Post by Dan BloomquistPost by Fred WeissWe all should do what we are most efficient/competitive at. This has
been a well-established principle of economics for over 150 years -
see David Ricardo's "Law of Comparative Advantage".
See the BBC documentary, 'The Century of the Self'. It was pretty
obvious that we should have started fixing this in the seventies. What
'we should have done' is just that. Here we are now.
I don't know what you - or they - think "we should have done". There
are no such "shoulds" in economics. The only "should" is that the
market should determine what is or isn't done in terms of the greatest
efficiencies and highest returns. That's to the best interest of
everyone - even those who may be hurt by it in the very short term.
Many new opportunities were opened to buggy makers with the advent of
the automobile, some no doubt far more lucrative.
Post by Dan BloomquistPost by Fred WeissWe long ago stopped being efficient/competitive in the manufacture of
automobiles - thanks in no small measure to the UAW.
Right, it was all the working class's fault.
The "working class"? No. The unions, yes. Along with onerous gov't
regulations, they have destroyed whole industries and sent others
overseas to save their businesses from bankruptcy.
A relative handful of workers have benefited at the expense of all the
rest who lost their jobs - and of course we, the rest of the
population, who have been forced to subsidize it, in effect to pay
tribute to union blackmail and thuggery.
But at least some workers are finally getting the picture that unions
are a death sentence which is why union membership is under 15% of the
workforce (and a lot of that is gov't workers).
(The best and most ambitious workers don't need unions. Their skills
and high motivation will always be in demand and the best companies
will eagerly pay for it - and if they don't, they can always find
companies that will, or they go into business for themselves. Unions
exist to protect the incompetent and slackers which is why unionized
companies/industries are among the least productive and profitable,
e.g the airlines, the auto manufacturers, chain supermarkets, not to
mention the USPS and the public schools.)
Post by Dan BloomquistSee 'dollar yen' and explain 'cheap dollar'. Japan has been in a real
pickle for the last couple of decades.
Your info on Japan is a little outdated. Their economy has been on the
mend in recent years and the yen relatively strong against the dollar.
Btw, do you remember the widespread fears - even outright hysteria -
a couple of decades ago that Japan was "buying up" the USA? Nothing
came of it of course and we no longer hear yapping about gov't/
industry "partnership" which was supposedly the successful Japanese
model but which was revealed to be nothing more than cronyism.
Post by Dan BloomquistMy son drives a TDI Jetta that gets better than 50 mpg and there is
nothing dangerous about that vehicle. You are creating another strawman.
And apparently for a partisan agenda.
A new Jetta starts at over $15,000 and can quickly go over $20,000. I
was thinking of something that might go for as little as $5,000 and no
more than $10,000.
Incidentally, I wasn't commenting negatively about the safety issue.
That's a matter of personal choice, so long as you are not endangering
others. If you are willing to take the chance of being flattened like
pancake in an accident, that should be your choice.
I was merely noting that a high - even *very* high - mpg car should be
relatively easy to manufacture but it may require making it very
lightweight, hence my description of it as a "tin can on wheels". It
will undoubtedly however require dispensing with many gov't
regulations and many tariff and trade restraint agreements (and may
well have to be made in China) - which of course is why no leftard
will ever recommend such a course. When China was under Mao, maybe.
But certainly not now.
Fred Weiss
