Ford has come out in the open, criticizing Trump's plans to introduce 35% tariff on cars imported from Mexico.

[fuzzymoomoo]

I am going out a limb here, but I can pretty much bet that the next Presidential limousine will NOT be a Lincoln....

http://jalopnik.com/president-trump-gets-himself-a-fancy-new-beast-limousin-1788778749

 

I think the government has a contract with GM, I remember reading that somewhere.

[Kev-Mo]

Constitutional authority hasn't stopped Obama, except on the cases he's lost in the Supreme Court. Trump may have said he isn't going to use executive orders, but Obama also said he was going to have the most open administration ever and you could keep your doctor.

 

Edit: I'm not trying to single or either party. I Think both sides are liars and thieves.

 

Agree - the constitutional authority for regulation of trade is clearly left to congress. We have an entire generation of people who have watched Presidents act like a king, so they believe the POTUS is a king. Let's hope at the very least, we get back to following the rules.

[jpd80]

 

 

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution gives CONGRESS the authority to regulate trade. The President does not have the constitutional authority to regulate trade. If the rules are followed, Congress would have to pass a bill -then send to the POTUS for signing. Good luck with that.

 

I don't think it will ever get to any of that, the Mexican government is ready to re-negotiate NAFTA

and I think plenty of issues can be addressed by that route rather than any onerous tax moves.

 

t's clear that some manufacturing should be returned to the US but other products need

to be manufactured in low cost centers to remain viable, broad brushing this would be

a huge mistake.

Edited November 16, 2016 by jpd80

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

I don't think it will ever get to any of that, the Mexican government is ready to re-negotiate NAFTA

and I think plenty of issues can be addressed by that route rather than any onerous tax moves.

 

t's clear that some manufacturing should be returned to the US but other products need

to be manufactured in low cost centers to remain viable, broad brushing this would be

a huge mistake.

This. Trump said what he needed to say to fire up his voter base, and now that it worked and he's been elected I would think he would take a more pragmatic approach to NAFTA and renegotiate (especially if it's true that Mexico is willing to renegotiate) rather than a straight up backing out of the whole thing.

[tbone]

I highly doubt his intention is to back out of the whole thing.

[fuzzymoomoo]

I highly doubt his intention is to back out of the whole thing.

me too. I only mentioned it because he did during the campaign.

[tbone]

I still see the threat as a bargaining chip, and if it can help improve our economic position domestically I'm all for it.

[jpd80]

This is where the Republican party steps up to the plate and shows Trump how to accomplish

most of his objectives without all the adversarial and unnecessary disruption, use due process.

by allowing Congress and the Senate to do their job and most of the heavy lifting.

Edited November 17, 2016 by jpd80

[bdegrand]

exactly. He's not a great businessman

I think anyone who can take a million and turn it into a billion is an above average businessman.

As far as Fields opening his mouth with antagonism, rather than inviting open dialogue and discussion is only creating more problems for our company. I think the vastly more experienced Alan Mulally would have handled this much better. It's that big Fields' ego that is getting in the way!

[Kev-Mo]

No matter how you see it, the USA cannot go on forever with a 5% of GDP trade deficit. A society simply cannot consume more than it produces. This has to offset somewhere in the giant balance sheet. Currently it is propped up by monetization and debt - Yellen's 2% per year of theft from the working class American compounds to 10% pretty quickly - in about 4 years. Soon enough, the damage done to your purchasing power exceeds the benefit of buying it cheaper from a foreign country. Let's hope that real change is on the horizon. Like corrective surgery, It may hurt a bit at first!

 

I am for trade - Balanced trade.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Kev-Mo

[akirby]

I have always favored tariffs and/or import restrictions on companies that don't allow US companies equal stature.

 

I have a big problem with taxing businesses though. A business tax is a tax on the folks who consume that company's products or services. And in today's global economy companies are not held hostage and forced to stay in the US and pay whatever outrageous tax rate the government decides to put on them - they'll go elsewhere. OTOH if you lower the tax rate you will actually encourage existing businesses to stay AND you will encourage new businesses to locate here creating more jobs and growing the economy and the GDP. That will not only increase business tax revenue by having more businesses paying the lower rate but you also get the benefit of new personal income taxes from the newly employed workers.

[jpd80]

I have always favored tariffs and/or import restrictions on companies that don't allow US companies equal stature.

 

I have a big problem with taxing businesses though. A business tax is a tax on the folks who consume that company's products or services. And in today's global economy companies are not held hostage and forced to stay in the US and pay whatever outrageous tax rate the government decides to put on them - they'll go elsewhere. OTOH if you lower the tax rate you will actually encourage existing businesses to stay AND you will encourage new businesses to locate here creating more jobs and growing the economy and the GDP. That will not only increase business tax revenue by having more businesses paying the lower rate but you also get the benefit of new personal income taxes from the newly employed workers.

Two undeniable facts:

1. Equalization of trade imbalance via tariffs works against "rogue elements"..

2. Over taxing business doesn't work, costs are simply passed onto consumers, supply can be off shored.

 

what governments need to do is nurture an environment where it's conducive for businesses

to make long term commitments to manufacturing and to support local communities with the wealth

that brings. The flow on effect of increased business activity flows throughout the community, not

just the tax payers who work at the plants, it's everyone else who is touched by those people spending

their money in the community....and that's why GM going Ch 7 was never an option for the government.

Edited November 17, 2016 by jpd80

[akirby]

BTW I agree with critics of traditional trickle-down economics who say that giving a tax break to an existing company won't necessarily create new jobs. But it will prevent new businesses from coming here and overtaxing will most certainly encourage existing businesses to leave. At the very least give companies a tax credit for every full time US employee so that companies with tens of thousands of employees only pay the minimal rate.

 

It's like trying to impose a 20% tax on new car sales in one county. Nobody's going to pay that when they can drive 20 minutes and get it without the tax. And all the dealers in that county will go out of business.

[tbone]

Two undeniable facts:

1. Equalization of trade imbalance via tariffs works against "rogue elements"..

2. Over taxing business doesn't work, costs are simply passed onto consumers, supply can be off shored.

 

what governments need to do is nurture an environment where it's conducive for businesses

to make long term commitments to manufacturing and to support local communities with the wealth

that brings. The flow on effect of increased business activity flows throughout the community, not

just the tax payers who work at the plants, it's everyone else who is touched by those people spending

their money in the community....and that's why GM going Ch 7 was never an option for the government.

It sounds like you speak of Laissez Faire Capitalism. "Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone." An economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies.

 

I like it.

[Kev-Mo]

It sounds like you speak of Laissez Faire Capitalism. "Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone." An economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies.

 

I like it.

 

Our founding fathers clearly and deliberately gave congress the power to regulate trade - Anyone smarter than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Ben Franklin - feel free to write your representative and ask for change.

[jpd80]

It sounds like you speak of Laissez Faire Capitalism. "Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone." An economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies.

 

I like it.

Not quite, I'm not in favor of just letting capitalists run free, greed inevitably brings everything down....

 

There still needs to be some oversight to make sure all play in the safe zones so rather than straight jacket regulations,

I'm more for incentives, encouraging business to go in the right direction, even if that seems to cost more the benefits

far outweigh undoing the damage caused by miscreant businesses and financial institutions going off the reservation.

 

In this particular situation, all parties need to revisit the NAFTA agreement and review where we are now,

what has been achieved both positive and negative, chart a course for the future to drive mutual benefit

in the right direction.

 

The other part is the Walmart condition, consideration to the effect China and Asian exporters are having

into North America. - what are the benefits, what are the casualties.. see and understand what impact all

changes have made.

Edited November 19, 2016 by jpd80

[MKX1960]

I still see the threat as a bargaining chip, and if it can help improve our economic position domestically I'm all for it.

Fields is sure in a panic over this. He was quick to point out that MKC production was staying in the US.

[jpd80]

Fields is sure in a panic over this. He was quick to point out that MKC production was staying in the US.

Of course he is, the original plan details were never supposed to be leaked to the press,

the UAW found out the details with the rest of us....good one Donald.

[tbone]

 

Our founding fathers clearly and deliberately gave congress the power to regulate trade - Anyone smarter than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Ben Franklin - feel free to write your representative and ask for change.

There isn't a need to write any representatives. Just because I mentioned it doesn't mean I want no regulation. I understand the need for "reasonable" regulation.

[Violet96GT]

I'm darn glad that Donald Trump called out Ford on their plans to move all small car production to Mexico. And I say this as a lifetime Ford fan, about as dedicated to the blue oval as anyone. Continue to hold Ford's feet to the fire on this one, Mr. Trump!

 

I was seriously looking at a Ford Focus ST as my next vehicle. But now, if it is going to be built in Mexico, I want absolutely no part of that! I want a vehicle built in the United States!

 

Doggone Mark Fields is slowly pissing away all the good things at Ford that Alan Mulally worked so hard to put in place, and I don't like it. They wonder why vehicles like the Focus and Fiesta are not selling very well. Well, maybe it's because they're not investing any money in them to keep them at the head of the pack! What ever happened to one of Mulally's mantras, which was something like "in every segment in which we compete, we intend to be the best." It ain't happening now! And the drop in monthly sales proves this.

 

Ford, you must realize that not everyone out there wants a SUV or a CUV. There are still thousands and thousands of folks who'd rather have a car, and one that is designed, engineered, and assembled right here in the good, old United States! Not Mexico. Not Europe. Not Asia. Here!

 

Read it! Learn it! Live it!

[rmc523]

I'm darn glad that Donald Trump called out Ford on their plans to move all small car production to Mexico. And I say this as a lifetime Ford fan, about as dedicated to the blue oval as anyone. Continue to hold Ford's feet to the fire on this one, Mr. Trump!

 

I was seriously looking at a Ford Focus ST as my next vehicle. But now, if it is going to be built in Mexico, I want absolutely no part of that! I want a vehicle built in the United States!

 

Doggone Mark Fields is slowly pissing away all the good things at Ford that Alan Mulally worked so hard to put in place, and I don't like it. They wonder why vehicles like the Focus and Fiesta are not selling very well. Well, maybe it's because they're not investing any money in them to keep them at the head of the pack! What ever happened to one of Mulally's mantras, which was something like "in every segment in which we compete, we intend to be the best." It ain't happening now! And the drop in monthly sales proves this.

 

Ford, you must realize that not everyone out there wants a SUV or a CUV. There are still thousands and thousands of folks who'd rather have a car, and one that is designed, engineered, and assembled right here in the good, old United States! Not Mexico. Not Europe. Not Asia. Here!

 

Read it! Learn it! Live it!

You're missing the point. Ford is expanding overall production capability. The small cars will be made in Mexico, yes. The plant in which they were made is now to be producing at least Ranger and Bronco and possibly more.

 

As for the small cars, they are investing in them. New models are right around the corner.

[akirby]

I'm darn glad that Donald Trump called out Ford on their plans to move all small car production to Mexico. And I say this as a lifetime Ford fan, about as dedicated to the blue oval as anyone. Continue to hold Ford's feet to the fire on this one, Mr. Trump!

 

I was seriously looking at a Ford Focus ST as my next vehicle. But now, if it is going to be built in Mexico, I want absolutely no part of that! I want a vehicle built in the United States!

 

Doggone Mark Fields is slowly pissing away all the good things at Ford that Alan Mulally worked so hard to put in place, and I don't like it. They wonder why vehicles like the Focus and Fiesta are not selling very well. Well, maybe it's because they're not investing any money in them to keep them at the head of the pack! What ever happened to one of Mulally's mantras, which was something like "in every segment in which we compete, we intend to be the best." It ain't happening now! And the drop in monthly sales proves this.

 

Ford, you must realize that not everyone out there wants a SUV or a CUV. There are still thousands and thousands of folks who'd rather have a car, and one that is designed, engineered, and assembled right here in the good, old United States! Not Mexico. Not Europe. Not Asia. Here!

 

Read it! Learn it! Live it!

 

Most buyers are not willing to pay extra because vehicles are manufactured in the U.S. There are also export limitations to Latin and South America that don't exist in Mexico. It's not simple greed.

[Violet96GT]

If Ford had continually invested in the Focus, and kept it at the top of its segment, to a point where the car was selling phenomenally and Michigan Assembly Plant (MAP) simply couldn't build enough of them, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Because there is no way that Ford would stop and move production of a vehicle out of a plant if that vehicle, at that moment in time, was selling like absolute, rip-roaring gangbusters.

 

The Focus is currently not selling like rip-roaring gangbusters, and this is because Ford has neglected continuous improvement of it for several years now. The Chevrolet Cruze is kicking the Focus's butt in sales all over the map.

 

Instead, they've failed to keep their small cars at the top of their respective segments, and the sales have fallen off to the point where they can no longer build them profitably in this country.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Fact: Small car sales across the entire industry are down

 

Fact: GM is eliminating the third shift at Lordstown where the Cruze is built

 

Fact: GM also builds the Cruze in Mexico

 

Fact: Small cars aren't nearly as profitable as Trucks and SUVs no matter where they're built, and as such, FCA killed the Dart with no plans whatsoever of replacing it.

 

Look, nobody here would love the Focus to do better than it is more than me, my livelihood depends on it. The fact is it's near the end of its current life cycle and at this point it just is what it is.

Edited November 20, 2016 by fuzzymoomoo

[jpd80]

Currently, GM has a massive 69,000 Cruze inventory and has built way more than it needed to.

So much so that it will be cutting the thrid shft form Lordstown early next year so I expect

that inventory to climb well into the 75,000-80,000 figure as compact car sales recede in winter.

 

Point being that GM has effectivly destroyed the cars resale value as there's no way the above

inventory will be sold down without strong cash and lending incentives. GM is now effectivly

in a far worse position with Cruze than Ford is with the Focus.

 

As Fuzzy said, his livelihood depends on the Focus for now, that's why I was hoping for a minor refresh

to take it through the next 18 months - 2 years without the cost of a full make over, simply adopting

the global 1.5 EB engne and 6AT/6MT trans packages would do wonders for eliminating on going

issues with the glitch ridden Powershift transmission and set the next car up for success.

 

I know many agree to disagree on the above but I can tell you from first hand experience,

the change between the two power trains is night and day, it's that dramatic and all the

acid written about the Powershift is forgotten with one drive of the 1.5 EB 6AT

it's that good in comparison.

Edited November 20, 2016 by jpd80