuse pulling loads well over what it's rated for and being used as an off-road toy don't even show. The body's dented all over and beginning to rust. The paint is still good, only peeling where the rust is bubbling up. Look under the hood, and except for mud being packed in everywhere, it looks almost new. Only had three leaks; the valve cover gaskets, the water pump, and the master cylinder. Quick, easy fixes. Now my '04 Cavalier is much different. While it's been reliable, it's unreasonable for me to think it will make it to be 23 years old.... maybe 15. But I have no reason to think that I won't be driving my truck long after my car's been parted out. The quality just isn't there any more, the reason is the unions. There is a huge difference in quality between American assembled "Japenese" vehicles and Japanese assembled imports. The ones made here by higher paid union workers are of lower quality. The ones that have engines go before 100k miles or tons of electrical problems... union made. It just doesn't make good business sense to not be able to fire someone as long as they pay their union dues and show up to work and half-assed do their job all day.

So where's the truth? As usual, it's somewhere in the middle. There are great American made products and there are crappy ones. There are great Japanese products and there are crappy ones. There are crappy Chinese products, so lets keep buying them until they're able to produce quality products.

[bluezuan]

Hey, the only cats that didn't take a bail out was Ford, Ford had the ace up their sleeve for a few years and stayed cool about it. I drove or rented a ford focus for a trip and was amazed at its kick ass run on the interstate...
they figured something out on a 4 cylinder that could give you that punch anytime you needed it.

Cars and well like goverment are the same. I don't care where my money goes at this point as long as I get my bang for my buck on a veheicle.


Hell my parents bought their home for what you pay for a car today...

They got 30 years outta their home...Who's kidding who on quality?

[J-Ri]

You'll have to explain what the "ace up their sleeve" was... I've driven several Focuses and they're nothing special, typical of most 4 cylinders of the same age. 16V DOHC and higher revs coupled with better electronics that allow more (safe) timing advance aren't specific to Ford, and as much as I hate to say it, were pioneered by the Japanese. Honda had one helluva great idea with VTEC, and the others had DOHC "base" engines long before any American manufacturer did. 4 cylinder cars of today have all the power you'll ever need for typical driving, and with a few modifications give more HP and similar torque compared to the old OHV cast iron V8s... not the big ones, but my 2.2L Ecotec has more of both than my '86 pickup with a 5.7L engine in it. It had 145 HP stock, with only modifications to the software, I believe I could have hit 200 HP with 93 octane gas.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare houses to cars either, on a similar note, apples are much better than oranges. There are houses that are lived in every day that were made back in the 1800s. Not many existing 1800s cars on the road I agree that houses made today are of much lower quality than those made 30 or 100 years ago, the majority of the workforce today has no work ethic, show up and get paid. My 30-40 year old house is built more solid than my parents' 10 year old house. I have no creaks in the floors, I don't get a few shingles torn off when there are high winds, I've never had any leaks, and my drywall isn't cracking from the house settling. They can't say the same. But I don't have the important things like vaulted ceilings, rounded corners on the walls, or holes built into the wall for TVs.

The price difference should be attributed to inflation (primarily). Remember back when you could get a cup of coffee and a sandwich for a nickel? Maybe not, I looked and you don't have your age in your profile, but things will always be more expensive in the future. I remember triple cheeseburgers for $.89 and coffee for $.25.

[old_master]

Originally Posted by bluezuan

...Thinking people make a good product-greedy people make the illusion of a good product...

Hmmm, sounds like Obama, you know, the guy that doesn't want to run the car companies, the banks, the mortgage industry, the health care industry, and wants to spend all kinds of money that isn't his to spend. Yup, him, the one that gave the illusion of a good product last November that way too many people bought. Now look who's going bankrupt. He needs to go away, and take the greedy unions with him.

[J-Ri]

Whoa... easy there, you know how he feels about free speech that opposes him or his agenda! You're a terrorist now, according to "them"

[old_master]

He doesn't give a rats ass about my, (or anyone else's) agenda. He and his tax cheat buddies, commonly referred to as his "administration", are purposefully and methodically destroying our economy, our military, our health care system and apologizing all over the world. While at the same time forcing the lie, consequences, and price tag of "global warming" down our throats. Keep your eye on Congress, everyone thinks they're on Christmas recess til mid January, nope, they're secretly trying to jamb the healthcare debacle through when no one's looking. If it was such a good bill, the majority of the people would want it! As it stands right now, the majority doesn't want it. Transparent administration my ass, it's only an illusion. Ya can't trust him, just like the scum bag at Fort Hood. Whew, got THAT off my chest, now back to the original post. Bottom line is if the American people keep buying foreign, our industry will disappear and none of us will have a job.

[J-Ri]

I completely agree with you. I meant his agenda, not yours/ours, which is to (as you stated) "purposefully and methodically destroy our economy, our military, our health care system and apologizing all over the world. While at the same time forcing the lie, consequences, and price tag of "global warming" down our throats." I don't believe that anyone could attempt to help our country and do such a horrible job as he has. It has to be intentional, there's no way any intelligent (and I do believe he's intelligent but also probably a terrorist, and possibly the antichrist) person could believe that you can tax and regulate a country into prosperity, or that most people will keep working if they can live off the government.

You must not have seen the DHS report on "domestic terrorism" that got leaked a while back.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
It's pretty infuriating. A year ago I was a patriot, now I'm a "terrorist". I wonder who requested this "report"?

Since few people will read the whole thing, here's what really pissed me off, the following people are considered threats to national security:
-People who reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority...It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. (p2)
-People who oppose illegal "immigration". (p5)
-Our brave military men and women. (p7)

I have to keep reminding myself that we're at least 1/4 of the way through his term in office.

[old_master]

Oh yes, I saw the report, hmmm, accidentally leaked????? I think not when you take into consideration who the left wing nut appointed to run the department. Do the homework on that if you REALLY want to get pissed.

[akboss]

Originally Posted by old_master

Hmmm, sounds like Obama, you know, the guy that doesn't want to run the car companies, the banks, the mortgage industry, the health care industry, and wants to spend all kinds of money that isn't his to spend. Yup, him, the one that gave the illusion of a good product last November that way too many people bought. Now look who's going bankrupt. He needs to go away, and take the greedy unions with him.

Speaking of shoving agenda's down people's throats, thanks for tainting a somewhat insightful car debate into your own scatterbrained political chatterbox. Go call up talk radio if you want to spread your propaganda.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by J-Ri

So then a car that is assembled of (primarily) imported parts, transported, sold, and maintained in the U.S. helps the economy as much as a car that is designed, engineered, manufactured with (primarily) domestic parts, transported, sold, and maintained in the U.S.? The management is by far the highest paid, and that's where most of the difference is... buy an import and you're sending your cash overseas. To say that something that helps less does not hurt isn't really accurate.

There's a lot of questions in there, many of which I can't answer without the full details of the production line logistics of car manufacture of the different cars sold in youyr country.
That is to say that the answer for each car is going to be different.

However, the one part that I can address is this.
It doesn't matter how much management gets paid because the high paid individuals do not make up the majority of the population of any country.
Their direct influence on the economy is negligable and next to meaningless.
In this respect, the car that helps the economy the most, is the one that provides the most jobs within the country.
The strength of an economy isn't just about the number of $/£ but more to do with the number of people who has $/£.

I take as my example, the Honda Civic.
The car is a Japanese car that is designed, manufactured and built in the UK.
It provided at it's peak 4200 jobs in the UK and that figure does not include the third part contractors that are involved in the processes of car manufacture.
Who do you think gets more money?
The few executives who get higher salaries or the collective majority of employees who get lower salaries?
Who would be spending more money on the proverbial "high street"; the few exectives or the majority of employees?


Of course, the Honda Civic is an unfair example as it is for all intent purposes a UK car but it shows why it is too simple to say that buying an import car hurts your countries economy. Of course that isn't to say that buying a truly home grown/developed car doesn't benefit more but the basic fact is, any sale of car helps the economy, especially when it isn't a sale based on credit.

Then again, in the modern economy, even credit purchases are beneficial to the economy as it provides grease for the wheels as it were.

[J-Ri]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

There's a lot of questions in there, many of which I can't answer without the full details of the production line logistics of car manufacture of the different cars sold in youyr country.
That is to say that the answer for each car is going to be different.

However, the one part that I can address is this.
It doesn't matter how much management gets paid because the high paid individuals do not make up the majority of the population of any country.
Their direct influence on the economy is negligable and next to meaningless.
In this respect, the car that helps the economy the most, is the one that provides the most jobs within the country.
The strength of an economy isn't just about the number of $/£ but more to do with the number of people who has $/£.

I take as my example, the Honda Civic.
The car is a Japanese car that is designed, manufactured and built in the UK.
It provided at it's peak 4200 jobs in the UK and that figure does not include the third part contractors that are involved in the processes of car manufacture.
Who do you think gets more money?
The few executives who get higher salaries or the collective majority of employees who get lower salaries?
Who would be spending more money on the proverbial "high street"; the few exectives or the majority of employees?

Of course, the Honda Civic is an unfair example as it is for all intent purposes a UK car but it shows why it is too simple to say that buying an import car hurts your countries economy. Of course that isn't to say that buying a truly home grown/developed car doesn't benefit more but the basic fact is, any sale of car helps the economy, especially when it isn't a sale based on credit.

You can't answer whether doing 90% of the work locally is better for the local economy than something that is done 50% locally? Those are just rough guesses, but from what I've seen, the majority of Japenese import parts are manufactured in Japan, shipped to the assembly line and assembled there.

Of course it matters how much management makes. The "big guys" make multi-millions of dollars a year, compared to $100k or so for the assembly line workers. I know it's not a lot of money per vehicle, but multiply a few dollars by millions of vehicles and all of a sudden we're talking about real money. And that money will spent, primarily, locally... wherever "locally" is.

Lets see some documentation that says the Civic was designed in the UK.

How can you say helping less isn't hurting? Lets say someone is going to make a large purchase, and decide to buy something made close to home. Now they decide to buy something that's only assembled close to home. All the same jobs need to be done to get the product from raw materials into a finished product. By purchasing the one that isn't made entirely locally, you are taking money away from local people. If I was going to give you $1, then someone comes along and says "Only give him $.75", did they help you or hurt you?

[drunken monkey]

That's kinda my point.
I don't know how many domestic cars in your country are 90% US made or how many import brand cars are 50% foreign made (or any other percentage).

Of course it stands that the more a car is made domestically, the more it plays a part in your country's economy but my point with the Honda Civic is that a foreign brand doesn't automatically mean it is a "foreign" car.

Incidentally, I got my facts wrong with the Civic.
It was the 2001 Civic which the UK Honda R&D were part of and it is only the hatchback Type-R of the current model that is/was developed in the UK.
I put that and the fact that Mugen UK is a key office in the development and assumed that the current Civic was a UK job.


Going back to the salaries.
It's like this.
Let's take a common spending ground; groceries.
Who is going to be spending more in total on groceries per week;
The few high paid executives or the many lower paid workers?
Let's use the 4200 figure for the UK Honda employees.
Let's say 200 of those are higher paid people.
Let's say they spend a whopping £400 on shopping per week.
That would equate to a rediculous £80,000 a week total.
Let's assume that the other guys spend £50 a week.
That would equate to £200,000 a week.

Can you see what I'm getting at?
It's about the number of people who get money to spend.
That also doesn't take into account the fact that Japan (as we're on Japanese cars at the moment) has very natural resources. Any metal/oil/gas it uses in its industry is imported; thus, Japanese manufacturing also plays a part in foreign economies anyway.

That is true for many other countries.
That is why it is a foolish and short-sighted idea to only buy products of your own country as a means to increase your own economy. The best way to boost your economy is to get other countries to buy your products as it increases trade globally and with trade comes confidence to commit to long term plans/developments in agreements.

Put it this way.
An American spends $50 in the US.
The net effect is zero because he hasn't added anything to the country; in effect he has just passed $50 on.
A foreign body comes and spends $50 which he brought from where-ever home is.
That $50 didn't originate in the US so it has added $50 to what was originally there.

That isn't to say that keeping money moving through the system isn't a good thing because it is and is why maintaining liquidity was the first area of concern when dealing with the recession but it is just one factor of the economy.

[Gohan Ryu]

lol you guys are still arguing that we should be forced to only buy American cars? Jeez even the Communists in the former Soviet Union weren't forced to buy crappy Russian cars (those that could afford cars, anyway!).

Would you also suggest that no one in other countries buy American cars? Because fair is fair in the world market, let's take away export sales from Ford/Dodge/GM, and force them to close all of their overseas plants. How does that help our economy? The way things are now GM probably makes more from overseas sales than domestic sales. Good way to shoot yourself in the foot.

[oakparkauto]

What the heck are you talking about?....

[hicky7]

There is no standard to buy or not to buy,people just buy the things what they want or need according to their personal use.