Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity
Post Number: 192 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.215.224
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:03 am: | |
As the domestic Big Two and Stuttgart Chrysler continue their free fall towards irrelevance, $10k Chinese cars and Suv's are soon to land here. http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=2005512170304 |
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell
Post Number: 2060 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.167.59.58
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:12 am: | |
Saw that too, the Geely. Distant thunder on the horizon or the return of the Yugo? |
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine
Post Number: 699 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 70.236.147.161
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:12 am: | |
i've seen many pictures of these chinese cars and frankly the level of execution in these things, specifically the interiors, is no where near the established companies in this market...i don't think they are cause for worry in the short term, especially as domestic product gets better and up to the level of the japanese and germans every model year... |
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell
Post Number: 2061 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.167.59.58
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:25 am: | |
Don't underestimate adaption. Chinese manufacturers produce excellent laptops, just about all of them including the one from which this post orginates. |
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity
Post Number: 193 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.215.224
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:31 am: | |
Not the Yugo (sorry, but the balkan area is just not an engineering and industrial powerhouse), more like the Honda or the Toyota in a few years. |
Everyman Member Username: Everyman
Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 24.136.14.239
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:31 am: | |
Lowell is correct. A good example: For the longest, IBM's laptops have just been rebadged Lenovo (Chinese firm) products, but have been considered the industry standard. |
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity
Post Number: 194 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.215.224
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:41 am: | |
GM - Maybe no cause for worry at an equal price footing, but the Chinese cars will be half the price of its competitors. We are annoyingly addicted to inexpensive Chinese-made goods - think of almost every product in a Walmart/Kmart/Target store. I see the first GMart (Geely Motors) landing somewhere out in sprawlville soon and see Americans flocking there for their next car or suv. |
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity
Post Number: 195 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.215.224
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:45 am: | |
I am not sure that there is even a way to compete under the current economic arrangement. A shocking fact from the above article: "Geely's labor cost to build cars in China is only $3.50 an hour, said John Harmer, vice president and chief operating officer of Geely U.S.A. Compare that with General Motors Corp., which has hourly labor costs of $73.73 per worker, including health care costs for active workers and retirees, pensions and other expenses." |
Jfwaterburry Member Username: Jfwaterburry
Post Number: 26 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 68.20.88.38
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:54 am: | |
What do you all think about purchasing GM stock at its depressed value? I'm betting that another automaker will takeover before GM goes under. Thoughts? |
Citylover Member Username: Citylover
Post Number: 1442 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 4.229.132.113
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:43 pm: | |
Legacy costs and the intractable culture of G.M. and Ford to a degree as well are two huge problems. An example being Ford and G.M. have literally hundreds of catylytic(sp) converters........Toyota has about 5....same for Honda......where do we think the Chinese will take there cues? The legacy costs are well known.Huge medical and pension payouts for retirees that the Japanese co's don't do. I am not advocating these things should be stopped only saying they are definitely a huge problem. |
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 15 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 3:30 pm: | |
The US-built vehicles will go the way of the US-built stereos and TVs of the 1970s within this decade (or early teens). You might as well cede all low-cost models to the Pacific Rim. Only relatively expensive specialty US vehicles or those that are extremely popular, and, hopefully, profitable will remain. Figure on all of the Detroit Three to downsize to less than 1/2 its current size. Possibly, DC will be #3 or #4, following Toyota and Hyundai or Honda, in the US market. Ford and GM will go bankrupt and reorganize into smaller entities. |
My2cents Member Username: My2cents
Post Number: 108 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 24.253.67.62
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 3:55 pm: | |
An acquaintance sent this link to me this past October: http://www.tompaine.com/articl es/20050929/the_global_labor_t hreat.php |
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7
Post Number: 1850 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.5.195.127
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 3:56 pm: | |
Jfwaterburry wrote:What do you all think about purchasing GM stock at its depressed value? I'm betting that another automaker will takeover before GM goes under. Thoughts? To answer your question. Yes. I was talking to my brother two days ago about this and made the exact same statement. My reason is because of the artical in Newsweek magazine. Quote:China has the largest, steel, concrete and I think it was coal of any country out there. Japan doesn't have many of these resources and have to by from others. China doesn't have to do this. This makes so much easier to make cars with cheaper labor making them more competitve. I'm predicting that it will e a European company or Chinese that will take G.M. before it falls. |
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 16 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 4:38 pm: | |
About 80+% of GM's current worth is tied to GMAC's mortgages. GM is selling off about 60% of GMAC. It previously sold off Hughes (DirecTV) and other components which were profitable in order to pay its past current liabilities. Today, all, outside of vehicle production, that is left of the Ruins of GM is GMAC. Take the case of Rouge Industries when it went bankrupt two years ago. Today, it's Severstal, NA - a Russian company. Severstal bought its assets, but not the liabilities. Therefore, it did *not* buy the company, proper. If GM goes into liquidation, only the assets will be sold, and probably removed to a safer working environment (from a financial POV), most likely not in the US. |
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 1448 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.45.34
| Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 11:57 pm: | |
Sorry, I see this as being a bigger problem for the Japanese. The big three already can't compete against the Japanese vehicles in this market. The Big three don't build any really good b/c size vehicles. The Japanese own this piece of the market. The Camry and Prelude are this segment of the market. Now what happens to the Japanese when you cut $5K profit out of the equation. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 764 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 205.188.116.201
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:35 am: | |
they move their manufacturing to China, just like they're doing with the Prius |
Alexei289 Member Username: Alexei289
Post Number: 916 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.61.183.223
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:41 am: | |
either way... the chineese are going to have a hard time beating the us in the SUV and luxury vehical segment. The US dominates it. Everyone that goes into work for GM rides them to and from that place in their cars... and knows what they need. So i agree that this isnt a threat to the US companies but the japaneese that feed off this. What may really suck though is this may move the Japaneese out of that segment of the market and into ours...competing even more than they already are for it... then we will have a problem..... |
Citylover Member Username: Citylover
Post Number: 1446 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 4.229.123.88
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:57 am: | |
Luxury mkt? The Lexus by far is the highest quality luxury car out there......and I am fairly sure that Infiniti,Bmw,et,al foreign makers are of a much better quality than the U.S mfrs Btw there are (someone told me)over 120 cities in China with more population than Detroit.......and over 100 car co's........much like Detroit circa 1930..... |
Alexei289 Member Username: Alexei289
Post Number: 918 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.61.183.223
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:05 am: | |
American full size sedans and SUVs sell pretty well... |
Ray Member Username: Ray
Post Number: 609 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.208.36.242
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:08 am: | |
I'm back, and meaner than ever. Sounds like free trade is a horrible idea. I just have a few questions for the experts, since I don't know much about this stuff: Why is US industrial output including manufactured exports comprable if not higher today than it was a decade ago? How come unemployment in the US is at a historically very good rate of 5%? How come we've had low inflation and solid growth in the economy from 1983-2005 (TWENTY PLUS YEARS!) except for two brief (less than 12 months) recessions in 1991 and 2001. How come we're still one of the leading destinations for foriegn investment and how come the dollar is still the reserve currency of choice? How come I see help wanted signs all over northern california? How come it's so horrible if families in China and India have a crack at decent jobs? Don't their lives count too? Don't all these Asian workers also buy stuff? Is it possible that elevating hundreds of millions of people from poverty to Western standards of living might expand prosperity, peace and freedom and open vast new markets for American products and services? |
Digitaldom Member Username: Digitaldom
Post Number: 373 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 67.149.110.53
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 3:09 am: | |
Wow.. A car people can afford? What a concept? Gee I wonder if people will buy? Lol... Hey you give it a great warranty and people WILL buy it.. It's about time auto companies created a car that low income folks can afford (to some extent) |
My2cents Member Username: My2cents
Post Number: 109 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 24.253.67.62
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:26 pm: | |
The Global Labor Threat Thomas Palley September 29, 2005 Dr. Thomas Palley was chief economist of the US–China Economic and Security Review Commission. Prior to joining the Commission, he was director of the Open Society Institute’s Globalization Reform Project. He has written for The Atlantic Monthly, American Prospect and The Nation magazines. He can be reached at www.thomaspalley.com. If the United States were to add two billion low-wage workers, you'd expect that wages would fall across the board, right? Well, there is a famous theorem in international economics—the Stolper-Samuelson theorem—that says when a rich capital-abundant country (such as the United States) trades with a poor labor-abundant country (such as China), wages in the rich country fall and profits go up. The theorem’s economic logic is simple. Free trade is tantamount to a massive increase in the rich country’s labor supply, since the products made by poor country workers can now be imported. Additionally, demand for workers in the rich country falls as rich country firms abandon labor-intensive production to the poor country. The net result is an effective increase in labor supply and a decrease in labor demand in the rich country, and wages fall. The relevance of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem is clear. For the last two decades, U.S. policy makers, from both major political parties, have worked assiduously to create a global market place in which goods and capital are free to move. Over the same period, two and a half billion people in China, India, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have discarded economic isolationism and joined the global economy. Now, these two tectonic shifts are coming together in the form of a “super-sized” Stolper-Samuelson effect, and they stand to have depressing consequences for American workers. Much attention has been devoted to the adverse impacts of the U.S. trade deficit, particularly with China. And the U.S. government has been rightly criticized for failing to apply adequate pressure to get China to remedy its unfair and illegal trading practices. However, no one in Washington is talking about the deeper question of what happens to wages when two billion people from low-wage countries join the global labor market. Such an event is unprecedented in history. In the past, countries joined the international economy through a slow evolutionary process. Initially, they would export a few goods in which they specialized and had natural competitive advantage. Thereafter, countries would gradually deepen their involvement in international trade. The process was one of gradual integration, and production was largely immobile across countries. Globalization has changed this by accelerating the process of international integration. It has also made capital, technology and methods of production mobile, marking a watershed with the past. The new order is exemplified by China’s recent experiences. In fewer than two decades, China has become a global manufacturing powerhouse through massive foreign direct investment and technology transfer. The impact of this transformation on the U.S. economy is seen in the trade deficit, the loss of manufacturing jobs and downward pressure on wages. Whereas classical free trade connected goods markets across countries, globalization creates a global labor market and moves jobs. Previously trade arbitraged goods prices, now it also arbitrages wages through job shifting. With the emergence of China, India and Eastern Europe, the dam of Socialism that held back two billion workers has been removed. If two swimming pools are joined, the water level will eventually equalize. That is what is happening with globalization. Manufacturing has already been placed in competition across countries, with dire consequences for manufacturing workers. The internet promises to do the same for previously un-tradable services, and higher-paid knowledge workers will start feeling similar effects. Not since the industrial revolution has there been a transformation of this magnitude, and that revolution took one hundred and fifty years to complete. By comparison the new revolution is a mere 25 years old. These developments have a significance that goes far beyond the currency manipulation and WTO rules violations that have been the focus of trade deficit policy discussions. There is no reason to think the end is in sight, and American workers can look forward to the international economy exerting downward pressure on wages and work conditions for the next several decades. As is so often the case, workers have understood the new reality long before economists and policymakers. Workers realize that trade is no longer a matter of exchanging exotic commodities for manufactured products, and that the new system involves trading their jobs and arbitraging wages. Especially bitter is the fact that the process of globalization is being driven by large American multinational corporations that American workers helped build. U.S. policymakers have also abandoned American workers by promoting free trade agreements that have de facto created a global labor market that threatens workers’ livelihoods and economic security. Globalization demands that we begin anew the task of establishing fair and just rules that make the economy work for all. This challenge is the same as that faced by American workers at the beginning of the 20th century. Unions, minimum wages, and fair labor practices were essential to meeting that challenge, and they are essential again. But such tools are no longer sufficient when applied nationally. They must be applied globally. That means China, India and other industrializing developing countries must agree to, and enforce, core labor standards and worker rights. Trade cannot be free without worker freedom and the right to share in the wealth created. Successive administrations have pushed free trade without worker protections and they have given the green light to a global system without core labor standards. Through poor diplomacy and lax enforcement we have given away access to U.S. markets and valuable negotiating leverage without getting commitments on labor standards in recent free trade agreements. The consequences of these trade policies and the reality of the new global system must be exposed so that our approach can be changed. This is a task that will not be easy given Washington’s captive economic policy elite and big business’ interest in concealing the new reality. http://www.tompaine.com/articl es/20050929/the_global_labor_t hreat.php |
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker
Post Number: 567 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 63.157.236.136
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:36 pm: | |
Have any of the Chinese cars passed a US crash test yet? From what I remember, none produced so far could, same for those high mpg euro cars that we'll never see here. |
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus
Post Number: 62 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 209.114.251.65
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 3:35 pm: | |
my2cents: Congrats on finding an article by the only economist who is not in support of Free Trade. Truly, a needle in a haystack. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 765 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 66.89.12.30
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 3:55 pm: | |
quote:Since the end of 2003, average real wages have fallen by 3.2%, while productivity is up by 5.1%. Even managers -- supposedly the best-off sector of the workforce -- have seen a 4% decline in real wages since the end of 2003, despite the fact that the unemployment rate for managers is a meager 2.2%. What's worse, Americans are working harder and harder, even as they're getting paid less and less. The November employment report, released Dec. 2, showed that 18.3% of the workforce puts in 49 hours or more per week. That's up from 17.8% a year ago. http://www.businessweek.com/in vestor/content/dec2005/pi20051 26_8936.htm?campaign_id=search
|
My2cents Member Username: My2cents
Post Number: 111 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 24.253.67.62
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 4:59 pm: | |
Thanks Spartacus. Needle in a haystack, indeed. Too bad ol' Carl Levin did not have this foresight all those years ago when he was on the NAFTA bandwagon and participating in the destruction of my beloved hometown and state. Then again mayhaps he did. No discusion on the big two is complete with out this foundation in economic history, IMHO. With that said, I am not that smart nor well educated. An esteemed friend who is, pointed this piece of history out to me in response as well, elsewhere, and I would like to share it here: It goes a lot further back than that. Adam Smith, a British economist who has been quoted by American statesmen, and Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote, in his book Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, "If the free importation of foreign manufactures were permitted, several of the home manufactures would probably suffer, and some of them, perhaps, go to ruin altogether...". He noted that "two great engines for enriching the country, therefore, were restraints upon importation, and encouragements to exportation." Mr. Smith had studied under Professor Francis Hutcheson, who had written, in his book System of Moral Philosophy, in the chapter Of the Nature of Civil Laws and their Execution: "Foreign materials should be imported and even premiums given, when necessary, that all our own hands may be employed; and that, by exporting them again manufactured, we may obtain from abroad the price of our labours. Foreign manufactures and products ready for consumption should be made dear to the consumer by high duties, if we cannot altogether prohibit the consumption;..." |
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 1449 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.234
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 5:08 pm: | |
No Chinese designed vehicles have passed the crash tests yet. They haven't passed the EPA's mandates either. Most of the chinese vehicle pass older Euro enviromental specs but are not up to the current European requirements. That's why they are talking about importation not starting until at least 2008. |
My2cents Member Username: My2cents
Post Number: 112 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 24.253.67.62
| Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 5:12 pm: | |
Thanks Lilpup for the link. Another good source for further reading on this subject is: Dilemmas of Domination : The Unmaking of the American Empire [The American Empire Project] (American Empire Project) by Walden Bello Published March 2005 |
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 865 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 64.142.86.133
| Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:51 am: | |
Ever stop to think that GM Ford and Chrysler could just make their North American cars in China and export them? Ah, there you go. Problem solved. It is already happening. The build them there for the Chinese market. Why not for export? The Chevy Equinox V6 is already shipped from China. Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are in the same boat. Their north american plants cost just about as much per hour as GM and Ford. Those plants will need to change too. |