Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
keeping it domestic
16 views
Skip to first unread message
jim beam
May 14, 2012, 10:35:01 AM5/14/12
to
<http://news.yahoo.com/canon-seeks-full-automation-camera-production-055447035--finance.html>
note the key words:
"hollowing-out"
"better quality"
"production efficiency"
the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this is
exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions", i
say "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their asses
while their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer expense],
and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood about scratching
their asses while their members' retiree benefits have been either
slashed or even eliminated, and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions"
are completely ineffective and are these days merely a convenient
political scapegoat.
we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the way
to go.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
note the key words:
"hollowing-out"
"better quality"
"production efficiency"
the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this is
exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions", i
say "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their asses
while their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer expense],
and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood about scratching
their asses while their members' retiree benefits have been either
slashed or even eliminated, and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions"
are completely ineffective and are these days merely a convenient
political scapegoat.
we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the way
to go.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
C. E. White
May 14, 2012, 11:52:47 AM5/14/12
to
It is not the unions that are the problem in the US. It is the short term
thinking of the exectutives that run many major US compnaies. The way they
see it - why spent billions on new plants and equipment, when the Chinese
will offer to build the product and ship it to the US for less than the cost
of the labor in the US? It seems to me the executives can only see to the
end of the next quarter and they have such a high opinion of their own
worth, they figure they'll always get paid big bucks no matter how poor the
rest of the country becomes. Personally, I'd like to outsource a few CEO
jobs.
Ed
"jim beam" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:jor56k$h0j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
thinking of the exectutives that run many major US compnaies. The way they
see it - why spent billions on new plants and equipment, when the Chinese
will offer to build the product and ship it to the US for less than the cost
of the labor in the US? It seems to me the executives can only see to the
end of the next quarter and they have such a high opinion of their own
worth, they figure they'll always get paid big bucks no matter how poor the
rest of the country becomes. Personally, I'd like to outsource a few CEO
jobs.
Ed
"jim beam" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:jor56k$h0j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
m6onz5a
May 14, 2012, 12:22:31 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 11:52 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> It is not the unions that are the problem in the US. It is the short term
> thinking of the exectutives that run many major US compnaies. The way they
> see it - why spent billions on new plants and equipment, when the Chinese
> will offer to build the product and ship it to the US for less than the cost
> of the labor in the US? It seems to me the executives can only see to the
> end of the next quarter and they have such a high opinion of their own
> worth, they figure they'll always get paid big bucks no matter how poor the
> rest of the country becomes. Personally, I'd like to outsource a few CEO
> jobs.
>
> Ed
>
> "jim beam" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jor56k$h0j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
> > <http://news.yahoo.com/canon-seeks-full-automation-camera-production-0...>
> It is not the unions that are the problem in the US. It is the short term
> thinking of the exectutives that run many major US compnaies. The way they
> see it - why spent billions on new plants and equipment, when the Chinese
> will offer to build the product and ship it to the US for less than the cost
> of the labor in the US? It seems to me the executives can only see to the
> end of the next quarter and they have such a high opinion of their own
> worth, they figure they'll always get paid big bucks no matter how poor the
> rest of the country becomes. Personally, I'd like to outsource a few CEO
> jobs.
>
> Ed
>
> "jim beam" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jor56k$h0j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
> > note the key words:
>
> > "hollowing-out"
> > "better quality"
> > "production efficiency"
>
> > the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
> > industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this is
> > exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
>
> > and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions", i say
> > "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their asses while
> > their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer expense], and not
> > a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood about scratching their
> > asses while their members' retiree benefits have been either slashed or
> > even eliminated, and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" are
> > completely ineffective and are these days merely a convenient political
> > scapegoat.
>
> > we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the way to
> > go.
>
> > --
> > nomina rutrum rutrum- Hide quoted text -
> > note the key words:
>
> > "hollowing-out"
> > "better quality"
> > "production efficiency"
>
> > the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
> > industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this is
> > exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
>
> > and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions", i say
> > "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their asses while
> > their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer expense], and not
> > a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood about scratching their
> > asses while their members' retiree benefits have been either slashed or
> > even eliminated, and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" are
> > completely ineffective and are these days merely a convenient political
> > scapegoat.
>
> > we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the way to
> > go.
>
> > --
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's all about profit, and bonuses. they want to make all of the money
NOW, not over time like it use to be.
Scott Dorsey
May 14, 2012, 1:38:14 PM5/14/12
to
In article <jor56k$h0j$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
><http://news.yahoo.com/canon-seeks-full-automation-camera-production-055447035--finance.html>
could do bottom to top electronics manufacture.... there were a bunch of
local board fab houses. There were a bunch of guys who could stamp out
panels and engrave them. There was a screw machine company, and a couple
companies that stuffed boards.
All of these places are gone. I held out shipping the PCB work out of the
area as long as I could... but when all the PCB houses were gone, they were
gone. I held out shipping fastener work out of town until the last guy
with a screw machine shut down.
Almost all of our in-house mechanical stuff was being done with surplus
tooling from bigger manufacturing operations. As those operations shut down,
the surplus stuff disappeared and our only choice now is to buy new or
contract it out to someplace out of the area.
You cannot run a small manufacturing operation in isolation. You cannot
make a big manufacturing operation without starting out with a small one.
I'm willing to pay a little more for local production, just so I can drive
over to the factory and see what is going on, and I can get good turnaround
times on special projects. But, there isn't any more local production. It's
gone.
>we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the way
>to go.
Industrial production is not a thing you can do without substantial
infrastructure, unless you have the enormous budget required to set up
a vertically-integrated facility. We had that infrastructure. It took a
century to build up. Now it's gone.
Listen to Steve Jobs' comments about why Apple isn't going to be returning
to US manufacturing any time soon, he describes the basic issues very well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
><http://news.yahoo.com/canon-seeks-full-automation-camera-production-055447035--finance.html>
>
>the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
>industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this is
>exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
Because the infrastructure isn't there any longer. 25 years ago here I
>the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
>industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this is
>exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
could do bottom to top electronics manufacture.... there were a bunch of
local board fab houses. There were a bunch of guys who could stamp out
panels and engrave them. There was a screw machine company, and a couple
companies that stuffed boards.
All of these places are gone. I held out shipping the PCB work out of the
area as long as I could... but when all the PCB houses were gone, they were
gone. I held out shipping fastener work out of town until the last guy
with a screw machine shut down.
Almost all of our in-house mechanical stuff was being done with surplus
tooling from bigger manufacturing operations. As those operations shut down,
the surplus stuff disappeared and our only choice now is to buy new or
contract it out to someplace out of the area.
You cannot run a small manufacturing operation in isolation. You cannot
make a big manufacturing operation without starting out with a small one.
I'm willing to pay a little more for local production, just so I can drive
over to the factory and see what is going on, and I can get good turnaround
times on special projects. But, there isn't any more local production. It's
gone.
>we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the way
>to go.
infrastructure, unless you have the enormous budget required to set up
a vertically-integrated facility. We had that infrastructure. It took a
century to build up. Now it's gone.
Listen to Steve Jobs' comments about why Apple isn't going to be returning
to US manufacturing any time soon, he describes the basic issues very well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
mike
May 14, 2012, 2:11:44 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 8:52 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> It is not the unions that are the problem in the US. It is the short term
> thinking of the exectutives that run many major US compnaies. The way they
> see it - why spent billions on new plants and equipment, when the Chinese
> will offer to build the product and ship it to the US for less than the cost
> of the labor in the US? It seems to me the executives can only see to the
> end of the next quarter and they have such a high opinion of their own
> worth, they figure they'll always get paid big bucks no matter how poor the
> rest of the country becomes. Personally, I'd like to outsource a few CEO
> jobs.
>
> Ed
The world runs on greed.
> It is not the unions that are the problem in the US. It is the short term
> thinking of the exectutives that run many major US compnaies. The way they
> see it - why spent billions on new plants and equipment, when the Chinese
> will offer to build the product and ship it to the US for less than the cost
> of the labor in the US? It seems to me the executives can only see to the
> end of the next quarter and they have such a high opinion of their own
> worth, they figure they'll always get paid big bucks no matter how poor the
> rest of the country becomes. Personally, I'd like to outsource a few CEO
> jobs.
>
> Ed
I can't argue with your assessment of CEOs, but let's not lose sight of what
drives them.
Stakeholders want one thing...PROFIT.
Would you transfer your investments to companies who's charter disclosed
that it was their intention to charge much higher prices their competitors?
Would you pay 40% more for a television made in the USA?
I routinely buy electronic items from China. They get shipped to my door
for a total cost around a buck.
Or, I could spend $5 on gas to the local store and pay $10 for it...
and it'd still be from China.
I'm all for patriotism, but the economics are so far out of whack
that It's hard to practice it. I sympathize with all the people out of
work. I've been unemployed since '95. But I still gotta eat.
Buying cheap Chinese crap assists in that endeavor.
Scott Dorsey
May 14, 2012, 3:46:35 PM5/14/12
to
In article <jorht3$vom$1...@dont-email.me>, mike <spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Would you transfer your investments to companies who's charter disclosed
>that it was their intention to charge much higher prices their competitors?
I would, if it was also their intention to make a better product in the
>Would you transfer your investments to companies who's charter disclosed
>that it was their intention to charge much higher prices their competitors?
process. Coca-Cola is a good example of a company whose stated policy is
to charge more than their competitors.
>Would you pay 40% more for a television made in the USA?
properly derated high quality electrolytic capacitors. It would last more
than twice as long, so paying more would seem a reasonable thing to do.
I don't really care if it's made in China or not, what I care about is that
it is not crappy. The problem is that making products abroad means it is
very difficult to have control over the production and in the case of Chinese
manufacturer it is apt to get you a crappy product.
>I'm all for patriotism, but the economics are so far out of whack
>that It's hard to practice it. I sympathize with all the people out of
>work. I've been unemployed since '95. But I still gotta eat.
>Buying cheap Chinese crap assists in that endeavor.
quality. They -say- they care about quality, but when they are offered the
chance to spend more money on a better product, few of them do.
Consequently, there are very few better quality products in the marketplace
and because they are made in far fewer numbers than the cheap crap, the
price on them rises even higher because they don't get the benefits of
large scale production to bring costs down.
m6onz5a
May 14, 2012, 3:49:09 PM5/14/12
to
>
> >> note the key words:
>
> >> "hollowing-out"
> >> "better quality"
> >> "production efficiency"
>
> >> the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
> >> industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this is
> >> exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
>
> >> and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions", i say
> >> "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their asses while
> >> their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer expense], and not
> >> a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood about scratching their
> >> asses while their members' retiree benefits have been either slashed or
> >> even eliminated, and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" are
> >> completely ineffective and are these days merely a convenient political
> >> scapegoat.
>
> >> we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the way to
> >> go.
>
> >> --
> >> note the key words:
>
> >> "hollowing-out"
> >> "better quality"
> >> "production efficiency"
>
> >> the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
> >> industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this is
> >> exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
>
> >> and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions", i say
> >> "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their asses while
> >> their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer expense], and not
> >> a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood about scratching their
> >> asses while their members' retiree benefits have been either slashed or
> >> even eliminated, and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" are
> >> completely ineffective and are these days merely a convenient political
> >> scapegoat.
>
> >> we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the way to
> >> go.
>
> >> --
> >> nomina rutrum rutrum- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Products today aren't made to last. They all have a lifespan now.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pretty bad 90% of the flat screen owners I know have had some kind of
problem with their tv's needing a tech. to come out and replace a
board or whatever.
I got lucky with my 42" flatscreen I picked up for free. Stuck a $20
transistor in it, and it's been fine ever since. I'm afraid to
purchase a new one.. If I do I'll get an extended warranty.
m6onz5a
May 14, 2012, 3:45:41 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 2:11 pm, mike <spam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> note the key words:
>
> >> "hollowing-out"
> >> "better quality"
> >> "production efficiency"
>
> >> the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
> >> industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this is
> >> exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
>
> >> and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions", i say
> >> "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their asses while
> >> their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer expense], and not
> >> a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood about scratching their
> >> asses while their members' retiree benefits have been either slashed or
> >> even eliminated, and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" are
> >> completely ineffective and are these days merely a convenient political
> >> scapegoat.
>
> >> we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the way to
> >> go.
>
> >> --
> >> note the key words:
>
> >> "hollowing-out"
> >> "better quality"
> >> "production efficiency"
>
> >> the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
> >> industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this is
> >> exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
>
> >> and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions", i say
> >> "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their asses while
> >> their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer expense], and not
> >> a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood about scratching their
> >> asses while their members' retiree benefits have been either slashed or
> >> even eliminated, and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" are
> >> completely ineffective and are these days merely a convenient political
> >> scapegoat.
>
> >> we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the way to
> >> go.
>
> >> --
> >> nomina rutrum rutrum- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everything got shipped overseas because the American people wanted too
>
> - Show quoted text -
much money for their work. A co-worker friend of mine went on a tour
of a GM plant. What pissed him off was one of the workers sitting
reading a newspaper on the line. He'd look up. walk over to the car,
snap a piece into place, and walk back to his newspaper until the next
car came along.. Should this guy be making $25hr???? I think not!
mike
May 14, 2012, 4:07:44 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 12:46 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article<jorht3$vom$1...@dont-email.me>, mike<spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Would you transfer your investments to companies who's charter disclosed
>> that it was their intention to charge much higher prices their competitors?
>
> I would, if it was also their intention to make a better product in the
> process. Coca-Cola is a good example of a company whose stated policy is
> to charge more than their competitors.
How much Coke stock do you own?
> In article<jorht3$vom$1...@dont-email.me>, mike<spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Would you transfer your investments to companies who's charter disclosed
>> that it was their intention to charge much higher prices their competitors?
>
> I would, if it was also their intention to make a better product in the
> process. Coca-Cola is a good example of a company whose stated policy is
> to charge more than their competitors.
>
>> Would you pay 40% more for a television made in the USA?
>
> I would pay 40% more for a television that did not have RoHS solder and had
> properly derated high quality electrolytic capacitors. It would last more
> than twice as long, so paying more would seem a reasonable thing to do.
That wasn't the question.
>> Would you pay 40% more for a television made in the USA?
>
> I would pay 40% more for a television that did not have RoHS solder and had
> properly derated high quality electrolytic capacitors. It would last more
> than twice as long, so paying more would seem a reasonable thing to do.
>
> I don't really care if it's made in China or not, what I care about is that
> it is not crappy. The problem is that making products abroad means it is
> very difficult to have control over the production and in the case of Chinese
> manufacturer it is apt to get you a crappy product.
>
>> I'm all for patriotism, but the economics are so far out of whack
>> that It's hard to practice it. I sympathize with all the people out of
>> work. I've been unemployed since '95. But I still gotta eat.
>> Buying cheap Chinese crap assists in that endeavor.
>
> The problem is that consumers want low prices and they don't care about
> quality. They -say- they care about quality, but when they are offered the
> chance to spend more money on a better product, few of them do.
It's difficult to tell.
> I don't really care if it's made in China or not, what I care about is that
> it is not crappy. The problem is that making products abroad means it is
> very difficult to have control over the production and in the case of Chinese
> manufacturer it is apt to get you a crappy product.
>
>> I'm all for patriotism, but the economics are so far out of whack
>> that It's hard to practice it. I sympathize with all the people out of
>> work. I've been unemployed since '95. But I still gotta eat.
>> Buying cheap Chinese crap assists in that endeavor.
>
> The problem is that consumers want low prices and they don't care about
> quality. They -say- they care about quality, but when they are offered the
> chance to spend more money on a better product, few of them do.
There's cheap noname crap.
Then, there's expensive brand-name stuff that's cheap crap under the hood.
The Good stuff is very difficult to identify, and will be MUCH more
expensive.
We live in a disposable society. Fashion changes so fast that we buy a new
one before the old one is dead. For most of us, cheap is the better
alternative
overall.
>
> Consequently, there are very few better quality products in the marketplace
> and because they are made in far fewer numbers than the cheap crap, the
> price on them rises even higher because they don't get the benefits of
> large scale production to bring costs down.
> --scott
>
CEO's are caught in the middle making boatloads of cash.
C. E. White
May 14, 2012, 4:20:23 PM5/14/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jorfu6$ij7$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Listen to Steve Jobs' comments about why Apple isn't going to be returning
> to US manufacturing any time soon, he describes the basic issues very
> well.
when US citizens are too poor to buy them. Apple could easily build I-pads
in the US and still make a boat load of cash. Instead, they make them in
China and make a slightly larger boat load of cash while in the long run
contributing to the crumbling of the US economy. I suppose
multi-millionaires look at things differently, but I hope they look in the
mirror when a Chavez wannbe gets enough votes from disgruntled former
workers to get elected and go after them. The rich have been remarkably
successful at buying elections in the past, but occasionally some wacko gets
close. One day a left wing wacko might make it all the way to the top.
Ed
Scott Dorsey
May 14, 2012, 4:32:53 PM5/14/12
to
In article <joromj$eco$1...@dont-email.me>, mike <spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/14/2012 12:46 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article<jorht3$vom$1...@dont-email.me>, mike<spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Would you transfer your investments to companies who's charter disclosed
>>> that it was their intention to charge much higher prices their competitors?
>>
>> I would, if it was also their intention to make a better product in the
>> process. Coca-Cola is a good example of a company whose stated policy is
>> to charge more than their competitors.
>
>How much Coke stock do you own?
Less than a single block, but I should really get more. It's a great
>On 5/14/2012 12:46 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article<jorht3$vom$1...@dont-email.me>, mike<spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Would you transfer your investments to companies who's charter disclosed
>>> that it was their intention to charge much higher prices their competitors?
>>
>> I would, if it was also their intention to make a better product in the
>> process. Coca-Cola is a good example of a company whose stated policy is
>> to charge more than their competitors.
>
>How much Coke stock do you own?
business, they pump water out of the ground, add a small amount of stuff
to it, and sell it for $0.75/can. How can you beat that?
>> The problem is that consumers want low prices and they don't care about
>> quality. They -say- they care about quality, but when they are offered the
>> chance to spend more money on a better product, few of them do.
>
>It's difficult to tell.
>There's cheap noname crap.
>Then, there's expensive brand-name stuff that's cheap crap under the hood.
Chinese practice of buying up old-line American brand names. So now you
get stuff marked RCA and Bell and Howell which is in fact the same crap in
a different package.
>The Good stuff is very difficult to identify, and will be MUCH more
>expensive.
little more expensive. However, the current state of affairs has changed
this.
>We live in a disposable society. Fashion changes so fast that we buy a new
>one before the old one is dead. For most of us, cheap is the better
>alternative overall.
than they appear.
>
>> Consequently, there are very few better quality products in the marketplace
>> and because they are made in far fewer numbers than the cheap crap, the
>> price on them rises even higher because they don't get the benefits of
>> large scale production to bring costs down.
>>
>> Consequently, there are very few better quality products in the marketplace
>> and because they are made in far fewer numbers than the cheap crap, the
>> price on them rises even higher because they don't get the benefits of
>> large scale production to bring costs down.
>>
>Sounds like you agree that the problem is US!
Yes, but I don't have a solution for it. The way free markets work is that
most people get what they want, and the rest get what most people want because
that's what there is. This is sometimes great, and sometimes bad, and when
people want crap it's bad.
>CEO's are caught in the middle making boatloads of cash.
short-term profits.
Scott Dorsey
May 14, 2012, 4:37:03 PM5/14/12
to
C. E. White <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I guess Apple is counting on the Chinese buying their over-priced products
>when US citizens are too poor to buy them. Apple could easily build I-pads
>in the US and still make a boat load of cash. Instead, they make them in
>China and make a slightly larger boat load of cash while in the long run
>contributing to the crumbling of the US economy.
You cannot build stuff like that in this country in any volumes. The
>
>I guess Apple is counting on the Chinese buying their over-priced products
>when US citizens are too poor to buy them. Apple could easily build I-pads
>in the US and still make a boat load of cash. Instead, they make them in
>China and make a slightly larger boat load of cash while in the long run
>contributing to the crumbling of the US economy.
support infrastructure to build a factory to make that sort of equipment
is just not there. You cannot build a factory in isolation.
Two decades ago you could build a manufacturing facility in this country.
Today there are a few places where you can build some manufacturing work,
but a lot of the high tech stuff is just not possible to build because you
not only have to build the factory, you have to build the factory that makes
the parts for the factory and the factory that makes the parts for THAT factory
and the parts that make the tooling for the factory that makes the parts for
the factory.
There was support infrastructure. Now it is is gone. You can wring your
hands about it, but I don't see anyone proposing any actual fix. If there
IS an actual fix, it's going to be a fix that will take many decades to
implement, just as it took many decades to build up the manufacturing
infrastructure that we have now lost.
AMuzi
May 14, 2012, 5:05:44 PM5/14/12
to
Homer.Simpson
May 14, 2012, 6:03:20 PM5/14/12
to
jim beam said
> <http://news.yahoo.com/canon-seeks-full-automation-camera-production-0
asses". This is sufficient.
No. Unions are not the sole reason, perhaps not even the main reason, but
to exclude unions as part of the reason,m
in simply blind.
> we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the
> way to go.
Agreed on both parts. The challenge is to make it competitive and
profitable, very difficult in a high cost first world country.
Let the games begin!
> <http://news.yahoo.com/canon-seeks-full-automation-camera-production-0
> 55447035--finance.html>
>
> note the key words:
>
> "hollowing-out"
> "better quality"
> "production efficiency"
>
> the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
> industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this
> is exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
>
> and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions",
> i say "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their
> asses while their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer
> expense], and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood
> about scratching their asses while their members' retiree benefits
> have been either slashed or even eliminated, and not a cheep have we
> heard. "the unions" are completely ineffective and are these days
> merely a convenient political scapegoat.
You could have stopped with "the unions have stood about scratching their
>
> note the key words:
>
> "hollowing-out"
> "better quality"
> "production efficiency"
>
> the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
> industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this
> is exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
>
> and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions",
> i say "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their
> asses while their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer
> expense], and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood
> about scratching their asses while their members' retiree benefits
> have been either slashed or even eliminated, and not a cheep have we
> heard. "the unions" are completely ineffective and are these days
> merely a convenient political scapegoat.
asses". This is sufficient.
No. Unions are not the sole reason, perhaps not even the main reason, but
to exclude unions as part of the reason,m
in simply blind.
> we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the
> way to go.
profitable, very difficult in a high cost first world country.
Let the games begin!
jim beam
May 14, 2012, 10:55:20 PM5/14/12
to
On 05/14/2012 01:32 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
buyers are addicted - you can charge pretty much whatever you want.
>
>>> The problem is that consumers want low prices and they don't care about
>>> quality. They -say- they care about quality, but when they are offered the
>>> chance to spend more money on a better product, few of them do.
>>
>> It's difficult to tell.
>> There's cheap noname crap.
>> Then, there's expensive brand-name stuff that's cheap crap under the hood.
>
> These are often the same, with a different label. It's made worse by the
> Chinese practice of buying up old-line American brand names. So now you
> get stuff marked RCA and Bell and Howell which is in fact the same crap in
> a different package.
what i hate is being charged "made in usa" prices for stuff made in
china. vice grips are the perfect example - a brand bought by irwin,
[part of rubber maid i think], and production shipped to china. they
still charge the same price even though it's not costing them a fraction
to produce. and to add insult to injury, they have the temerity to call
them "original"! i won't buy irwin brand tools any more.
>
>> The Good stuff is very difficult to identify, and will be MUCH more
>> expensive.
>
> Right, but it did not use to be much more expensive, it used to be only a
> little more expensive. However, the current state of affairs has changed
> this.
indeed.
>
>> We live in a disposable society. Fashion changes so fast that we buy a new
>> one before the old one is dead. For most of us, cheap is the better
>> alternative overall.
>
> I disagree, in part because the actual costs of cheap gear are a lot higher
> than they appear.
indeed. china cuts prices to below cost on stuff they want to
monopolize. like rare earths for example.
>>
>>> Consequently, there are very few better quality products in the marketplace
>>> and because they are made in far fewer numbers than the cheap crap, the
>>> price on them rises even higher because they don't get the benefits of
>>> large scale production to bring costs down.
>>>
>> Sounds like you agree that the problem is US!
>
> Yes, but I don't have a solution for it. The way free markets work is that
> most people get what they want, and the rest get what most people want because
> that's what there is. This is sometimes great, and sometimes bad, and when
> people want crap it's bad.
i don't want crap. and i'm prepared to pay not to have crap. but my
sensibilities of "how much" one should pay not to have crap really get
tested sometimes. example: i've owned and enjoyed a snap-on ratchet for
many years. it's been completely reliable and has always worked great.
so, a few years back, thinking that maybe i'd get one of the new
[actually useful] 80-tooth ratchets i go online, and find that they'd
stopped making ratchets with quick-release heads. eh? that was one of
the real differentiators for snap-on - why everyone paid the extra to
get them. so the years roll on, and i go online again, and find that
finally, they've seen the light, and brought the quick-release back,
[only for limited parts of the range] but they have what i want, so i
get one.
what a disappointment. the ratchet direction lever now sticks out and
gets snagged on stuff the old one never did. the quick release button
is large and easily depressed - allowing it to release accidentally.
the 80-teeth thing sometimes miss and slip. but the real cherry on the
disappointment cake is it /doesn't/ have "made in usa" stamped into it.
seriously, if i pay snap-on pricing, i want "SNAP-ON - MADE IN USA"
stamped on the damned thing. big time.
and their pricing is way too high. craftsman are not the same quality,
but they're not 30% the quality as snap-on's pricing would suppose.
snap-on need to get their house in order. a classic example of a
domestic losing the plot, resting on their laurels, and paying too many
managers way too much money.
>
>> CEO's are caught in the middle making boatloads of cash.
>
> CEOs serve at the will of the shareholders, and the shareholders care about
> short-term profits.
if there were a strategic political objective of turning the proles into
docile, impoverished, impotent debt slaves, it would be hard to think of
a more brilliantly executed program than our program of
"de-industrialization".
> --scott
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
> In article<joromj$eco$1...@dont-email.me>, mike<spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/14/2012 12:46 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> In article<jorht3$vom$1...@dont-email.me>, mike<spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Would you transfer your investments to companies who's charter disclosed
>>>> that it was their intention to charge much higher prices their competitors?
>>>
>>> I would, if it was also their intention to make a better product in the
>>> process. Coca-Cola is a good example of a company whose stated policy is
>>> to charge more than their competitors.
>>
>> How much Coke stock do you own?
>
> Less than a single block, but I should really get more. It's a great
> business, they pump water out of the ground, add a small amount of stuff
> to it, and sell it for $0.75/can. How can you beat that?
cigarettes. not only does tobacco just grow out of the ground, its
>> On 5/14/2012 12:46 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> In article<jorht3$vom$1...@dont-email.me>, mike<spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Would you transfer your investments to companies who's charter disclosed
>>>> that it was their intention to charge much higher prices their competitors?
>>>
>>> I would, if it was also their intention to make a better product in the
>>> process. Coca-Cola is a good example of a company whose stated policy is
>>> to charge more than their competitors.
>>
>> How much Coke stock do you own?
>
> Less than a single block, but I should really get more. It's a great
> business, they pump water out of the ground, add a small amount of stuff
> to it, and sell it for $0.75/can. How can you beat that?
buyers are addicted - you can charge pretty much whatever you want.
>
>>> The problem is that consumers want low prices and they don't care about
>>> quality. They -say- they care about quality, but when they are offered the
>>> chance to spend more money on a better product, few of them do.
>>
>> It's difficult to tell.
>> There's cheap noname crap.
>> Then, there's expensive brand-name stuff that's cheap crap under the hood.
>
> These are often the same, with a different label. It's made worse by the
> Chinese practice of buying up old-line American brand names. So now you
> get stuff marked RCA and Bell and Howell which is in fact the same crap in
> a different package.
china. vice grips are the perfect example - a brand bought by irwin,
[part of rubber maid i think], and production shipped to china. they
still charge the same price even though it's not costing them a fraction
to produce. and to add insult to injury, they have the temerity to call
them "original"! i won't buy irwin brand tools any more.
>
>> The Good stuff is very difficult to identify, and will be MUCH more
>> expensive.
>
> Right, but it did not use to be much more expensive, it used to be only a
> little more expensive. However, the current state of affairs has changed
> this.
>
>> We live in a disposable society. Fashion changes so fast that we buy a new
>> one before the old one is dead. For most of us, cheap is the better
>> alternative overall.
>
> I disagree, in part because the actual costs of cheap gear are a lot higher
> than they appear.
monopolize. like rare earths for example.
>>
>>> Consequently, there are very few better quality products in the marketplace
>>> and because they are made in far fewer numbers than the cheap crap, the
>>> price on them rises even higher because they don't get the benefits of
>>> large scale production to bring costs down.
>>>
>> Sounds like you agree that the problem is US!
>
> Yes, but I don't have a solution for it. The way free markets work is that
> most people get what they want, and the rest get what most people want because
> that's what there is. This is sometimes great, and sometimes bad, and when
> people want crap it's bad.
sensibilities of "how much" one should pay not to have crap really get
tested sometimes. example: i've owned and enjoyed a snap-on ratchet for
many years. it's been completely reliable and has always worked great.
so, a few years back, thinking that maybe i'd get one of the new
[actually useful] 80-tooth ratchets i go online, and find that they'd
stopped making ratchets with quick-release heads. eh? that was one of
the real differentiators for snap-on - why everyone paid the extra to
get them. so the years roll on, and i go online again, and find that
finally, they've seen the light, and brought the quick-release back,
[only for limited parts of the range] but they have what i want, so i
get one.
what a disappointment. the ratchet direction lever now sticks out and
gets snagged on stuff the old one never did. the quick release button
is large and easily depressed - allowing it to release accidentally.
the 80-teeth thing sometimes miss and slip. but the real cherry on the
disappointment cake is it /doesn't/ have "made in usa" stamped into it.
seriously, if i pay snap-on pricing, i want "SNAP-ON - MADE IN USA"
stamped on the damned thing. big time.
and their pricing is way too high. craftsman are not the same quality,
but they're not 30% the quality as snap-on's pricing would suppose.
snap-on need to get their house in order. a classic example of a
domestic losing the plot, resting on their laurels, and paying too many
managers way too much money.
>
>> CEO's are caught in the middle making boatloads of cash.
>
> CEOs serve at the will of the shareholders, and the shareholders care about
> short-term profits.
docile, impoverished, impotent debt slaves, it would be hard to think of
a more brilliantly executed program than our program of
"de-industrialization".
> --scott
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
May 14, 2012, 10:56:22 PM5/14/12
to
of the party that calls itself "republican", they elected him anyway.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
May 14, 2012, 10:57:30 PM5/14/12
to
On 05/14/2012 03:03 PM, Homer.Simpson wrote:
> jim beam said
>
>> <http://news.yahoo.com/canon-seeks-full-automation-camera-production-0
>> 55447035--finance.html>
>>
>> note the key words:
>>
>> "hollowing-out"
>> "better quality"
>> "production efficiency"
>>
>> the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
>> industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this
>> is exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
>>
>> and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions",
>> i say "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their
>> asses while their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer
>> expense], and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood
>> about scratching their asses while their members' retiree benefits
>> have been either slashed or even eliminated, and not a cheep have we
>> heard. "the unions" are completely ineffective and are these days
>> merely a convenient political scapegoat.
>
> You could have stopped with "the unions have stood about scratching their
> asses". This is sufficient.
>
> No. Unions are not the sole reason, perhaps not even the main reason, but
> to exclude unions as part of the reason,m
> in simply blind.
the unions are useless, sure, but they're simply a scape goat. i have a
> jim beam said
>
>> <http://news.yahoo.com/canon-seeks-full-automation-camera-production-0
>> 55447035--finance.html>
>>
>> note the key words:
>>
>> "hollowing-out"
>> "better quality"
>> "production efficiency"
>>
>> the japanese are very smartly doing this to prevent building up the
>> industries of their economic competitors and military enemies. this
>> is exactly the situation we face, so why can't we?
>>
>> and to anyone that says we can't do it here because of "the unions",
>> i say "bullshit". "the unions" have stood about scratching their
>> asses while their members' jobs have been sent to china [at taxpayer
>> expense], and not a cheep have we heard. "the unions" have stood
>> about scratching their asses while their members' retiree benefits
>> have been either slashed or even eliminated, and not a cheep have we
>> heard. "the unions" are completely ineffective and are these days
>> merely a convenient political scapegoat.
>
> You could have stopped with "the unions have stood about scratching their
> asses". This is sufficient.
>
> No. Unions are not the sole reason, perhaps not even the main reason, but
> to exclude unions as part of the reason,m
> in simply blind.
close relationship with someone in a certain multinational with
significant operations overseas in both germany and asia. in germany,
the unions have /real/ power - and i get to hear all about it - no
firing of underachievers for instance. yet this company's german
profits are much higher than their asian operations. why? because
they're highly productive, despite the union b.s. and germany is a high
cost base for taxes, transportation, land, environmental compliance,
etc. too, so that really means something.
>
>> we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the
>> way to go.
>
> Agreed on both parts. The challenge is to make it competitive and
> profitable, very difficult in a high cost first world country.
they're biting the bullet and keeping production on shore for strategic
reasons, while maintaining economic production.
>
> Let the games begin!
it'll be "let the wars begin" if we don't figure this stuff out.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
May 14, 2012, 10:58:03 PM5/14/12
to
gotten that far.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
C. E. White
May 15, 2012, 8:30:04 AM5/15/12
to
news:jorqdf$jtf$1...@panix2.panix.com...
meaga-industrial power? How long after WWII for the Germans and Japanese to
rebuild their industries?
Ed
> C. E. White <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>I guess Apple is counting on the Chinese buying their over-priced products
>>when US citizens are too poor to buy them. Apple could easily build I-pads
>>in the US and still make a boat load of cash. Instead, they make them in
>>China and make a slightly larger boat load of cash while in the long run
>>contributing to the crumbling of the US economy.
>
> You cannot build stuff like that in this country in any volumes. The
> support infrastructure to build a factory to make that sort of equipment
> is just not there. You cannot build a factory in isolation.
>
> Two decades ago you could build a manufacturing facility in this country.
> Today there are a few places where you can build some manufacturing work,
> but a lot of the high tech stuff is just not possible to build because you
> not only have to build the factory, you have to build the factory that
> makes
> the parts for the factory and the factory that makes the parts for THAT
> factory
> and the parts that make the tooling for the factory that makes the parts
> for
> the factory.
Defeatist BS. How long did it take China to go from rice patties to a
>>
>>I guess Apple is counting on the Chinese buying their over-priced products
>>when US citizens are too poor to buy them. Apple could easily build I-pads
>>in the US and still make a boat load of cash. Instead, they make them in
>>China and make a slightly larger boat load of cash while in the long run
>>contributing to the crumbling of the US economy.
>
> You cannot build stuff like that in this country in any volumes. The
> support infrastructure to build a factory to make that sort of equipment
> is just not there. You cannot build a factory in isolation.
>
> Two decades ago you could build a manufacturing facility in this country.
> Today there are a few places where you can build some manufacturing work,
> but a lot of the high tech stuff is just not possible to build because you
> not only have to build the factory, you have to build the factory that
> makes
> the parts for the factory and the factory that makes the parts for THAT
> factory
> and the parts that make the tooling for the factory that makes the parts
> for
> the factory.
meaga-industrial power? How long after WWII for the Germans and Japanese to
rebuild their industries?
Ed
C. E. White
May 15, 2012, 8:32:25 AM5/15/12
to
"AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:jors38$406$1...@dont-email.me...
attention. He is a tool of the ultra-rich maybe even more so that GWB was.
Ed
Clive
May 15, 2012, 9:21:58 AM5/15/12
to
In message <joti8i$slb$1...@dont-email.me>, C. E. White
<cewh...@mindspring.com> writes
all the money made went into the country instead of illegal wars.
--
Clive
<cewh...@mindspring.com> writes
>Defeatist BS. How long did it take China to go from rice patties to a
>meaga-industrial power? How long after WWII for the Germans and Japanese to
>rebuild their industries?
Maybe because the stopped paying for an expensive army/navy/air force so
>meaga-industrial power? How long after WWII for the Germans and Japanese to
>rebuild their industries?
all the money made went into the country instead of illegal wars.
--
Clive
jim beam
May 15, 2012, 10:27:10 AM5/15/12
to
your point is absolutely correct - it's all a matter of deciding what we
want to do. i think our reality is that we're simply hostage to wall
st. if we had a flourishing industrial base as our economic powerhouse,
like japan, and as we used to have in the 50's and 60's, that industrial
powerhouse would have the most political influence. with a hollowed
economy populated by debt slaves [you know, student loans, credit cards,
over-inflated mortgages, and less directly, taxes to pay for profligate
government borrowing], it's wall st that has absolute and complete power.
the trouble with the wall st model though is the long term military
vulnerability it creates. with a strong industrial base, you can arm
and deploy for major wars in a matter of months. with the debt slave
model, you can't. indeed, you can't even "farm" your population of debt
slaves if they're being overrun by billions of land-hungry "yellow perils".
>
>
>>
>> There was support infrastructure. Now it is is gone. You can wring your
>> hands about it, but I don't see anyone proposing any actual fix. If there
>> IS an actual fix, it's going to be a fix that will take many decades to
>> implement, just as it took many decades to build up the manufacturing
>> infrastructure that we have now lost.
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
May 15, 2012, 10:58:54 AM5/15/12
to
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Scott Dorsey
May 15, 2012, 11:12:05 AM5/15/12
to
>> Two decades ago you could build a manufacturing facility in this country.
>> Today there are a few places where you can build some manufacturing work,
>> but a lot of the high tech stuff is just not possible to build because you
>> not only have to build the factory, you have to build the factory that
>> makes
>> the parts for the factory and the factory that makes the parts for THAT
>> factory
>> and the parts that make the tooling for the factory that makes the parts
>> for
>> the factory.
>
>Defeatist BS. How long did it take China to go from rice patties to a
>meaga-industrial power? How long after WWII for the Germans and Japanese to
>rebuild their industries?
Well, I'm manufacturing electronics in the US. Pretty much all of the
>> Today there are a few places where you can build some manufacturing work,
>> but a lot of the high tech stuff is just not possible to build because you
>> not only have to build the factory, you have to build the factory that
>> makes
>> the parts for the factory and the factory that makes the parts for THAT
>> factory
>> and the parts that make the tooling for the factory that makes the parts
>> for
>> the factory.
>
>Defeatist BS. How long did it take China to go from rice patties to a
>meaga-industrial power? How long after WWII for the Germans and Japanese to
>rebuild their industries?
components come from Japan, Korea, or (in the case of TI) Malaysia.
I do get some older low-density linear ICs that are made in the US, very
much specialty items. On some of my very old designs I use old-style wet
slug tantalum caps made in upstate NY, though they're made with Chinese
tantalum foil.
It's getting very difficult to get any of the mechanical parts made at all.
I have been through five sheet metal operations in the past 20 years, they
just keep closing as the work moves overseas. Problem is that all of the
work I have seen done in China has had real quality control issues. The
quality of the materials is very doubtful. I'm probably going to Canada,
like I did with the PC board fab. I do not want to be doing that in-house.
Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. White. Start making products in the
US. It's not easy, and it's getting exponentially harder. I'm making stuff
based on 1970s technology too... you want to make something state of the art
and it becomes that much harder.
Vic Smith
May 15, 2012, 12:02:57 PM5/15/12
to
On 15 May 2012 11:12:05 -0400, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. White. Start making products in the
>US. It's not easy, and it's getting exponentially harder. I'm making stuff
>based on 1970s technology too... you want to make something state of the art
>and it becomes that much harder.
>--scott
No one person can do that.
>
>Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. White. Start making products in the
>US. It's not easy, and it's getting exponentially harder. I'm making stuff
>based on 1970s technology too... you want to make something state of the art
>and it becomes that much harder.
>--scott
It takes industrial policy - yes. government policy.
Chinese, Germans, Japanese all have it.
We don't. We have the "free market."
AKA Welfare/Debt State.
Might change, might not.
Depends on how the politics washes out.
--
Vic
Scott Dorsey
May 15, 2012, 7:28:03 PM5/15/12
to
Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 15 May 2012 11:12:05 -0400, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. White. Start making products in the
>>US. It's not easy, and it's getting exponentially harder. I'm making stuff
>>based on 1970s technology too... you want to make something state of the art
>>and it becomes that much harder.
>
>On 15 May 2012 11:12:05 -0400, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. White. Start making products in the
>>US. It's not easy, and it's getting exponentially harder. I'm making stuff
>>based on 1970s technology too... you want to make something state of the art
>>and it becomes that much harder.
>
>No one person can do that.
I'm doing it today. I'm making products in the US. You can too.
It's hard, and in the case of higher technology stuff it may well be
impossible, but on a limited scale you can still make some products.
What you have to go through in order to get materials and support is
far more than you did 20 years ago, and it's far more than you would
have to do if you were in Guangzhou.
>It takes industrial policy - yes. government policy.
>Chinese, Germans, Japanese all have it.
>We don't. We have the "free market."
>AKA Welfare/Debt State.
>Might change, might not.
I have said nothing about _why_ the infrastructure is gone. I have
only said that it's gone and getting it back is going to be as long
a road as getting it in the first place was.
I don't claim to know _why_ it's gone or have any solution for fixing
it. But as for why people aren't manufacturing in the US, that I can
answer with confidence.
m6onz5a
May 16, 2012, 2:49:42 AM5/16/12
to
jim beam
May 16, 2012, 9:21:30 AM5/16/12
to
Scott Dorsey
May 16, 2012, 10:10:49 AM5/16/12
to
m6onz5a <cor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> answer with confidence.
>
>thank NAFTA
Maybe in some industries, but in the industrial electronics world the
competition is from China and not Mexico or Canada. If anything, NAFTA
has been a good thing for us since we export there.
Production in Mexico is kind of an interesting thing because the border
towns are close enough that you can keep an eye on production. But unless
you are doing something very labour-intensive or unless your primary goal
is to avoid EPA regulations against polluting, the savings is not great.
Recent security issues in Mexico have made it much less appealing. Shure
does dynamic microphone element production at their own factory in Mexico
since there's a lot of hand work involved.
Production in Canada is sometimes more expensive than in the US although
for wooden products there is a lot of infrastructure up there to do precision
wood fabrication cheaply and well. A lot of folks I know have loudspeaker
cabinets made up there, and as I said I have PC board fab work done in
Alberta because they do better quality work than I can get from most US or
Chinese houses.
>On May 15, 7:28=A0pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> I don't claim to know _why_ it's gone or have any solution for fixing
>> it. =A0But as for why people aren't manufacturing in the US, that I can
>>
>> I don't claim to know _why_ it's gone or have any solution for fixing
>> answer with confidence.
>
>thank NAFTA
Maybe in some industries, but in the industrial electronics world the
competition is from China and not Mexico or Canada. If anything, NAFTA
has been a good thing for us since we export there.
Production in Mexico is kind of an interesting thing because the border
towns are close enough that you can keep an eye on production. But unless
you are doing something very labour-intensive or unless your primary goal
is to avoid EPA regulations against polluting, the savings is not great.
Recent security issues in Mexico have made it much less appealing. Shure
does dynamic microphone element production at their own factory in Mexico
since there's a lot of hand work involved.
Production in Canada is sometimes more expensive than in the US although
for wooden products there is a lot of infrastructure up there to do precision
wood fabrication cheaply and well. A lot of folks I know have loudspeaker
cabinets made up there, and as I said I have PC board fab work done in
Alberta because they do better quality work than I can get from most US or
Chinese houses.
jim beam
May 16, 2012, 10:43:52 AM5/16/12
to
On 05/16/2012 07:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> m6onz5a<cor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On May 15, 7:28=A0pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't claim to know _why_ it's gone or have any solution for fixing
>>> it. =A0But as for why people aren't manufacturing in the US, that I can
>>> answer with confidence.
>>
>> thank NAFTA
>
> Maybe in some industries, but in the industrial electronics world the
> competition is from China and not Mexico or Canada.
a friend of mine does electronics prototyping. his designs usually end
> m6onz5a<cor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On May 15, 7:28=A0pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't claim to know _why_ it's gone or have any solution for fixing
>>> it. =A0But as for why people aren't manufacturing in the US, that I can
>>> answer with confidence.
>>
>> thank NAFTA
>
> Maybe in some industries, but in the industrial electronics world the
> competition is from China and not Mexico or Canada.
up getting fabbed in china. and the chinese are playing a very artful
but dirty game to be players in that business.
1. they essentially give the work away at prices so low, it's hard to
believe they're even covering materials costs, let alone labor, energy,
shipping, etc. but,
2. when you fab there, you can't just provide the gerbers, you have to
provide the schematics, full bills of materials, programming and
function statements as well.
so, the real cost of having stuff made in china is not monetary, it's
intellectual - you've just given away all your intellectual property in
return for a cheap[er] circuit board.
now, i'd like to hope that some m.b.a. has done a cost/benefit analysis
for this kind of decision fork before deciding that this was a
worthwhile trade, but based on the conversations i've had with many
harvard/stanford m.b.a's over the years, i've yet to see any evidence of it.
all the guys on the ground get it though - but nobody listens to them.
> If anything, NAFTA
> has been a good thing for us since we export there.
>
> Production in Mexico is kind of an interesting thing because the border
> towns are close enough that you can keep an eye on production. But unless
> you are doing something very labour-intensive or unless your primary goal
> is to avoid EPA regulations against polluting, the savings is not great.
> Recent security issues in Mexico have made it much less appealing. Shure
> does dynamic microphone element production at their own factory in Mexico
> since there's a lot of hand work involved.
>
> Production in Canada is sometimes more expensive than in the US although
> for wooden products there is a lot of infrastructure up there to do precision
> wood fabrication cheaply and well. A lot of folks I know have loudspeaker
> cabinets made up there, and as I said I have PC board fab work done in
> Alberta because they do better quality work than I can get from most US or
> Chinese houses.
> --scott
>
--
Scott Dorsey
May 16, 2012, 11:47:04 AM5/16/12
to
In article <jp0ef6$u0q$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>so, the real cost of having stuff made in china is not monetary, it's
>intellectual - you've just given away all your intellectual property in
>return for a cheap[er] circuit board.
A decade ago, people were surprised by this kind of thing. The guys at Kenwood
>so, the real cost of having stuff made in china is not monetary, it's
>intellectual - you've just given away all your intellectual property in
>return for a cheap[er] circuit board.
contracted with a factory in China to make a walkie-talkie, and within a
year or so their product was showing up all over the place with a Chinese
name on it.
But these days people expect this to happen, so smart folks contracting work
out to China do equally underhanded things. They ship a product out to be
made, but ship them with an FPGA that can only be used for testing... the
product must be returned to the US to be programmed and used. They take a
design, split it apart and have a dozen different factories each make a
piece of it. They have a factory make an assembly, then when the assembly
is returned to the US they discard part of it and replace it with something
else.
I have friends who have a lot of PC board fab work done in China, but they
send over Gerber files without component numbers or types or any silkscreen
information. So the guys making the board basically cannot do any real
reverse-engineering on them.
PC board work is the one thing that the Chinese really can do properly
to very high tolerances. The big problems are the intellectual property
issues combined with the fact that they will try and cheat you if they think
they can get away with it, so every board needs careful acceptance testing
on arrival (and that includes things like checking the thickness of platings).
I don't have time or money for that kind of stuff, so I pay between three
and five times as much to send to Canada in most cases.
>now, i'd like to hope that some m.b.a. has done a cost/benefit analysis
>for this kind of decision fork before deciding that this was a
>worthwhile trade, but based on the conversations i've had with many
>harvard/stanford m.b.a's over the years, i've yet to see any evidence of it.
>
>all the guys on the ground get it though - but nobody listens to them.
and there are still plenty of stupid people out there.
Vic Smith
May 16, 2012, 12:36:19 PM5/16/12
to
On 16 May 2012 11:47:04 -0400, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>PC board work is the one thing that the Chinese really can do properly
>to very high tolerances.
Depends on what you call high tolerances - and how much that matters
>
>PC board work is the one thing that the Chinese really can do properly
>to very high tolerances.
in the scheme of keeping people working.
All I know is that just about every "big ticket" item I buy is made
outside the U.S. Computers, TV's, washers, dryers, refrigerators,
furniture, blah, blah.
Then you add up all the "small stuff."
It's real simple to see where your money is going.
Sometimes I have a choice, mostly not.
And sometimes when I do, I'll buy Chinese because it's 1/3 the cost.
I'm not going to be a sucker unless everybody else is too.
I ain't rich and I don't live in a dream world.
That's why I said you need a government industrial policy to address
it. That's what just about every other country does, and it's the
only way it will change.
That's all a political problem.
Same with automation. Is it better to have something fully automated
and pay welfare money to people so they can buy drugs and do crime,
get fat and burden the health industry, or lessen the automation, and
keep those people working.
This stuff is complicated, and I don't claim to have the answers.
But I've been around a long time, seen a lot, and have my views.
--
Vic
M.A. Stewart
May 16, 2012, 6:59:29 PM5/16/12
to
misunderstood. It has nothing to do with inefficient workers.
Productivity is the function of capital investment.
For example, take 20 efficient workers and one underachiever,
and assign them to dig 2 large identical holes. 20 workers
are tasked to dig one hole, and the one bozo is tasked to dig
the other identical hole. The bozo has the same productivity as the
20 workers because he dug his hole in the same amount of time.
Why? Because of capital investment. The 20 workers used 15
shovels, 3 picks, 2 wheel barrels, and a bunch of wooden planks,
to dig their hole and the bozo used a $90,000 back-hoe to dig
his hole. The bozo also had taken a course (and passed) in
back-hoe operation, paid by his employer. A non-bozo would
not materially be faster than the 20 men because the 2 tasks
would be calculated to achieve the identical holes being dug
in the same time. This was an example, the 20 to 1 ratio might
be 30 to 1, or some other ratio.
Capital investment for 20 men, approximately $675. Capital
investment for the bozo, approximately $91,000. This does
not include the cost of beer, because beer is a consumable
cost, not a capital cost.
jim beam
May 16, 2012, 10:57:22 PM5/16/12
to
emperor's personal security to the visigoths. sure, it was very
"productive" with regard to resources of the roman aristocracy [or any
other roman citizens come to that] that didn't care for the drudgery of
military service, and arguably their loyalty was a bought commodity and
therefore "more reliable" than that of a discontented local populace.
but we all know how that failure to account for the big picture ended
up. and failure to account for the financial big picture, that of
intellectual property destruction, and military security destruction,
makes mockery of ANY "capital efficiency" argument.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the
>>>> way to go.
>>>
>>> Agreed on both parts. The challenge is to make it competitive and
>>> profitable, very difficult in a high cost first world country.
>>
>> japan's a /much/ more expensive country to operate in than here, but
>> they're biting the bullet and keeping production on shore for strategic
>> reasons, while maintaining economic production.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Let the games begin!
>>
>> it'll be "let the wars begin" if we don't figure this stuff out.
>>
>>
>> --
>> nomina rutrum rutrum
>
>
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
May 16, 2012, 10:58:50 PM5/16/12
to
On 05/16/2012 08:47 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article<jp0ef6$u0q$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> so, the real cost of having stuff made in china is not monetary, it's
>> intellectual - you've just given away all your intellectual property in
>> return for a cheap[er] circuit board.
>
> A decade ago, people were surprised by this kind of thing. The guys at Kenwood
> contracted with a factory in China to make a walkie-talkie, and within a
> year or so their product was showing up all over the place with a Chinese
> name on it.
>
> But these days people expect this to happen, so smart folks contracting work
> out to China do equally underhanded things.
but that underlines the utter retardation of the whole situation. if
> In article<jp0ef6$u0q$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> so, the real cost of having stuff made in china is not monetary, it's
>> intellectual - you've just given away all your intellectual property in
>> return for a cheap[er] circuit board.
>
> A decade ago, people were surprised by this kind of thing. The guys at Kenwood
> contracted with a factory in China to make a walkie-talkie, and within a
> year or so their product was showing up all over the place with a Chinese
> name on it.
>
> But these days people expect this to happen, so smart folks contracting work
> out to China do equally underhanded things.
they just made it here, they wouldn't have to do that stuff. or if they
had it made in vietnam, malaysia, philippines, or even turkey...
> They ship a product out to be
> made, but ship them with an FPGA that can only be used for testing... the
> product must be returned to the US to be programmed and used.
what my friend tells me. and he's a guy that designs boards, and
coordinates their production through to receiving working product
stateside. he says that to get something made, assembled, and certified
RoHS compliant, you have to supply the whole shebang, including the
software for any programmables.
> They take a
> design, split it apart and have a dozen different factories each make a
> piece of it. They have a factory make an assembly, then when the assembly
> is returned to the US they discard part of it and replace it with something
> else.
>
> I have friends who have a lot of PC board fab work done in China, but they
> send over Gerber files without component numbers or types or any silkscreen
> information. So the guys making the board basically cannot do any real
> reverse-engineering on them.
>
> PC board work is the one thing that the Chinese really can do properly
> to very high tolerances. The big problems are the intellectual property
> issues combined with the fact that they will try and cheat you if they think
> they can get away with it, so every board needs careful acceptance testing
> on arrival (and that includes things like checking the thickness of platings).
> I don't have time or money for that kind of stuff, so I pay between three
> and five times as much to send to Canada in most cases.
including in your case testing that you can't easily do, and put it into
the context of intellectual property protection, chinese fab makes
little or no sense. not enough to justify the evasion or the risk.
>
>> now, i'd like to hope that some m.b.a. has done a cost/benefit analysis
>> for this kind of decision fork before deciding that this was a
>> worthwhile trade, but based on the conversations i've had with many
>> harvard/stanford m.b.a's over the years, i've yet to see any evidence of it.
>>
>> all the guys on the ground get it though - but nobody listens to them.
>
> Oh, they do now, but it took a long, long time for anyone to start doing it,
at best, you can say it would be loss of face to admit mistake. at
worst, well, let's just say that i find it hard to believe that we're a
nation of lemmings that are really /that/ stupid.
> and there are still plenty of stupid people out there.
"stupid" thing if there was a gun against their head? if yes, then they
are indeed stupid. if not, then you have a whole different issue on
your hands. my experience of some of these m.b.a. folk is the latter.
Scott Dorsey
May 17, 2012, 10:43:04 AM5/17/12
to
In article <jp1ph9$ff3$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 05/16/2012 08:47 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > They ship a product out to be
>> made, but ship them with an FPGA that can only be used for testing... the
>> product must be returned to the US to be programmed and used.
>
>that may be - i don't personally know - but that doesn't accord with
>what my friend tells me. and he's a guy that designs boards, and
>coordinates their production through to receiving working product
>stateside. he says that to get something made, assembled, and certified
>RoHS compliant, you have to supply the whole shebang, including the
>software for any programmables.
Some factories are like that. If you absolutely _have_ to do final assembly
>On 05/16/2012 08:47 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > They ship a product out to be
>> made, but ship them with an FPGA that can only be used for testing... the
>> product must be returned to the US to be programmed and used.
>
>that may be - i don't personally know - but that doesn't accord with
>what my friend tells me. and he's a guy that designs boards, and
>coordinates their production through to receiving working product
>stateside. he says that to get something made, assembled, and certified
>RoHS compliant, you have to supply the whole shebang, including the
>software for any programmables.
in China, doing things like supplying fake software and added fake hardware
bits can help.
>> They take a
>> design, split it apart and have a dozen different factories each make a
>> piece of it. They have a factory make an assembly, then when the assembly
>> is returned to the US they discard part of it and replace it with something
>> else.
>
>the discard part makes no sense.
a module whose purpose is deliberately misleading and will cause the product
to fail. Then when the product is shipped to the US, there is some minor
rework done before it is shipped to the customer. This way when (not if)
your design is stolen at the factory, they steal something that is broken
and incomplete.
>> I have friends who have a lot of PC board fab work done in China, but they
>> send over Gerber files without component numbers or types or any silkscreen
>> information. So the guys making the board basically cannot do any real
>> reverse-engineering on them.
>
>who do they use? my friend clearly needs to know!
spam email from PCB fab houses in China... it's bad to get into a long
term relationship with any one of them. The game is to play them against
one another constantly.
>> and there are still plenty of stupid people out there.
>
>here's my intellectual test for stupid. would they still do that
>"stupid" thing if there was a gun against their head? if yes, then they
>are indeed stupid. if not, then you have a whole different issue on
>your hands. my experience of some of these m.b.a. folk is the latter.
they are evaluated entirely based on their ability to bring short-term
profits into the company. There might be a gun against the company's
head but that's not their problem, they'll be working for the competition
next year anyway.
jim beam
May 17, 2012, 11:15:44 AM5/17/12
to
the cheap production house in the first place!
>
>>> I have friends who have a lot of PC board fab work done in China, but they
>>> send over Gerber files without component numbers or types or any silkscreen
>>> information. So the guys making the board basically cannot do any real
>>> reverse-engineering on them.
>>
>> who do they use? my friend clearly needs to know!
>
> They use whoever gives the cheapest bid this week. I am inundated with
> spam email from PCB fab houses in China... it's bad to get into a long
> term relationship with any one of them. The game is to play them against
> one another constantly.
>
>>> and there are still plenty of stupid people out there.
>>
>> here's my intellectual test for stupid. would they still do that
>> "stupid" thing if there was a gun against their head? if yes, then they
>> are indeed stupid. if not, then you have a whole different issue on
>> your hands. my experience of some of these m.b.a. folk is the latter.
>
> Well, in a lot of cases there isn't a gun against their head, because
> they are evaluated entirely based on their ability to bring short-term
> profits into the company.
they don't care about the consequences, and another when they do, you
know there's a serious problem with real vs. stated objectives.
> There might be a gun against the company's
> head but that's not their problem, they'll be working for the competition
> next year anyway.
and former micro$oft director, sell nokia down the river and straight
into bed with his former employer, i don't think it takes an hercule
poirot to ask the question about where is loyalties lie. nokia's market
cap was significant before elop. it's, ahem, much more "affordable"
today. but why even /bother/ buying nokia when you can effectively
control it for free?
it is my contention that in every case where you see the hollowing out
of the industrial capacity of "usa inc", each and every one of these
decision makers would "fail" the gun test. and when someone on wall st
calls a ceo and tells them they have to move production to china or
they're going to trash their stock, "oh, and by the way, we'll put you
in touch with the right people over there that can help", that is truly
faustian. what a deal - get rid of the unions by shipping their
members' jobs overseas, consolidate the national power base away from
industry and into the hands of wall st, and create a nation of impotent
debt slaves all at the same time. it's nothing short of treason in my
opinion.
jim beam
May 17, 2012, 11:23:22 PM5/17/12
to
as you doubtless know, china has been playing the trump card [that we
effectively gave them] over rare earth materials recently - threatening
to withhold production in return for political concessions now that
they're the world's primary rare earth producers.
so, how did they get to enjoy that position? easy - they undercut
everyone else's prices, put the mines both here and in australia, out of
business, and hey presto, they owned an essential strategic civilian and
military monopoly that they could leverage at will.
but it wasn't a problem for u.s. manufacturers and consumers who
couldn't see it coming. heck, even the military was enjoying the lower
priced materials and the "capital efficiency" - so who cared, right?
well, the japanese cared. they stockpiled three years worth of material
as a hedge against the risk of china flexing it's political muscle. and
we're talking three years of zero material production and three years of
full consumption. so when china shut the gate on production a few
months back, japan's reaction was "fuck you, we'll pay australia to
start producing again, and we have the stockpile so we can wait for them
to tool up". so the chinese ended up turning on the spigot again, and
our asses [who hadn't stockpiled a thing] got saved.
now, where was the "capital efficiency" in the japanese strategy that
saved our sorry ass? well, it wasn't down at the bean counter level
worrying about r.o.c.e., that's for sure.
fucking bean counters. they couldn't see past the end of their nose
even if you cut it off and shoved it up their ass.
jim beam
May 17, 2012, 11:30:26 PM5/17/12
to
On 05/17/2012 08:23 PM, jim beam wrote:
> so, how did they get to enjoy that position? easy - they undercut
> everyone else's prices, put the mines both here and in australia, out of
> business, and hey presto, they owned an essential strategic civilian and
> military monopoly that they could leverage at will.
>
> but it wasn't a problem for u.s. manufacturers and consumers who
> couldn't see it coming. heck, even the military was enjoying the lower
> priced materials and the "capital efficiency" - so who cared, right?
>
> well, the japanese cared. they stockpiled three years worth of material
> as a hedge against the risk of china flexing it's political muscle. and
> we're talking three years of zero material production and three years of
> full consumption. so when china shut the gate on production
correction: shut the gate on exports
> so, how did they get to enjoy that position? easy - they undercut
> everyone else's prices, put the mines both here and in australia, out of
> business, and hey presto, they owned an essential strategic civilian and
> military monopoly that they could leverage at will.
>
> but it wasn't a problem for u.s. manufacturers and consumers who
> couldn't see it coming. heck, even the military was enjoying the lower
> priced materials and the "capital efficiency" - so who cared, right?
>
> well, the japanese cared. they stockpiled three years worth of material
> as a hedge against the risk of china flexing it's political muscle. and
> we're talking three years of zero material production and three years of
> full consumption. so when china shut the gate on production
> a few months
> back, japan's reaction was "fuck you, we'll pay australia to start
> producing again, and we have the stockpile so we can wait for them to
> tool up". so the chinese ended up turning on the spigot again, and our
> asses [who hadn't stockpiled a thing] got saved.
>
> now, where was the "capital efficiency" in the japanese strategy that
> saved our sorry ass? well, it wasn't down at the bean counter level
> worrying about r.o.c.e., that's for sure.
>
> fucking bean counters. they couldn't see past the end of their nose even
> if you cut it off and shoved it up their ass.
>
>
nomina rutrum rutrum
M.A. Stewart
May 18, 2012, 4:29:17 PM5/18/12
to
Productivity is the function of capital investment.
Another example;
Capital investment, $0.75... package of sewing needless
Capital investment, $750.00... industrial strength sewing machine
The operator of the sewing machine produces more per hour!
Clive
May 19, 2012, 4:13:39 AM5/19/12
to
In message <jorq5l$e7q$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
<klu...@panix.com> writes
>Less than a single block, but I should really get more. It's a great
>business, they pump water out of the ground, add a small amount of stuff
>to it, and sell it for $0.75/can. How can you beat that?
They tried pulling that trick over here, until someone told the press
that they were selling tap water for 1UKP a can, the sales went through
the floor and the scam had to be withdrawn.
--
Clive
<klu...@panix.com> writes
>Less than a single block, but I should really get more. It's a great
>business, they pump water out of the ground, add a small amount of stuff
>to it, and sell it for $0.75/can. How can you beat that?
They tried pulling that trick over here, until someone told the press
that they were selling tap water for 1UKP a can, the sales went through
the floor and the scam had to be withdrawn.
--
Clive
jim beam
May 21, 2012, 9:00:12 PM5/21/12
to
are something of a fanciful misnomer.
> Productivity is the function of capital investment.
>
> Another example;
>
> Capital investment, $0.75... package of sewing needless
>
> Capital investment, $750.00... industrial strength sewing machine
>
> The operator of the sewing machine produces more per hour!
capital investment for the guys using shovels, presumably because you
were trying to justify *not* making capital investment in domestic
automated production as opposed to labor intensive production overseas.
but in this post, you're trying to argue that the capital investment
in the sewing machine is a better than the labor intensive needle.
i don't know if this contradiction is deliberate or you're just another
example of why economists are simply the kids that weren't very good at
math, but either way, you're still completely failing to understand the
big picture. your sewing machine is useless if someone has cut off the
power. and your off-shoring savings to cheap foreign labor get
annihilated if there's a trade dispute disrupting shipping. not
acknowledging the big picture and the parallel to rome's downfall being
due to their outsourcing their military functions to foreigners is
either because you don't understand it, or because you're not honest
enough to admit its relevance.
>
>
>
>> emperor's personal security to the visigoths. sure, it was very
>> "productive" with regard to resources of the roman aristocracy [or any
>> other roman citizens come to that] that didn't care for the drudgery of
>> military service, and arguably their loyalty was a bought commodity and
>> therefore "more reliable" than that of a discontented local populace.
>> but we all know how that failure to account for the big picture ended
>> up. and failure to account for the financial big picture, that of
>> intellectual property destruction, and military security destruction,
>> makes mockery of ANY "capital efficiency" argument.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> we need to keep industrial production domestic. automation is the
>>>>>> way to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed on both parts. The challenge is to make it competitive and
>>>>> profitable, very difficult in a high cost first world country.
>>>>
>>>> japan's a /much/ more expensive country to operate in than here, but
>>>> they're biting the bullet and keeping production on shore for strategic
>>>> reasons, while maintaining economic production.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let the games begin!
>>>>
>>>> it'll be "let the wars begin" if we don't figure this stuff out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> nomina rutrum rutrum
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> nomina rutrum rutrum
>
>
nomina rutrum rutrum
hls
May 24, 2012, 4:09:05 PM5/24/12
to
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:joticu$tdl$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> If you think Obama is some sort of left wing wacko, you aren't really
> paying attention. He is a tool of the ultra-rich maybe even more so that
> GWB was.
>
> Ed
I definitely think he is a left-winger, socialist if not communist. BUT
> If you think Obama is some sort of left wing wacko, you aren't really
> paying attention. He is a tool of the ultra-rich maybe even more so that
> GWB was.
>
> Ed
his way
into the White House was bought with a LOT of money.
Would you like tot explain your comment a little further?
jim
May 24, 2012, 9:20:44 PM5/24/12
to
hls wrote:
>
> "C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:joticu$tdl$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> > If you think Obama is some sort of left wing wacko, you aren't really
> > paying attention. He is a tool of the ultra-rich maybe even more so that
> > GWB was.
> >
> > Ed
>
> I definitely think he is a left-winger, socialist if not communist. BUT
> his way
> into the White House was bought with a LOT of money.
the ones with all the money and political power?
Scott Dorsey
May 25, 2012, 5:13:36 PM5/25/12
to
>> I definitely think he is a left-winger, socialist if not communist. BUT
>> his way
>> into the White House was bought with a LOT of money.
Can you name any president in the past fifty years whose way into the
>> his way
>> into the White House was bought with a LOT of money.
White House was not bought with a lot of money? Aside from Ford,
of course.
If you don't like it, what are you doing to support campaign finance
reform?
0 new messages