Ford chief seeks help from Toyota

> wrote in message news:45994388.922160@localhost...
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:55:43 GMT, "Jeff" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Nicholas Anthony" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>>> news:zpZlh.8387$tc5.79@trnddc01...

<...>

>>Gee, I don't know, the people who already build tanks. Who made planes
>>during the war? IBM.
> Actually IBM made rifles during the war. Sounds funny till you
> understand the tooling machines they already had making parts
> for cash registers and scales.

You're correct. I mistakenly thought they made planes too. I guess TJ
Watson, Jr., flying generals around Europe was enough. They also made the
accounting machines that help track soldiers and money and stuff for the War
Department (in both the US and Germany), and greatly helped the war effort
this way as well as their computing machinery helped developed the atomic
bombs.

Jeff

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...e+Labeling+Act

Good info about 'made in the USA'.
--
Mac Cool

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:zp8mh.2667$kB3.2296@trnddc08...
>
> "Nicholas Anthony" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>> news:zpZlh.8387$tc5.79@trnddc01...
>>
>>> I don't see America doing anything special to help Ford or GM. Pan Am
>>> and Eastern were icons too. Unless Ford can turn around fast, I see the
>>> bankruptcy court being involved in Ford's fate. Plus, the problems that
>>> Chrysler had in the 80s were differnet than what Ford has now, I think
>>> (I don't recall what they were - I was young back then). Another
>>> difference is that Toyota builds about 1/2 their cars in the US. Most of
>>> the US-built cars have mostly US parts (no US car has enough US content
>>> to be called "Made in America," however, according to FTC standards).
>>>
>>> Think about other American icons that have slipped recently. IBM comes
>>> to mind. They invented the IBM-compatible PC, but don't make any after
>>> selling their PC division to a Chinese company.
>>
>> IMO big difference here. First off there were many other American Airline
>> industries.
>
> You mean like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, VW and Mercedes, all of which make
> cars in the US?

Are these American? Is it in the best interest of our govt to save VW? Sure
they may be made in America as well but they are not American owned their
loyalty is to their own country.

>
>> Next we are talking about manufacturing not just someone providing
>> transportation.
>
> Providing transportation provides jobs.

You missed the point. From a Government standpoint you would need to
maintain some manufacturing. Boeing would compare to Ford in regard to the
point I am making and just as I am suggesting the govt should protect Ford
they should protect Boeing.

>> At one time Ford was helping build Tanks and other vehicles for the
>> Military.
>
> And at one time, the airlines were moving soldiers around and move mail
> around.

Good point but as long as you have the capability to manufacture airplanes
the Military could very well move troops and mail around under dire
circumstances. You are missing the point I am trying to make. Protecting
manufacturing otherwise you wont have the capability to move a thing.


>> If we lose that capability totally who would we trust an ally to make it
>> for us?
>
> Gee, I don't know, the people who already build tanks. Who made planes
> during the war? IBM.

Just look at what transpired during WWII. The assistance of many
manufacturing companies were needed. God forbid that ever happens again.

>
>> Might as well expect them to fight for us too, yah right. I see Ford as a
>> greatly undervalued stock as it is also a pick for one of next years
>> great investments.
>
> Then buy it.

Sold.

>
>> Comparing Chrysler without being able to make a point for either one of
>> us is pretty silly, I was young too. I do remember Lee Iacocca made a
>> promise to pay back the government and he did just so with plenty of
>> profits for the company as well when he retired. Which reminds me.
>> Chrysler has been under Daimler now and they are doing poorly as well.
>> You would think that they would employ the same principles that makes one
>> great to their new acquisition. I forget the standard they set to call a
>> vehicle "Made in America." I just find it hard to believe that as you say
>> "no" US car has enough US parts to be called "Made in America."
>
> According to the FTC, it means a product advertised as Made in USA be "all
> or virtually all" made in the U.S. In other words, Made in the USA means
> built in the USA of components all made in the USA.
>
> A lot of the components in cars are made the car makers outside the US,
> like in Canada, Mexico or Asia. If the electronics come from outside the
> US, and everything else is from inside the US, you've lost the right to
> say, "Made in the USA."
>
> No car meets this standard.
>
> Here are some examples of "Made in the US" claims that did not make it:
>
> http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/01/musasweep6.htm

They are percentages not as vague as you make it sound.


>
>> I bet Bob Hope is rolling around in his grave, sigh.
>
> Why?

Bob Hope used to do many Made in the USA commercials promoting US products.
He used to do many entertaining shows for the troops. He was a great man
very pro USA.


>
>> Whats wrong with this country anyway? No more proud to be American in the
>> media. We allow immigrants to sneak in illegally and others to
>> economically pick us apart with no safety net for the American worker. I
>> love our country and just want to say, God Bless America!!!!!!!
>
> What is great about this country is that this country is part of the world
> and the world economy.
>
> Jeff

OMG. So many things wrong with that statement. For starters you just gave up
your individual identity. We are great because of our foundation, our
beliefs. We had good work ethics. Cared for our own as well as our allies.
Being apart of the World and the economy means nothing as just existing
would make you apart of the world and economy.

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> Nicholas Anthony wrote:
>
> > ...there were many other American Airline
>> industries.
>
> "Industries"?
>
> Companies, yes. And many fewer now than there were then. There are about
> to be even fewer as the US Airline industry continues its consolidation
> into three major companies, just as the auto industry did years ago. The
> US Government created the environment for consolidation by deregulation of
> the airlines in the '70's. And if we don't keep a close eye on the
> *******s in D.C., they will let foreigners buy our airlines as they are
> buying our auto companies.

Thanks for correcting me. I am trying to figure out if I was trying to say
American Airliners in the industry or what else lol.

>> Next we are talking about manufacturing not just someone providing
>> transportation.
>
> "...[S]omeone providing transportation." Now that's funny! I shudder to
> think you might also put the railroads and shipping in that same category
> of insignificance.

You are taking things out of context. The opening argument I made was that
the govt should intervene to save the Automotive industry. Someone replied
they shouldnt and used examples of other companies the US let go wayside. My
argument was if we allow our manufacturing to fail we lose out in a bigger
way.

> Everything in the US economy is related in some way -- in this modern era,
> everything in the world economy is related. Wages will naturally seek a
> common level. So you better learn to do a job few others can do if you
> want to gain an income few others enjoy. Yes, the dominance of the US is
> coming to an end, but that is inevitable.
>
> The answer is to become more competitive than we have been. In other
> words, get off your lazy asses, Americans, and work for what you want. Or
> we all go down together.
>
>
> Jack

Working harder isn't the answer. Many people I know work up to 3 or 4 jobs
to make ends meat. The govt isn't protecting Americans rather corporations
and foreign interests. In this environment you can work harder and when you
burn out you get replaced. If you finally reach a certain level you get
replaced by someone for less money too. My brother works for the FAA in the
IT field. They are talking about releasing all IT and having someone from
India assist over the phone with their problems. Even if that threat fails
they fire all the old workers and hire new people at lower wages. Their is
no stability in America on any level. Strange times we live in sadly.

Nick

No so, the requirement to exhibit a '1' as the first number of the VIN and
be made in the US and is to have at least a 70% US content. Content is
more than the sum of the parts, it includes everything for R&D, engineering
design, origin of the steel, plastics, tires assembly etal, to make the
vehicle. If the content is less than 70%, but more than 40%, the first
digit assigned is a '4.' If the content is below 40% the first digit is a
'5.' A vehicle could theoretically have zero US content but still have a
'5' if it is assembled in the US.

If you look at most of what GM and Ford sell, as well as the Accord, Titan,
or the vehicles made in the GM/Toyota plant in California for example you
will see a '1' The Camry, Sienna and even a few Ford made trucks on the
other hand exhibit '4' The Tundra a '5' Because of a complaint to the
FTC by Honda, Toyota no longer says made in America in their ads. They now
say assembled in America of world sourced parts


mike


"Nicholas Anthony" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
I forget the standard they set to call a
>>> vehicle "Made in America." I just find it hard to believe that as you
>>> say "no" US car has enough US parts to be called "Made in America."
>>
>> According to the FTC, it means a product advertised as Made in USA be
>> "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. In other words, Made in the USA
>> means built in the USA of components all made in the USA.
>>
>> A lot of the components in cars are made the car makers outside the US,
>> like in Canada, Mexico or Asia. If the electronics come from outside the
>> US, and everything else is from inside the US, you've lost the right to
>> say, "Made in the USA."

One of the problems may be that statistics show only around 1.4% of working
Americans belong to a union today, and unfortunately most that do work for
the government. Another problem is Americans will buy something without
regard to where it is made. One can rationalize their reasons for doing so
but if you are not going to buy most of things made in your own county, as
the Japanese tend to do, then there we be fewer jobs in you own country.
Americans complain if a corporation buy from a low wage county, with fewer
costly government regulations and fewer lawyer, to save money, then we turn
around and do the exactly same thing ourselves as consumers. We can not
have it both ways.. I seems the only thing our grand children well need to
know it how to say 'Welcome to Wal-Mart' or 'Do you want fries with that?'
If we don't buy more American made products we will have only ourselves to
blame.


mike


"Nicholas Anthony" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jack" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The answer is to become more competitive than we have been. In other
>> words, get off your lazy asses, Americans, and work for what you want. Or
>> we all go down together.
>>
>>
>> Jack
>
> Working harder isn't the answer. Many people I know work up to 3 or 4 jobs
> to make ends meat. The govt isn't protecting Americans rather corporations
> and foreign interests. In this environment you can work harder and when
> you burn out you get replaced. If you finally reach a certain level you
> get replaced by someone for less money too. My brother works for the FAA
> in the IT field. They are talking about releasing all IT and having
> someone from India assist over the phone with their problems. Even if that
> threat fails they fire all the old workers and hire new people at lower
> wages. Their is no stability in America on any level. Strange times we
> live in sadly.
>
> Nick
>

"Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
...
> No so, the requirement to exhibit a '1' as the first number of the VIN and
> be made in the US and is to have at least a 70% US content. Content is


Some day this urban legend will die, but I doubt it, any more than claims of
200 mpg carburetors for big blocks have died away.. All the first number
does is tell where the damn thing was assembled. It doesn't have a thing to
do with content. if toyota ships a camry in pieces to the US and then
assembles it here, it gets a 1 or a 4. Every piece could be Japanese
manufactured and it will still get a 1 or a 4. Just like vehicles assembled
in Mexico get a 3, or Japan get a J or England an S.

Whitelightning

"Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
...
> No so, the requirement to exhibit a '1' as the first number of the VIN and
> be made in the US and is to have at least a 70% US content.

Why do you keep on with this? It simply isn't so...

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/vin.htm
"The first digit identifies the nation of origin. If the car was assembled
from parts produced in different countries, this digit reflects the nation
where the car was assembled. Some larger nations are split into regions. For
example, cars built in Japan are assigned a J in the first digit. But cars
made in the U.S. can have a 1, 4 or 5, depending on the region of its
assembly. "

You might also look at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...cfr583_04.html and show us
where it mentions the first digit in the VIN is dependent on domestic parts
content. (Hint: it doesn't!!)

That may be want to believe and you are correct when you say vehicles
assembled in Mexico get a '3' and Japan a "I." Even the Camrys that have a
"J" display a NA Content label of something like 70% and the complete
vehicle is made of parts from all over the far east. Like all other
counties they have only one number assigned, just as the vehicles made in
Canada by US and Japanese manufactures, of US or other imported parts get a
'2.' If what you believe to be true, was actually true, there would be
only one number for the US as well, a '1.'

Actually the Camry you described would get a '5,' less than 40% US content.
The only Toyota vehicles assembled in the US that get a '1' are those made
in the GM/California plant where the UAW contract requires 70 & US content


mike



"Whitelightning" > wrote in message
news:scanh.5222$SQ1.2200@trnddc03...
>
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No so, the requirement to exhibit a '1' as the first number of the VIN
>> and
>> be made in the US and is to have at least a 70% US content. Content is
>
>
> Some day this urban legend will die, but I doubt it, any more than claims
> of
> 200 mpg carburetors for big blocks have died away.. All the first number
> does is tell where the damn thing was assembled. It doesn't have a thing
> to
> do with content. if toyota ships a camry in pieces to the US and then
> assembles it here, it gets a 1 or a 4. Every piece could be Japanese
> manufactured and it will still get a 1 or a 4. Just like vehicles
> assembled
> in Mexico get a 3, or Japan get a J or England an S.
>
> Whitelightning
>
>

That may be your opinion but a little logic will prove what you believe is
wrong. There are similar variation in GM and Chrysler vehicles as well.
Tundra's a made in Indiana have 5, Titans made just over the state line have
a 1. Ford Trucks made in Kentucky have a 1. Lincoln pickups made on the
same assemble line have a 4.

mike

"Matt Macchiarolo" > wrote in message
news
>
>
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No so, the requirement to exhibit a '1' as the first number of the VIN
>> and
>> be made in the US and is to have at least a 70% US content.

> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/vin.htm
> "The first digit identifies the nation of origin. If the car was assembled
> from parts produced in different countries, this digit reflects the nation
> where the car was assembled. Some larger nations are split into regions.
> For
> example, cars built in Japan are assigned a J in the first digit. But cars
> made in the U.S. can have a 1, 4 or 5, depending on the region of its
> assembly. "