Canadian Built Camaro, Foreign Cars and US Jobs

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by alfie43

This is a forum about the 5th Gen Camaro and other automobile related subjects.

This is not a forum for political commentary, even if it's intelligent, well thought out commentary. There are great political forums for that.

Certainly, this it is not a place for political haters and their cheap shots. I'm sure there are forums for that nonsense also.

Alfie

This whole thread is political commentary. It was designed to politely tell some one that by buying a Hyundai, they killed the hopes and dreams of every American and likely killed a few baby kittens.

The thread that started this was apolitical and put in the correct place (other vehicle discussions). The response to that thread WAS political. And when the response got too off topic a new political thread was built.

[alfie43]

Originally Posted by bigearl

This whole thread is political commentary. It was designed to politely tell some one that by buying a Hyundai, they killed the hopes and dreams of every American and likely killed a few baby kittens.

The thread that started this was apolitical and put in the correct place (other vehicle discussions). The response to that thread WAS political. And when the response got too off topic a new political thread was built.

It was designed to politely tell some one that by buying a Hyundai, they killed the hopes and dreams of every American and likely killed a few baby kittens.

This is a joke..right? My wise old father once told me, "Silence is the best response to a foolish statement." I guess I should heed his advice, but here it goes.

From Webster:
po·lit·i·cal
adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\

1: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3: organized in governmental terms <political units>
4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system <political prisoners>
— po·lit·i·cal·ly\-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by alfie43

It was designed to politely tell some one that by buying a Hyundai, they killed the hopes and dreams of every American and likely killed a few baby kittens.

Since this whole topic was a response to someone who had already bought the car- it was too late- there really wasn't anything to be gained except to make him feel bad. There have been enough buy American threads to not have to start a new one and reference it from within the poor kid's thread.

This is a joke..right? My wise old father once told me, "Silence is the best response to a foolish statement." I guess I should heed his advice, but here it goes.

From Webster:
po·lit·i·cal
adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\

1: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3: organized in governmental terms <political units>
4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system <political prisoners>
— po·lit·i·cal·ly\-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

From AnotherThread:

"With all due respect, allow me to make this observation

You were out of work for 5 months last year. Most likely that was because of the loss of jobs in your local economy due to jobs being outsourced over seas.

You live down the road from Oshawa, St Catherines, and several other large auto manufacturing facilties..... and you buy a car made in Korea.

As I said, with all due respect, but is it just me, or does anyone else see something really wrong with this picture?"
----

"Before some of you jump in to remind me that the Camaro is made in Canada, read this entire post. Also, I'm not talking about patriotism. I'm not talking about restricting our free market choices. I am not anti-Asian; my father immigrated to this country from the Far-East. The quality gap is history, so that it is no longer part of the discussion. Again, my point is: It's about US JOBS. "
----

Now here's the problem. You've basically just said "I'm not about limiting your choices, but any choices other than buying American are wrong". Therefore you clearly ARE about limiting choices - you are just saying it in a friendlier way. The fact is: this got started because a person had ALREADY bought the car and you made an assumption about his last job being outsourced-which is a subject of a political nature.

From that point on this has been a plea for protectionism well veiled. The thread's title is an invitation to discuss the unfairness of the trade policies of various other countries . That's fine, just call a spade a spade. You're very well spoken and I don't disagree with much of what you're saying- I don't like the path you took to get here. And for people saying it needed to be said, it actually has been several dozen times and it always ends up with Obama this and Bush that- and it got said without busting some poor kids chops.

[The_Blur]

I am not going to go back and edit this thread. Your political points are well-worded and not offensive. At this time, they'll stay. Let's not continue that discussion.

Instead, let's focus on economics. Let's focus on the obligations of the US to have lower tariff walls than the EU, Japan, China, Russia, and pretty much everyone else. Let's focus on the relationship between quality labor and expensive labor. Let's focus on how the US builds good cars and those import drivers who said, "I'll buy American when they make a competitive product!" should be eating crow.

You're entitled to disagree. It's all opinion in here, but the reality is that so many of those opinions are based on skewed perceptions.

Capitalism, while brilliant in theory, fails in only one way: it assumes that all buyers are informed of all available options and educated on the advantages and disadvantages of each. Since buyers are generally too stupid to understand the value of a 100,000-mile warranty when compared to a 60,000-mile warranty when it comes to resale, buyers don't buy on warranty. Since buyers don't do the research to find out which engines and transmissions last longer, they buy the one that sounds better to them. Of course, they don't know what "better" means as far as performance or durability.

If buyers were to make a checklist of how a CR-V and an Equinox compared, they see clear as day how superior their American product is, but for some reason, CR-Vs still manage to sell. There's no good reason for it except that people like CR-Vs. Capitalism makes no mention of name recognition in its theoretical discussion. It makes no mention of appearance, instead favoring function in its products. Yet, Americans, Canadians, and all people with faces, fingers, and skeletons buy cars based on foolish perceptions built on propoganda-vomiting advertisements. There are people out there buying Kias because the current hampster ads are "cute." Let's forget about the quality. There are hampsters driving Souls!

In conclusion, I think my opinion is clear. If you're playing the game, you just lost.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I am not going to go back and edit this thread. Your political points are well-worded and not offensive. At this time, they'll stay. Let's not continue that discussion.

Instead, let's focus on economics. Let's focus on the obligations of the US to have lower tariff walls than the EU, Japan, China, Russia, and pretty much everyone else. Let's focus on the relationship between quality labor and expensive labor. Let's focus on how the US builds good cars and those import drivers who said, "I'll buy American when they make a competitive product!" should be eating crow.

You're entitled to disagree. It's all opinion in here, but the reality is that so many of those opinions are based on skewed perceptions.

Capitalism, while brilliant in theory, fails in only one way: it assumes that all buyers are informed of all available options and educated on the advantages and disadvantages of each. Since buyers are generally too stupid to understand the value of a 100,000-mile warranty when compared to a 60,000-mile warranty when it comes to resale, buyers don't buy on warranty. Since buyers don't do the research to find out which engines and transmissions last longer, they buy the one that sounds better to them. Of course, they don't know what "better" means as far as performance or durability.

If buyers were to make a checklist of how a CR-V and an Equinox compared, they see clear as day how superior their American product is, but for some reason, CR-Vs still manage to sell. There's no good reason for it except that people like CR-Vs. Capitalism makes no mention of name recognition in its theoretical discussion. It makes no mention of appearance, instead favoring function in its products. Yet, Americans, Canadians, and all people with faces, fingers, and skeletons buy cars based on foolish perceptions built on propoganda-vomiting advertisements. There are people out there buying Kias because the current hampster ads are "cute." Let's forget about the quality. There are hampsters driving Souls!

In conclusion, I think my opinion is clear. If you're playing the game, you just lost.

Capitalism, in the theory proposed by the Austrian School, is one of the few, if not only model of economics based upon human action. Also, better is not an objective term, instead it is a subjective term. Capitalism is the only system where consumers are the ones who decide what meets their needs, consequently no single individual can say what is better than another.

You're assuming that consumers are simply defensive against advertising. If that were the case, then the success of a company would only depend on its skill in advertising. But, we both know this isn't the case; only one company can have the advantage of a superior product.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Capitalism, in the theory proposed by the Austrian School, is one of the few, if not only model of economics based upon human action. Also, better is not an objective term, instead it is a subjective term. Capitalism is the only system where consumers are the ones who decide what meets their needs, consequently no single individual can say what is better than another.

You're assuming that consumers are simply defensive against advertising. If that were the case, then the success of a company would only depend on its skill in advertising. But, we both know this isn't the case; only one company can have the advantage of a superior product.

You are absolutely correct. That is why I believe a modified version of capitalist theory must be considered. The original version of the theory incorrectly assumes that the mere existence of a superior product corresponds with its success. Practice shows that consumers buy based on what is available. A store is successful based more on location and price than service and quality. As a result, a store with inferior products could feasibly sell better than a store with superior products, disputing the entire basis of the theory.

Let us also consider how a supply line works. In practice, someone invents a product. The product is the best of its kind. Now, this someone must sell the product to stores. Let's say Venture signs an exclusivity agreement with this company to carry this product. The product competes with a product sold at Target. Venture, as we all know, goes out of business. Target's inferior product continues to sell. The holder of Venture's rights gets the exclusive rights to this superior product and foolishly does nothing. Capitalism ignores this almost entirely.

Instead, capitalism assumes that the market is open, but companies restrict rights to monopolize relationships they have with vendors and product lines. Let's take a look at Camaro5. Many of our vendors carry competing products. On this, I'm sure, we can agree. Have you noticed that our suspension specialists tend to advertise either Pedders or Pfadt? I have not noticed both logos carried on the same vendor's signature. Let us, for the sake of argument alone—not an invitation to debate suspension companies—say that one makes a part better than the other and that the other reciprocates this. Now, let us further point out that vendors tend to have repeat customers due to their customer service. This tendency reduces odds that the superior product from the reciprocating company ever gets purchased in favor of the inferior product that is more easily accessible. Do you follow?

Basically, capitalism assumes that everyone has access to everything and that the best product will prevail. This is almost never the case. For that reason, we have fanboys who perceive their products to be superior despite the obviousness of some of their faults. Take, for instance, the heavy duty trucks of 2011. The Chevrolet is better in all the ways that count, but Ford and Dodge fanboys will leap in here just to tell me I'm wrong despite their lack of engineering, mechanical, or functional knowledge of how a truck works. If the best product prevailed, it would instantly generate the most revenue or perhaps even all the available revenue for that market, which is also rarely the case because existing titans would do whatever they could to earn exclusivity in the largest possible share of the market. The only reason to buy an inferior product would be because that is the only product available. This availability thesis points to a fundamental problem in capitalism: that we reward inferior products simply for existing despite their faults.

Right now, the market we have is not an open capitalism. It is a very corporate protectionist bastardization of capitalist theory. This bastardization takes what we know about capitalism and makes it work for the biggest companies, inflating the wealth of those who already have money by giving them the opportunity to nip competition in the bud. Most of us, were we to have brilliant ideas, would eagerly sell them for millions to industry leaders and retire on our newfound assets while they use these ideas to fund generational dynasties of their ostentatious lifestyles.

I won't draw any conclusions or say what should be done about this. That would be politics, and I'd like to keep us on the intelligent discussion at hand without divulging into a forbidden debate about how the world should be. On observation alone, it appears that we agree on some things, but we can't find a lot of common ground on how big a role advertising is. Let me simply point to evidence the preposterous funding given to advertising. Ask any drunken college student if he would buy from a company simply because the ad was awesome, and he would probably say yes. Those ads have value. They may mean nothing to you and me, but they do convert to sales, tilting the balance toward those with the largest bank accounts.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

You are absolutely correct. That is why I believe a modified version of capitalist theory must be considered. The original version of the theory incorrectly assumes that the mere existence of a superior product corresponds with its success. Practice shows that consumers buy based on what is available. A store is successful based more on location and price than service and quality. As a result, a store with inferior products could feasibly sell better than a store with superior products, disputing the entire basis of the theory.

Again, you can not say what product is better than another in one strict sense of what defines "better." Better doesn't have to be one that is has better quality, but yet it could be that it is cheaper than another product. The fact is that for whatever reason, consumers will choose a product that is better than another based upon rather or not it meets their demands adequately.

Let us also consider how a supply line works. In practice, someone invents a product. The product is the best of its kind. Now, this someone must sell the product to stores. Let's say Venture signs an exclusivity agreement with this company to carry this product. The product competes with a product sold at Target. Venture, as we all know, goes out of business. Target's inferior product continues to sell. The holder of Venture's rights gets the exclusive rights to this superior product and foolishly does nothing. Capitalism ignores this almost entirely.

You're assuming you undoubtedly know that this product is better. In order for it be better, it has to meet consumers demand more than its competitor. In this particular scenario, this product isn't the fall of Venture; Venture has failed to effectively manage its business and use its opportunity to its advantage. Capitalism isn't solely about product vs. product, but individual vs. individual exchange of goods that both believe to benefit each.

Instead, capitalism assumes that the market is open, but companies restrict rights to monopolize relationships they have with vendors and product lines. Let's take a look at Camaro5. Many of our vendors carry competing products. On this, I'm sure, we can agree. Have you noticed that our suspension specialists tend to advertise either Pedders or Pfadt? I have not noticed both logos carried on the same vendor's signature. Let us, for the sake of argument alone—not an invitation to debate suspension companies—say that one makes a part better than the other and that the other reciprocates this. Now, let us further point out that vendors tend to have repeat customers due to their customer service. This tendency reduces odds that the superior product from the reciprocating company ever gets purchased in favor of the inferior product that is more easily accessible. Do you follow?

Product isn't the only determining factor of a business's success. Advertising, Management Skills, competitiveness of product, etc. are all equally important, determining factors of a business's success. The one's who believe that, for example, Toyota, has brainwashed the American public into believing that they are the end-all of automotive engineering through their effective advertising is only falling victim to legend.

Basically, capitalism assumes that everyone has access to everything and that the best product will prevail. This is almost never the case. For that reason, we have fanboys who perceive their products to be superior despite the obviousness of some of their faults. Take, for instance, the heavy duty trucks of 2011. The Chevrolet is better in all the ways that count, but Ford and Dodge fanboys will leap in here just to tell me I'm wrong despite their lack of engineering, mechanical, or functional knowledge of how a truck works. If the best product prevailed, it would instantly generate the most revenue or perhaps even all the available revenue for that market, which is also rarely the case because existing titans would do whatever they could to earn exclusivity in the largest possible share of the market. The only reason to buy an inferior product would be because that is the only product available. This availability thesis points to a fundamental problem in capitalism: that we reward inferior products simply for existing despite their faults.

Fanboys believe that their product is superior based on reasons that appealed to them the most, i.e. it's a subjective opinion. You need to reword yourself and say "all that counts to you." Individuals value certain criteria over others, consequently some will buy one product over another despite their similarities. An inferior product can only exist without competition, i.e. only through monopolies.

Right now, the market we have is not an open capitalism. It is a very corporate protectionist bastardization of capitalist theory. This bastardization takes what we know about capitalism and makes it work for the biggest companies, inflating the wealth of those who already have money by giving them the opportunity to nip competition in the bud. Most of us, were we to have brilliant ideas, would eagerly sell them for millions to industry leaders and retire on our newfound assets while they use these ideas to fund generational dynasties of their ostentatious lifestyles.

Obviously. I could go down a very long list of how governmental regulation will always and necessarily fail despite its intentions to do the opposite. Of course, I even doubt their intentions. The companies that rely on the state to remove the self-correcting attributes of Capitalism would not exist in a truly free market.

I won't draw any conclusions or say what should be done about this. That would be politics, and I'd like to keep us on the intelligent discussion at hand without divulging into a forbidden debate about how the world should be. On observation alone, it appears that we agree on some things, but we can't find a lot of common ground on how big a role advertising is. Let me simply point to evidence the preposterous funding given to advertising. Ask any drunken college student if he would buy from a company simply because the ad was awesome, and he would probably say yes. Those ads have value. They may mean nothing to you and me, but they do convert to sales, tilting the balance toward those with the largest bank accounts.

Advertising undoubtedly has value, but yet I don't see why you're trying to make an evil out of using a method of gaining sales. It's like saying "stop using a cheaper part to cut costs to increase your profits." The tricks of advertising are available to all companies, but most make it seem like companies succeed only on their skill in advertising. Your major fault throughout your whole argument is proposing an arbitrary objective standard of what defines a superior product over an inferior product.

[porcupinekiller]

I wish someone out there would tell the POS politicians in this province (British Columbia) about this global economy thing so I won't have to continue paying $4.92 per gallon for 94 octane Chevron.
Oh and well your at it mention our 12% HST (sales tax). lol

Good post by the OP.

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Capitalism, while brilliant in theory, fails in only one way: it assumes that all buyers are informed of all available options and educated on the advantages and disadvantages of each. Since buyers are generally too stupid to understand the value of a 100,000-mile warranty when compared to a 60,000-mile warranty when it comes to resale, buyers don't buy on warranty. Since buyers don't do the research to find out which engines and transmissions last longer, they buy the one that sounds better to them. Of course, they don't know what "better" means as far as performance or durability.

Can I ask you what line of work you are in and what you do for a living?

[bpmurr]

So using the OP's logic we should all buy Ford's since they have the highest amount of American works per car sold.

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Capitalism, while brilliant in theory, fails in only one way: it assumes that all buyers are informed of all available options and educated on the advantages and disadvantages of each. Since buyers are generally too stupid to understand the value of a 100,000-mile warranty when compared to a 60,000-mile warranty when it comes to resale, buyers don't buy on warranty. Since buyers don't do the research to find out which engines and transmissions last longer, they buy the one that sounds better to them. Of course, they don't know what "better" means as far as performance or durability.

The problem with this whole paragraph is clearly illustrated in the Camaro. The Camaro is a completely emotional purchase decision. If everyone was extremely educated on all of the options and purchased only on value and durability, then everyone would be in a 3800 engined Buick or a Subaru Outback Wagon. Subaru Outback's are basically are what I consider to be the most definitive jack-of-all-trades, master of none ever produced and you have to work extremely hard to kill a 3800 Buick.

Everyone on here who already has a Camaro would have gone against research because research you never buy a 1st year car. That is a cardinal rule of car buying.

I think consumers are plenty educated, I just don't think they all think like me (or like you). You think people who don't think like you when it comes to a car purchase have not educated themselves on the competition, whereas I think most people who buy new cars are reasonably educated but value different amenities or rank their information sources differently than you do.

[Markal]

Eventually Mexican, Chinese, Koreans, Indians will make the equivelent of $20.00 dollars U.S. an hour. They will ask for more...they will want a large house, two cars, large screen LCD TV's in all rooms, a pool in the backyard, internet gaming, stereo's, G4 phones, a health plan, a retirement plan, low colledge costs for their children, low taxes....etc. Greed....its common among all people....the other countries are just now catching up to the U.S. They are catching up fast....soon, we will all be equal and the world wil be as one....and we can all together sing kumbuyyah.....yeah, when pigs fly!!!

bigearl, you said:
Everyone on here who already has a Camaro would have gone against research because research you never buy a 1st year car. That is a cardinal rule of car buying.
Maybe years ago but, cars are so much more technical and computer designed today. I bought a PT Cruiser...yeah, I know a Mopar....in April of 2000. The car was new, untested, just a concept/show car. I drove it off the lot in early June 2000, a 2001 PT Cruiser. I drove it for 10 years with no problems and sold it to a very happy elderly Black women. I see her from time to time and she loves it....its still running strong. Its also the reason I saved enough to pay $4,000 dollars down on my new Camaro. First year cars are better today than years and years ago......technology....its a great thing when properly applied and used.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by alfie43

It was designed to politely tell some one that by buying a Hyundai, they killed the hopes and dreams of every American and likely killed a few baby kittens.

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by Markal

bigearl, you said:
Everyone on here who already has a Camaro would have gone against research because research you never buy a 1st year car. That is a cardinal rule of car buying.
Maybe years ago but, cars are so much more technical and computer designed today. I bought a PT Cruiser...yeah, I know a Mopar....in April of 2000. The car was new, untested, just a concept/show car. I drove it off the lot in early June 2000, a 2001 PT Cruiser. I drove it for 10 years with no problems and sold it to a very happy elderly Black women. I see her from time to time and she loves it....its still running strong. Its also the reason I saved enough to pay $4,000 dollars down on my new Camaro. First year cars are better today than years and years ago......technology....its a great thing when properly applied and used.

Hehe, I have a 2010 Camaro too . But you have to admit, even by today's higher standards- it's typically wiser to buy year 2.

I agree with what you said about other countries demanding more too. It's happening. Riots in China at Honda plants, India now has a cost of living index and a minimum wage of sorts.