What Is an American Car?

On 01/27/09 10:51 am Steve wrote:

>>>> What Is an American Car?

>>> One manufactured in a plant owned and operated by Ford, GM, or
>>> Chrysler. End of story. Not a difficult question at all.
>>
>> Apparently it can be made in Mexico/Canada/Korea and have loads of
>> parts made all over the third world and still be an "American" car?

> Absolutely. Where is the majority ownership of the parent company? Where
> is the engineering design done? Where is the aesthetic design done?
> Those are the important questions. Assembly is, face it, gruntwork that
> can be done anywhere there's space for a plant, access to shipping
> infrastructure, workers, and/or assembly robots. The engineering and
> design are what matters the most.

But some cars with US brand names are simply relabeled foreign cars,
aren't they? What about the little Korean-made Chevy whose name I
forget? Is that a US design?

Perce

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Higgins wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>>> Jim Higgins wrote:
>>>> What Is an American Car?
>>>
>>>
>>> One manufactured in a plant owned and operated by Ford, GM, or Chrysler.
>>> End of story. Not a difficult question at all.
>>
>> Apparently it can be made in Mexico/Canada/Korea and have loads of parts
>> made all over the third world and still be an "American" car?
>>
>
> Absolutely. Where is the majority ownership of the parent company? Where
> is the engineering design done? Where is the aesthetic design done? Those
> are the important questions. Assembly is, face it, gruntwork that can be
> done anywhere there's space for a plant, access to shipping
> infrastructure, workers, and/or assembly robots. The engineering and
> design are what matters the most.
>

Actually, where the PROFITS are going are what matters most.

Most corporations IMHO hand out a paltry amount of profit to their
stockholders, many companies don't even bother to dividend anymore,
and those that do, their dividends are what they cannot figure out how to
spend. The bulk of the real profit is plowed back into expenditures on
the business.

And here is where the crux of the matter is.

What any country wants is for the high-dollar labor expenditure to be made
in that country. This is why there's such a fight over the H-1B visas given
to foreign tech workers. Those tech jobs are high-dollar labor and what
usually happens is the foreign national remits part of the money home, or
they
just bank it and then when their contract is over, they go back to their
country
and take their money with them. They are not spending any more money in the
US
and helping the US economy than a minimum wage employee would.

Sure, the Japanese automakers may be paying a bunch of grunt assembly jobs.
Those workers are just turning around and spending all their paycheck on
food and groceries. They aren't saving a huge pile of money, so when they
get
laid off they can start another business that helps the US economy. Instead
they go on unemployment which harms the economy. The high-dollar auto jobs
are in Japan, and those help the Japanese economy.

An American car is one where the people who got the big bucks for building
that car are spending those bucks in America, helping build up our economy.
They are making purchases for that company in America, not in Japan. They
are plowing as much profit as they can back into America, and jazzing up the
American economy.

The US is basically turning into an economy with a smaller and smaller
number
of educated, high-dollar employees who are doing the critical work that
requires
a lot of expertise, and a larger and larger number of lower-dollar,
uneducated
employees who are being told what to do by the first group, or worse by
people in
the first group who live in other countries. Only a handful of industries,
like medical,
construction, agriculture, and a few others, which require people to be here
and
cannot be outsourced, don't work like this. And those are increasingly
working to
draw in foreigners who come to the US and get educated, or bring their
education
with them, work and make their money, then leave and go back home. It is
not
a good situation.

Ted

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

>
> But some cars with US brand names are simply relabeled foreign cars,
> aren't they? What about the little Korean-made Chevy whose name I
> forget? Is that a US design?
>
> Perce
>

Yes, there have been foreign cars sold with US brands dating way back to
the 70s. But those are still FOREIGN cars and everyone knew it. Dodge
Colt (Mitsubishi), Geo Prism (Toyota), Ford Courier (Mazda), Plymouth
Cricket (Hillman), Chevy Luv (Isuzu) are all examples.

Steve wrote:
> Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>
>>
>> But some cars with US brand names are simply relabeled foreign cars,
>> aren't they? What about the little Korean-made Chevy whose name I
>> forget? Is that a US design?
>>
>> Perce
>>
>
> Yes, there have been foreign cars sold with US brands dating way back to
> the 70s. But those are still FOREIGN cars and everyone knew it. Dodge
> Colt (Mitsubishi), Geo Prism (Toyota), Ford Courier (Mazda), Plymouth
> Cricket (Hillman), Chevy Luv (Isuzu) are all examples.
>

Yet the rabid Detroit 2 apologists call them "American" cars. What irony!

--
Civis Romanus Sum

On Jan 28, 12:48*pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>
> >> But some cars with US brand names are simply relabeled foreign cars,
> >> aren't they? What about the little Korean-made Chevy whose name I
> >> forget? Is that a US design?
>
> >> Perce
>
> > Yes, there have been foreign cars sold with US brands dating way back to
> > the 70s. But those are still FOREIGN cars and everyone knew it. Dodge
> > Colt (Mitsubishi), Geo Prism (Toyota), Ford Courier (Mazda), Plymouth
> > Cricket (Hillman), Chevy Luv (Isuzu) are all examples.
>
> Yet the rabid Detroit 2 apologists call them "American" cars. *What irony!
>
> --
> Civis Romanus Sum

What irony?

You previously said "One manufactured in a plant owned and operated by Ford,
GM, or Chrysler.
End of story. Not a difficult question at all."

Thus -- by your definition -- Cologne Fords and Antwerp Opels are American.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Steve" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> Absolutely. Where is the majority ownership of the parent company? Where
> is the engineering design done? Where is the aesthetic design done? Those
> are the important questions. Assembly is, face it, gruntwork that can be
> done anywhere there's space for a plant, access to shipping
> infrastructure, workers, and/or assembly robots. The engineering and
> design are what matters the most.
>

This all just goes to show that the discussion about car's 'nationality' is
akin to the mediaeval debates about the number of angels on a pin.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> Actually, where the PROFITS are going are what matters most.
>
> Most corporations IMHO hand out a paltry amount of profit to their
> stockholders, many companies don't even bother to dividend anymore,
> and those that do, their dividends are what they cannot figure out how to
> spend. The bulk of the real profit is plowed back into expenditures on
> the business.
>
> And here is where the crux of the matter is.
>
> What any country wants is for the high-dollar labor expenditure to be made
> in that country. This is why there's such a fight over the H-1B visas
> given
> to foreign tech workers. Those tech jobs are high-dollar labor and what
> usually happens is the foreign national remits part of the money home, or
> they
> just bank it and then when their contract is over, they go back to their
> country
> and take their money with them. They are not spending any more money in
> the US
> and helping the US economy than a minimum wage employee would.
>
> Sure, the Japanese automakers may be paying a bunch of grunt assembly
> jobs.
> Those workers are just turning around and spending all their paycheck on
> food and groceries. They aren't saving a huge pile of money, so when they
> get
> laid off they can start another business that helps the US economy.
> Instead
> they go on unemployment which harms the economy. The high-dollar auto
> jobs
> are in Japan, and those help the Japanese economy.
>
> An American car is one where the people who got the big bucks for building
> that car are spending those bucks in America, helping build up our
> economy.
> They are making purchases for that company in America, not in Japan. They
> are plowing as much profit as they can back into America, and jazzing up
> the
> American economy.
>
> The US is basically turning into an economy with a smaller and smaller
> number
> of educated, high-dollar employees who are doing the critical work that
> requires
> a lot of expertise, and a larger and larger number of lower-dollar,
> uneducated
> employees who are being told what to do by the first group, or worse by
> people in
> the first group who live in other countries. Only a handful of
> industries, like medical,
> construction, agriculture, and a few others, which require people to be
> here and
> cannot be outsourced, don't work like this. And those are increasingly
> working to
> draw in foreigners who come to the US and get educated, or bring their
> education
> with them, work and make their money, then leave and go back home. It is
> not
> a good situation.
>
> Ted
>

Jim Higgins wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But some cars with US brand names are simply relabeled foreign cars,
>>> aren't they? What about the little Korean-made Chevy whose name I
>>> forget? Is that a US design?
>>>
>>> Perce
>>>
>>
>> Yes, there have been foreign cars sold with US brands dating way back
>> to the 70s. But those are still FOREIGN cars and everyone knew it.
>> Dodge Colt (Mitsubishi), Geo Prism (Toyota), Ford Courier (Mazda),
>> Plymouth Cricket (Hillman), Chevy Luv (Isuzu) are all examples.
>>
>
> Yet the rabid Detroit 2 apologists call them "American" cars. What irony!
>

No dumber than the rabid asian car apologists calling the San Antonio
built Tundra "American."

On Jan 27, 3:52*pm, Steve > wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
> > But they're not independent. *They share platforms with GM's American
> > cars. *
>
> The platform sharing is *very* loose indeed. Same floorpan and
> suspension, but literally EVERYTHING that attaches to it is different.
> Case in point: the Taurus is the same "platform" as a Volvo, but
> different engine, transmission, interior.... EVERYTHING.
>

GM is closer -- Malibu, Saab 9-3, Opel Vectra; plus Opel Speedster/
Saturn Sky...

> > Ditto engine families.
>
> Opel and GM have only very recently started swapping a very few engines
> across the pond.

2.2 Ecotec 4, 2.0 turbo Ecotec 4 now.

The L81 was used longitudinally in the Opel Omega, Cadillac Catera and
transversely in the Saturn L-Series, Saturn Vue and Saab 9000.

The 3.2 L LA3 is a complete redesign of the L81 for the Cadillac CTS
and Opel Omega B.

The Saab 2.8 V6 is a GM engine.

>
> > Opel has been part of GM since 1929.
> > It and Vauxhall are not even "direct" subsidiaries but under "GM
> > Europe" in corporate organization.
>
> My point exactly- they're not only largely independent, but they're a
> layer removed from the top. Utterly and completely different from
> Toyota's Kentucky and San Antonio plants... which are just that:
> assembly plants. Those plants are no more an American car company than
> Chrysler's Toulca plant is a Mexican car company, or their Bramlea plant
> is a Canadian car company.

You're missing the point.

"Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (TEMA)

[Note the Incorporated -- that means it's a subsidiary]

"TEMA is responsible for Toyota's North American engineering design,
advanced research and development,

[Note the above -- it's not just assembly plants]


>and growing manufacturing activities in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.* TEMA was created in April 2006 following the consolidation of Toyota Technical Center and Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America. TEMA employs more than 30,000 team members and operates 13 parts and vehicle manufacturing plants across North America.

TEMA provides engineering design and development, R&D and centralized
support to Toyota's North American manufacturing plants.


>
> * It seems grasping at straws to call a Toyota made by
>
> > Toyota USA Japanese but a car made by GM Europe European.
>
> Not at all, when you dig beneath the surface the least bit. Chrysler's
> former Austrailian division was much like Opel- very largely independent
> of the parent company.

Except Opel isn't. Not when GM forces divisions to use common
platforms and engines, decides which site gets to design said
platforms and engines, etc.

On Jan 27, 6:13*pm, "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote:
> "Steve" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Jim Higgins wrote:
> >> Steve wrote:
> >>> Jim Higgins wrote:
> >>>> What Is an American Car?
>
> >>> One manufactured in a plant owned and operated by Ford, GM, or Chrysler.
> >>> End of story. Not a difficult question at all.
>
> >> Apparently it can be made in Mexico/Canada/Korea and have loads of parts
> >> made all over the third world and still be an "American" car?
>
> > Absolutely. Where is the majority ownership of the parent company? Where
> > is the engineering design done? Where is the aesthetic design done? Those
> > are the important questions. Assembly is, face it, gruntwork that can be
> > done anywhere there's space for a plant, access to shipping
> > infrastructure, workers, and/or assembly robots. The engineering and
> > design are what matters the most.
>
> Actually, where the PROFITS are going are what matters most.
>

Any American can buy stock in Toyota. Plus, what about the profits
dealers make? Suppliers? Heck, what about worker salaries?

> Most corporations IMHO hand out a paltry amount of profit to their
> stockholders, many companies don't even bother to dividend anymore,

Totally false. The main ones who don't are tech companies and those
in trouble.

> and those that do, their dividends are what they cannot figure out how to
> spend. *The bulk of the real profit is plowed back into expenditures on
> the business.

So why would people buy the stock?

>
> And here is where the crux of the matter is.
>
> What any country wants is for the high-dollar labor expenditure to be made
> in that country. *This is why there's such a fight over the H-1B visas given
> to foreign tech workers. *Those tech jobs are high-dollar labor and what
> usually happens is the foreign national remits part of the money home, or
> they
> just bank it and then when their contract is over, they go back to their
> country
> and take their money with them. *They are not spending any more money in the
> US
> and helping the US economy than a minimum wage employee would.

So all the time they're here, what, they're getting food sent from
back home? Transportation? Clothes?

>
> Sure, the Japanese automakers may be paying a bunch of grunt assembly jobs.
> Those workers are just turning around and spending all their paycheck on
> food and groceries.

Uh, $25 a hour buys more than food and groceries.


>*They aren't saving a huge pile of money, so when they
> get
> laid off they can start another business that helps the US economy. *Instead
> they go on unemployment which harms the economy.

What?


>*The high-dollar auto jobs
> are in Japan, and those help the Japanese economy.

Toyota employs engineers, designers, etc. here too.

>
> An American car is one where the people who got the big bucks for building
> that car are spending those bucks in America, helping build up our economy.

So you consider what, just the million-dollar executives? The rank-
and-file workers help our economy much more, just by numbers.

> They are making purchases for that company in America, not in Japan. *They
> are plowing as much profit as they can back into America, and jazzing up the
> American economy.
>
> The US is basically turning into an economy with a smaller and smaller
> number
> of educated, high-dollar employees who are doing the critical work that
> requires
> a lot of expertise, and a larger and larger number of lower-dollar,
> uneducated
> employees who are being told what to do by the first group, or worse by
> people in
> the first group who live in other countries. *Only a handful of industries,
> like medical,
> construction, agriculture, and a few others, which require people to be here
> and
> cannot be outsourced, don't work like this. *And those are increasingly
> working to
> draw in foreigners who come to the US and get educated, or bring their
> education
> with them, work and make their money, then leave and go back home. *It is
> not
> a good situation.
>
> Ted