[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Casca]

No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]

Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.

Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.

The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Casca]

No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]

Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.

Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.

The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).[/quote]
I disagree that unions necessarily undermine competitiveness.
I think it would be more accurate to say that short-sighted unions perform poorly at representing the long-term needs of their members.
Saying that unions are anti-competitive is like saying regulation is anti-competitive.
I seem to remember a giant phone company when I was a kid whose regulation led to a much more diverse and innovative telecommunications environment.
I think it would also be fair to say that companies that get too large (and that includes unions) are anticompetitive.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).[/quote]
I disagree that unions necessarily undermine competitiveness.
I think it would be more accurate to say that short-sighted unions perform poorly at representing the long-term needs of their members.
Saying that unions are anti-competitive is like saying regulation is anti-competitive.
I seem to remember a giant phone company when I was a kid whose regulation led to a much more diverse and innovative telecommunications environment.
I think it would also be fair to say that companies that get too large (and that includes unions) are anticompetitive.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).[/quote]
I disagree that unions necessarily undermine competitiveness.
I think it would be more accurate to say that short-sighted unions perform poorly at representing the long-term needs of their members.
Saying that unions are anti-competitive is like saying regulation is anti-competitive.
I seem to remember a giant phone company when I was a kid whose regulation led to a much more diverse and innovative telecommunications environment.
I think it would also be fair to say that companies that get too large (and that includes unions) are anticompetitive.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).[/quote]
I disagree that unions necessarily undermine competitiveness.
I think it would be more accurate to say that short-sighted unions perform poorly at representing the long-term needs of their members.
Saying that unions are anti-competitive is like saying regulation is anti-competitive.
I seem to remember a giant phone company when I was a kid whose regulation led to a much more diverse and innovative telecommunications environment.
I think it would also be fair to say that companies that get too large (and that includes unions) are anticompetitive.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).[/quote]
I disagree that unions necessarily undermine competitiveness.
I think it would be more accurate to say that short-sighted unions perform poorly at representing the long-term needs of their members.
Saying that unions are anti-competitive is like saying regulation is anti-competitive.
I seem to remember a giant phone company when I was a kid whose regulation led to a much more diverse and innovative telecommunications environment.
I think it would also be fair to say that companies that get too large (and that includes unions) are anticompetitive.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Nope.
The problem is that they don’t have a 20+ legacy of really reliable cars.
Basic free market imperatives kill them.
Only Lou Dobbs and fools wave their flag at the cash register.

People get vitriolic about the poor decisions made by the unions and the companies.

However, if the companies were doing really well and the workers were being paid really well, then I don’t think this conversation about “lazy” union workers (probably better described as “poorly represented”) would be happening.

But the unemployment rate in the Detroit area (where my family, over a century ago started working in real estate) is not my concern when I buy a car.

What concerns me is the fact that Hondas and Toyotas often last 20 years as a primary vehicle and remain fun to drive.

It is not some conspiracy that gives Japanese cars great resale values.

I am not willing to gamble with reliability to support (or, more precisely, enable) a bad company just because its headquarters are in the lower 48.

If American vehicles were to start offering Hyundai (a brand earning a rep for reliability) style warranties (10 year, 100,000 mile, bumper to bumper), then I would really seriously consider them.

Currently they offer the least competitive warranty (5 year, 60,000 mile, power train).

That tells me they don’t believe in their own cars.

If they don’t trust their own products, why should I?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Nope.
The problem is that they don’t have a 20+ legacy of really reliable cars.
Basic free market imperatives kill them.
Only Lou Dobbs and fools wave their flag at the cash register.

People get vitriolic about the poor decisions made by the unions and the companies.

However, if the companies were doing really well and the workers were being paid really well, then I don’t think this conversation about “lazy” union workers (probably better described as “poorly represented”) would be happening.

But the unemployment rate in the Detroit area (where my family, over a century ago started working in real estate) is not my concern when I buy a car.

What concerns me is the fact that Hondas and Toyotas often last 20 years as a primary vehicle and remain fun to drive.

It is not some conspiracy that gives Japanese cars great resale values.

I am not willing to gamble with reliability to support (or, more precisely, enable) a bad company just because its headquarters are in the lower 48.

If American vehicles were to start offering Hyundai (a brand earning a rep for reliability) style warranties (10 year, 100,000 mile, bumper to bumper), then I would really seriously consider them.

Currently they offer the least competitive warranty (5 year, 60,000 mile, power train).

That tells me they don’t believe in their own cars.

If they don’t trust their own products, why should I?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Nope.
The problem is that they don’t have a 20+ legacy of really reliable cars.
Basic free market imperatives kill them.
Only Lou Dobbs and fools wave their flag at the cash register.

People get vitriolic about the poor decisions made by the unions and the companies.

However, if the companies were doing really well and the workers were being paid really well, then I don’t think this conversation about “lazy” union workers (probably better described as “poorly represented”) would be happening.

But the unemployment rate in the Detroit area (where my family, over a century ago started working in real estate) is not my concern when I buy a car.

What concerns me is the fact that Hondas and Toyotas often last 20 years as a primary vehicle and remain fun to drive.

It is not some conspiracy that gives Japanese cars great resale values.

I am not willing to gamble with reliability to support (or, more precisely, enable) a bad company just because its headquarters are in the lower 48.

If American vehicles were to start offering Hyundai (a brand earning a rep for reliability) style warranties (10 year, 100,000 mile, bumper to bumper), then I would really seriously consider them.

Currently they offer the least competitive warranty (5 year, 60,000 mile, power train).

That tells me they don’t believe in their own cars.

If they don’t trust their own products, why should I?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Nope.
The problem is that they don’t have a 20+ legacy of really reliable cars.
Basic free market imperatives kill them.
Only Lou Dobbs and fools wave their flag at the cash register.

People get vitriolic about the poor decisions made by the unions and the companies.

However, if the companies were doing really well and the workers were being paid really well, then I don’t think this conversation about “lazy” union workers (probably better described as “poorly represented”) would be happening.

But the unemployment rate in the Detroit area (where my family, over a century ago started working in real estate) is not my concern when I buy a car.

What concerns me is the fact that Hondas and Toyotas often last 20 years as a primary vehicle and remain fun to drive.

It is not some conspiracy that gives Japanese cars great resale values.

I am not willing to gamble with reliability to support (or, more precisely, enable) a bad company just because its headquarters are in the lower 48.

If American vehicles were to start offering Hyundai (a brand earning a rep for reliability) style warranties (10 year, 100,000 mile, bumper to bumper), then I would really seriously consider them.

Currently they offer the least competitive warranty (5 year, 60,000 mile, power train).

That tells me they don’t believe in their own cars.

If they don’t trust their own products, why should I?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Nope.
The problem is that they don’t have a 20+ legacy of really reliable cars.
Basic free market imperatives kill them.
Only Lou Dobbs and fools wave their flag at the cash register.

People get vitriolic about the poor decisions made by the unions and the companies.

However, if the companies were doing really well and the workers were being paid really well, then I don’t think this conversation about “lazy” union workers (probably better described as “poorly represented”) would be happening.

But the unemployment rate in the Detroit area (where my family, over a century ago started working in real estate) is not my concern when I buy a car.

What concerns me is the fact that Hondas and Toyotas often last 20 years as a primary vehicle and remain fun to drive.

It is not some conspiracy that gives Japanese cars great resale values.

I am not willing to gamble with reliability to support (or, more precisely, enable) a bad company just because its headquarters are in the lower 48.

If American vehicles were to start offering Hyundai (a brand earning a rep for reliability) style warranties (10 year, 100,000 mile, bumper to bumper), then I would really seriously consider them.

Currently they offer the least competitive warranty (5 year, 60,000 mile, power train).

That tells me they don’t believe in their own cars.

If they don’t trust their own products, why should I?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=urbanrealtor]You have your version.
I have mine.[/quote]

Nigel: “I touched her in the corridor once”.
Blackadder: “In her where?”
Nigel: “Corridor”
Blackadder: “Funny, I’ve not heard it called that before”.[/quote]

“piggington going down”
heh heh

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=urbanrealtor]You have your version.
I have mine.[/quote]

Nigel: “I touched her in the corridor once”.
Blackadder: “In her where?”
Nigel: “Corridor”
Blackadder: “Funny, I’ve not heard it called that before”.[/quote]

“piggington going down”
heh heh

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=urbanrealtor]You have your version.
I have mine.[/quote]

Nigel: “I touched her in the corridor once”.
Blackadder: “In her where?”
Nigel: “Corridor”
Blackadder: “Funny, I’ve not heard it called that before”.[/quote]

“piggington going down”
heh heh

[Author]

Posts