So, I'm wondering...

[Camino LS6]

Just how much wealth have we exported by buying foreign cars since 1970?

[vonVeezelsnider]

Just how much wealth have we exported by buying foreign cars since 1970?

I recall seeing that statistic somewhere... let me dig it up in today's dollars.

[daves87rs]

A lot.

[Camino LS6]

I recall seeing that statistic somewhere... let me dig it up in today's dollars.

Thanks.

I think that this is the sort of question we need to be asking ourselves today.

We've ignored such realities for far too long.

[longtooth]

Thanks.

I think that this is the sort of question we need to be asking ourselves today.

We've ignored such realities for far too long.

Even if we knew.

To the fraction of a cent, what's the use?

May as well imbue a seagull with the knowledge for the good it would do.

The fact that we're leveling the playing-field, at our expense, is somewhat reprehensible.

The populace here's so diverse, diffuse that you would have twenty special interest groups howling in protest for their ox if it were being gored.

We lack the unity, the courage and the homogeneous make-up of our competitors.

The ruthlessness.

[cletus8269]

i'll stick with my earlier answer of eleventy billion a year

[Satty]

Foreign branded or foreign built? Because we have to remember, over the last 30 or so years, Honda, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, BMW Nissan and (for a while at least) VW have built plants in the U.S. while Ford, GM and Chrysler have been moving production facilities to Canada and Mexico and wherever else they can avoid paying U.S. workers. You have to take into account that if those companies didn't open their facilities here, even more Americans would be unemployed right now. How much money have those plants brought in for the people who work them?

[Camino LS6]

Foreign branded or foreign built? Because we have to remember, over the last 30 or so years, Honda, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, BMW Nissan and (for a while at least) VW have built plants in the U.S. while Ford, GM and Chrysler have been moving production facilities to Canada and Mexico and wherever else they can avoid paying U.S. workers. You have to take into account that if those companies didn't open their facilities here, even more Americans would be unemployed right now. How much money have those plants brought in for the people who work them?

The answer to your question is squat.

GM alone dramatically overshadows all of the transplants contributions just in employment, let alone what you have when Ford and Chrysler are added.

Economic activity surrounding the domestics is like a tidal wave compared to the isolated raindrops the transplants provide via employment.

Those foreign plants are merely vehicles for exporting wealth.

All of which is beside the point.

We need to know the answers to such questions as the one I began this thread with before we can even begin to know what to do about it.

[Justin Bimmer]

I think the 26,000 GM is laying off is more than the non-US companies have employed here.

Like it was said, Toyota boasts how it has 8 plants in America. GM has(d) 8 in Ohio. (At the time I saw the billboard, things could have changed in 2 years.)

[pow]

Trade creates and multiplies wealth - buying an Astra in the US, for instance, credits the German current account, which allows them in return to purchase something from the US that we have a comparative advantage in.

[Camino LS6]

Trade creates and multiplies wealth - buying an Astra in the US, for instance, credits the German current account, which allows them in return to purchase something from the US that we have a comparative advantage in.

Nice,tidy, little theory there.

It's the balance sheet of the last 3-4 decades I'm thinking of.

Net loss is what I see there.

[Camino LS6]

I recall seeing that statistic somewhere... let me dig it up in today's dollars.

Any luck yet?

[vonVeezelsnider]

Any luck yet?

not yet, still looking...

[Camino LS6]

OK, I'll keep my eyes open for your post.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

THEORETICALLY one could say that people buying Toyota/Honda in the past has increased wealth here in the US of A because they did not have to spend money repairing their vehicles and thus could use it to invest in new companies for the US economy.

anyways mercantilism is kinda dead, and considering we have a fiat currency system, buying foreign actually DAMPENS inflation here in the US, and it is rather irrelevant if we buy imports or not because we will just print up new cash anyways. Provided other countries do not tinker with their currencies (which they do) then when a country has a lot of sales to the US, they should have more US dollars which will weaken the dollar against their currency. Theoretically it would reach a point where exporting to the US would not make sense because Americans would not be able to afford/willing to pay for the exports, which would force them to build plants in the US of A to avoid currency fluctuations.

Of course none of this actually happens in the real world because people do not play by the rules. And since China's current idea of economic growth is print a crapload of money each year and grow by inflation, i don't think we will be seeing a difference in trade imbalances with them any time soon.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[balthazar]

>>"Foreign branded or foreign built? "<<

Foreign corporations. Assembly point is secondary at best, esp RE the question at hand.

[Drew Dowdell]

Trade creates and multiplies wealth - buying an Astra in the US, for instance, credits the German current account, which allows them in return to purchase something from the US that we have a comparative advantage in.

Globalism averages wealth out around the globe. As the wealthiest country on the planet, guess what that does to us.

[balthazar]

^ Right:

>>"...buying an Astra in the US, for instance, credits the German current account, which allows them in return to purchase something from the US...."<<

Once executed, that above in black is fact, but that in red is only a possibility- not a guarantee, which makes the whole = theory.

[A Horse With No Name]

THEORETICALLY one could say that people buying Toyota/Honda in the past has increased wealth here in the US of A because they did not have to spend money repairing their vehicles and thus could use it to invest in new companies for the US economy.

anyways mercantilism is kinda dead, and considering we have a fiat currency system, buying foreign actually DAMPENS inflation here in the US, and it is rather irrelevant if we buy imports or not because we will just print up new cash anyways. Provided other countries do not tinker with their currencies (which they do) then when a country has a lot of sales to the US, they should have more US dollars which will weaken the dollar against their currency. Theoretically it would reach a point where exporting to the US would not make sense because Americans would not be able to afford/willing to pay for the exports, which would force them to build plants in the US of A to avoid currency fluctuations.

Of course none of this actually happens in the real world because people do not play by the rules. And since China's current idea of economic growth is print a crapload of money each year and grow by inflation, i don't think we will be seeing a difference in trade imbalances with them any time soon.

I would agree with you on the honest money thing. The only way to have a truely free market is to have honest money.

Chris

[pow]

Globalism averages wealth out around the globe. As the wealthiest country on the planet, guess what that does to us.

Our relative wealth drops, but our absolute wealth would continue to grow.

[Camino LS6]

Our relative wealth drops, but our absolute wealth would continue to grow.

Huh?

Am I the only one that finds this nonsensical?

What is wealth, if not relative?

[pow]

Huh?

Am I the only one that finds this nonsensical?

What is wealth, if not relative?

The wealth of other nations will increase relative to ours - they will start having purchasing power closer to ours, etc - but that doesn't mean we're any worse off in wealth.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

The irony is that by the time the global economy equalizes, we will all be no better off than when the world was agricultural based, relatively speaking (of course we will have neat gizmos though). The only difference is we will rely on others for food instead of ourselves.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Camino LS6]

The wealth of other nations will increase relative to ours - they will start having purchasing power closer to ours, etc - but that doesn't mean we're any worse off in wealth.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Globalism will bankrupt us, and our wealth will be parted out like an old car.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Globalism will bankrupt us, and our wealth will be parted out like an old car.

Naw, Globalism will eventually put us right back at square one, with manufacturing and everything back at home because it doesnt really make sense to offshore it to a place where the costs are the same.

[Camino LS6]

Poverty for all!

[Drew Dowdell]

Our relative wealth drops, but our absolute wealth would continue to grow.

Oh good. The economist's way of saying "The rich get richer and the poor get to eat cake"

[Drew Dowdell]

The wealth of other nations will increase relative to ours - they will start having purchasing power closer to ours, etc - but that doesn't mean we're any worse off in wealth.

uh, yes it does if the way the other countries are getting wealthy is by taking the wealth from us.

[Camino LS6]

I hope we actually get the answer to my question at some point - I think it would be impressive.

[Drew Dowdell]

Naw, Globalism will eventually put us right back at square one, with manufacturing and everything back at home because it doesnt really make sense to offshore it to a place where the costs are the same.

It's going to be fuel costs that will do it. Once energy prices spike back up again, you'll see a push to repatriate manufacturing.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Half of you seemed quite keen on "spreading the wealth" in the elections, why are you not so keen to spread it around the world? After all, us rich (relatively) Americans are not paying our fair share to the impoverished people of China/India/Africa/South America/Eastern Bloc/Russia nations.

Not to get into a political thing, but really this is the same damn thing, except one benefits efficiency whereas the other benefits inefficiency.

[Camino LS6]

Half of you seemed quite keen on "spreading the wealth" in the elections, why are you not so keen to spread it around the world? After all, us rich (relatively) Americans are not paying our fair share to the impoverished people of China/India/Africa/South America/Eastern Bloc/Russia nations.

Not to get into a political thing, but really this is the same damn thing, except one benefits efficiency whereas the other benefits inefficiency.

I'm certainly not "keen" for either one.

And I really don't care all that much about the rest of the world (just being honest here).

And I certainly don't want the rest of the world to benefit at our expense!

[Drew Dowdell]

Half of you seemed quite keen on "spreading the wealth" in the elections, why are you not so keen to spread it around the world? After all, us rich (relatively) Americans are not paying our fair share to the impoverished people of China/India/Africa/South America/Eastern Bloc/Russia nations.

Not to get into a political thing, but really this is the same damn thing, except one benefits efficiency whereas the other benefits inefficiency.

If what you mean by "spreading the wealth" you mean "returning to Clinton era tax rates" then sure.... I'm all for it.

And no, it's not the same thing. I am all for global trade on a level playing field. We are not on a level playing field in terms of currency and trade restrictions. We'll let just about anyone sell here in the US but US is not allow to sell in substantial quantities to other countries. If General Motors were allowed to compete in Japan and they failed... well then that's their fault.... but General Motors isn't even allowed to compete there. The best they could manage was a rebadged Cavalier sold at Toyota dealerships. When the Asians open up their borders to trade the way we have, then I'm all for globalization. That said, I have no problem parking a battleship in Tokyo Bay in order to do it.

[Daryl Z71]

If what you mean by "spreading the wealth" you mean "returning to Clinton era tax rates" then sure.... I'm all for it.

And no, it's not the same thing. I am all for global trade on a level playing field. We are not on a level playing field in terms of currency and trade restrictions. We'll let just about anyone sell here in the US but US is not allow to sell in substantial quantities to other countries. If General Motors were allowed to compete in Japan and they failed... well then that's their fault.... but General Motors isn't even allowed to compete there. The best they could manage was a rebadged Cavalier sold at Toyota dealerships. When the Asians open up their borders to trade the way we have, then I'm all for globalization. That said, I have no problem parking a battleship in Tokyo Bay in order to do it.

Exactly.

[Camino LS6]

I honestly hope that this crisis sets globalism back several decades. I have no interest in living in a lowest-common-denominator world directed by a global hegemony.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Well there is a GM japan that sells Opels, Chevy (well the corvette), Caddys and uh... Saab for some reason.

As to Camino, go out there and innovate! The more Americans innovate the more we stay on top. The less we innovate and become protective socialists, the more we become "lowest common denominator" both globally and nationally.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Camino LS6]

I'm sure you know by now that socialism is deeply offensive to my thinking. :AH-HA_wink:

Thing is, I see globalism as a more insidious form of the same thing.