Who wants to make some tires????

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2011: Who wants to make some tires????
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Patrick Martin on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 04:17 am:

While browsing for some military vehicle parts I found this from a supplier I sometimes use.
Look waaaaaay down at the bottom of the page.

http://www.repuestossam.com/en/kubelwagen/tires%20and%20rims.htm

Sounds like collectors across the pond are even fed up with the current repro tire quality :-/


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Patrick Martin on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 04:21 am:

If Continental will do it there....why not here? (supposing there is a factory) I for one would like to see some aggressive tread off-road tires made for 30X3.5

Group buy anyone???? :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John W. Oder on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 08:17 am:

Email address in contact section is Estonia?

J.O.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks_-_Surf_City on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 08:22 am:

ES is Espan~a (Spain).


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Eubanks, Powell, TN on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 08:39 am:

No one would do it here because they would have to be unionized.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks_-_Surf_City on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 08:45 am:

Danged greedy 'murricans won't work for less than a dollar an hour.

We need tariffs, which are a big part of our Constitution, and 100% inspection of imports - paid by the importers.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John F. Regan on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 09:57 am:

Yeah lets set off a trade war to polish things off completely for those companies in America who export. I think we ought to improve our economy with less government not more and then tariffs might have some sting to them. Funny how tariffs are mentioned as being in the constitution when so many other items in there are totally ignored. If we have the government inspect tires that we already know are bad how does that do anything but raise tire prices and shut off bad ones. I fail to see how I am any better in that scenario other than higher taxes to cover the cost of policing the inspectors. There is an interesting philosophy that I am told works just fine unless regulated. It is called capitalism and lets the buyer have the freedom to choose what he wants to buy. If you don't like the product - don't buy it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Treace on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 10:27 am:

Just consider what must go into manufacturing tires and marketing and exporting them (or anything that is manufactured today for that matter).

There is huge captial, and risk at stake, and you must identify and create your market too.

Antique tire market is rather small in the scheme of tires.....

Here is a good example of a good USA company doing things it can to establish a nitch in industrial tires, and prehaps could be one that if $ point there, could be a one concern to make antique tires.


Titan Tire Corporation, a subsidiary of Titan International, Inc., is one of North American's largest manufacturer of off-highway tires. Titan's tire production facilities are located in Freeport, Illinois, Bryan, Ohio, and Des Moines, Iowa, which also serves as the headquarters for the tire group.

I followed them due to Titan aquiring Denman tires, who used to make antique car tires too.

June 4, 2010

Titan Announces Completion of Denman Tire Asset Purchase
QUINCY, Ill.-On Thursday, June 3, 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District in Ohio approved the sale of certain assets of Denman Tire to Titan Tire Corporation, a subsidiary of Titan International, Inc. The asset purchase was completed on Friday, June 4, 2010, for a total of $4.4 million U.S. Dollars. The asset purchase included the Denman Tire name, tire specifications, patents, molds, various bladder tooling, customer lists and other items. The purchase did not include any machinery, land or buildings.}

But..who knows if they could be intersted in such small market that antique cars provide.

Titan tire is one of the world's leading OEMs, making tires for John Deere, AGCO, Case, New Holland, Caterpillar and Kubota, for all types of off-highway applications. Titan is the only major manufacturer that focuses on off-highway tire production and plants are equipped to produce tires in sizes ranging in wheel diameter from six to forty-two inches.

And Titan is aggressive in acquistions to expand.

/i{News Release from Titan International, Inc.
November 15, 2011

TITAN TIRE PURCHASES THE PHYSICAL ASSETS OF GOODYEAR’S UNION CITY PLANT

QUINCY, Ill.—Titan Tire Corporation of Union City, a subsidiary of Titan International, Inc. (NYSE: TWI), has purchased the physical assets of Goodyear’s Union City closed tire plant. Titan notified Goodyear of its interest in certain equipment after discovering that Goodyear was selling the assets. Following are the general terms of the agreement:

Titan purchased approximately 480 acres of land.
Titan purchased the building consisting of approximately 2.1 million square feet.
Titan agrees it will not produce radial passenger or SUV tires at the factory.
“Titan has not yet decided how it plans to utilize the Tennessee location except to warehouse farm and OTR tires and to have a single equipment rebuilding operation for the machines.}

But here is the real challange to mfg, and that is union labor unwilling to see the plight of captial and risk that owners have to surmount. Note the comments by Titan's CEO

December 1, 2011

Titan Announces Expiration of Put Option for Goodyear France

QUINCY, Ill.-Titan International, Inc (NYSE: TWI) announces that the put option Goodyear had for the Amiens France facility has expired on November 30, 2011. Goodyear and Titan had entered into an agreement in 2009 for Titan to acquire Goodyear's Latin America farm tire business and their European farm tire business. The parties closed on the Latin America transaction on April 1, 2011. The European farm business and related put option contained a clause that Goodyear had to have a social plan for the closing of the passenger car business in Amiens France leaving 537 jobs in the farm business. The factory unions have been successful in the French labor courts holding up such plans for a number of years.


"It shows how screwed up things are in France when a company tries to save jobs," commented Maurice Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Titan International. "Titan has other acquisitions that have been on hold while the put option was still active. Now Titan will pursue those options instead of waiting for the French union to start thinking about their members. Titan spent a lot of time and money trying to get Goodyear's social plan approved but only a non business person would understand the French labor rules. The French workers are very good at what they do when they work but as I told the union personnel, you cannot get paid seven hours for three hours of work."

What to start mfg antique tires anyone?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George - Cherry Hill New Jersey on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 10:29 am:

My son buys modern tires at 4 trailer loads a pop each month or so, and while these are modern tires...to add to John comment...

In the trade war balance, USA went and imposed an import tariff on Chinese made tires (and the Chinese retaliated by finding equal goods to tax for import there...as these things go). The apparent master idea from those elected was with the quantity now needing a 25% odd price increase at retail, some American tire mills could increase output. (This IS how such a scheme is supposed to work anyway)

The Mexicans then turned right around and raised their prices by but 17% and used NAFTA as the reason they need not be tariffed themselves. So, no Chinese imports, lot's more Mexican imports, and we got hit with a 17% price increase to the point that tires at retail are now volatile and change monthly based on what is in warehouses and if you purchased the tire warranty/sidewall protection thing in 2010 or so, you see yourself being asked somehow in the final invoicing for a warranty claim to come up with another 25 bucks in miscellaneous charges...

Tariffs may work, but somehow I don't think we know how to do it anymore :-(


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Hjortnaes-Men Falls, WI on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 10:48 am:

If another company in the Czech Republic wants to try to build tires for the Model T, more power to them. A little competition might make the other supplier improve his product. Perhaps someone on the other side of the pond can tell us the quality of tires made by this firm.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George - Cherry Hill New Jersey on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 11:02 am:

Wow....2 emails in 5 minutes...hot button???

What was the retaliation? After USA garnered 1.8 billion is surprise import duty for what was already in the pipeline and on the seas, China appealed to the WTO and lost...USA can tax whatever it wants, when it wants. Guess that wasn't on Diane Sawyer, eh?

So China had a previous deal with the USA automakers. For those that built factories in China over the previous 5 years (GM Shanghai for example) the brand WAS allowed to bring in models that were not built in China at quite favorable import duty, like at almost none.

China then turned around after being whacked with the tire thing and said ANY import of GM or other USA manufacturers that had larger than a 2.5 liter engine would be whacked with a 25% import duty!

So...since the bread and butter of USA automakers right now is still the small SUV's or crossovers, unless it has a 2.4 engine or less...now the booming Chinese economy won't pay the extra 25% at retail because they can buy a VW/Audi import equivalent, with any engine size, and it is still at the near nothing import tax. Those USA plants building the small SUV cross-overs now have to find other markets to keep production up.

Like John R. mentioned...perhaps capitalism should prevail without gov't intervention. Let American innovation find a way to beat the monster at retail.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks_-_Surf_City on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 11:37 am:

"Yeah lets set off a trade war to polish things off completely for those companies in America who export."

We import $7 for every $1 we export. You think Communist China wants a trade war? BRING IT ON!

"I think we ought to improve our economy with less government not more..."

"Death-by-Air in Beijing Shows China’s Heart Risk From Worsening Pollution"
www.bloomberg.com

"Funny how tariffs are mentioned as being in the constitution when so many other items in there are totally ignored."

Tariffs have been ignored for the last 30 years, to the devastation of our manufacturing. We have lost over 50,000 manufacturers and millions of good paying jobs, the heart of our Middle Class.

"If we have the government inspect tires that we already know are bad how does that do anything but raise tire prices and shut off bad ones."

Uh, isn't it worth anything to you to have safe tires? Maybe you won't buy the cheap junk, but those around you do, putting your life at risk, anyhow. And those who are injured raise the cost of healthcare for everybody.

"I fail to see how I am any better in that scenario other than higher taxes to cover the cost of policing the inspectors."

My premise is 100% inspection of imports - paid by the importers. That includes the cost of policing the inspectors.

Baxter Labs imports the pig ingredients of Heparin from farms somewhere deep in Communist China. Heparin is used in hospitals to wean patients from Coumedin ahead of surgery. Untold thousands were sickened and hundreds died from dirty Heparin four years ago before the cause was discovered.

Yeh, unfettered capitalism at work.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dare on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 12:15 pm:

I'm a little concerned , does this mean we all have to " agree" on the tire pattern we are going to order ??

;}

David.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Aaron Griffey on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 01:11 pm:

Our chicken sheet government will NEVER do a 100% import inspection at the cost of the importers. NEVER. The whole goal is to break this country.
What good is the seafood inspection?
American seafood sells for $3 a lb.
The imported stuff is $2 a lb.
5% of imported seafood is being inspected. 60% of that that is inspected is unfit for human consumption.
So if they inspect 100% and have to dump the bad 60% you think the seafood we import will be better and at the same price? Do you think you will be able to afford seafood?
Oh sure, I really do believe the US seafood price will stay the same. BS!
Before you can talk about getting good imported goods and manufacturing goods here for a reasonable price you have got to GET RID OF EVERY GD one of those A holes in Washinton D.C. and elect Americans in their places. Aint gonna happen. NOT EVER!
It supprises me that Ford would want to increase production of the number one selling vehicle. That is contrary to the modern day American way.
Does the government know and approve this?
I would of thought the'd stop making them completely.!? Or relaced it with a front wheel drive unibody twin turbo 3 cylinder .........


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Martin Vowell, Pacoima, CA on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 06:31 pm:

Maybe if the cherry trees in Washington got decorated with a few of these politians swinging in the breeze, they'd get the message that everybody is tired of the BS.

Acually, I'm half afraid this will eventually happen someday.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bud Holzschuh - Panama City, FL on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 06:40 pm:

Minimum tire order is 200 tires? No problem I think.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Hjortnaes-Men Falls, WI on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 06:54 pm:

Bud

You got it right. If each tire cost $100 or less to produce, then you have an investment of only $20,000. I would be willing to guess it is less than that at Czech wages.

Now if we can just find someone to front that 20K.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce Peterson on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 07:23 pm:

I think you are all dreaming. The molds are not going to be given to you. The Czech guys, industrious as they may be, are going to need some serious cash to be able to make Model T clincher tires from scratch. And 200 tires as a startup for a business plan to manufacture tires is just ludicrous.

I think you are likely looking at something on the order of $100,000 - $150,000 to get one size and style of tires up and running as an initial investment before the first tire is made. After that you might be able to make a tire for $20 and then spend $40 getting it into the USA.

That leaves you maybe $40 to pay for shipping to your warehouse in the USA, and for storage, packaging, labeling and to hire someone to fill orders. If you work it all very carefully you might have a profit of $15 per tire.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By P. Jamison on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 07:41 pm:

You also need US D.O.T. approval, so tires must be tested and have the DOT number in the molds. That's another few thousand $.


Phil


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Scherzer on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 08:10 pm:

Would be nice to see tires with this stamped on them again.

tires

Sold these NOS tires Made in USA to a collector today. Not to worry they were 34X5s. Bob

tires


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bud Holzschuh - Panama City, FL on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 08:15 pm:

Do the poor quality vietnamese tires have DOT approval? I guess they would have to to be sold here.

Doesn't say much for the DOT standards, does it?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Doug Langevin , Grants Pass , Ore on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 09:30 pm:

Hey you tariff guys : Do some research in to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 . It raised tariffs on over 20,000 categories of imported goods to new record levels for the era . After the affected countries retaliated , the new tariffs turned a really bad recession into the GREAT DEPRESSION . FACT !! Remember : " Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it . " George Santayana , 1905 .


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks_-_Surf_City on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 10:29 pm:

Tariffs: The Smoot-Hawley Fairy Tale

Once again, it's necessary to debunk the Globalist fairy tales about the "damage" caused by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Below is a copy of U.S. GDP from 1929 through 1939. These are official government figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For the chart below: GDP: 1929-1938 only

The Trade Balance is underlined in red. Exports are underlined in blue. Imports are underlined in orange.



(Since space limitation prevented inclusion on chart of years 1939 to 1941, the same chart covering 1929 to 1941 can be found here.)

Notice that there is a slight decline in both exports and imports by the end of 1930. The trade balance remained around 0 during the entire time. Exports bottomed in 1932 — 2 years before any revision or modification of Smoot-Hawley occurred.


The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Legislation was passed in 1934 that weakened the effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In effect, the legislation functionally repealed Smoot-Hawley. Thus, the effects of Smoot-Hawley cover only the period between June 17, 1930, and 1934. This is the time frame that should be focused on.


So in reviewing the chart, where is the evidence that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused major damage to the economy?? Is there any at all?

The US was already in a Depression. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP.

Let's focus on exports alone. Exports were $5.9 billion in 1929, and had declined to $2.9 billion in 1933. This $3 billion decline was roughly 3.8% of our 1929 GDP, which had declined by a whopping 46% over the same period of time. Thus, of the -46% GDP decline, only -3.8% of it was due to a fall in exports.

But the gain from import reduction must also be included. (A decline in imports increases GDP). If the import decline is added back to the GDP total (to measure the net trade balance), the "loss" was only $0.2 billion from our GDP — or less than ½ of 1% of the total GDP decline.

In other words, the document-able "loss" from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff — the "net export" loss — was less than ½ of 1% of our our GDP decline


To put this in perspective, let's compare all the GDP components together:

1929 .......................................................... 1933

GDP $103.6 billion--------------------->$56.4 billion ( -$47.2 billion)
Consum. Expend $77.4 bil-------------->$45.9 billion ( -$31.5 bill)
Private Invest $16.5 bil----------------> $1.7 billion ( -$14.8 billion)
Trade Balance +$0.3 bil--------------->+$0.1 billion ( -$0.2 billion)
Exports $5.9 billion--------------------> $2.0 billion ( -$3.9 billion)
Imports $5.6 billion--------------------> $1.9 billion ( -$3.7 billion)

Again, at the risk of being repetitious, how much difference to US GDP did the export loss make? The Trade Balance worsened by only -$0.2 billion, or about -0.19% of our 1929 GDP, or less than 1/5th of 1% of 1929 GDP. Meanwhile, our total GDP a whopping -46%.

How much effect did a 1/5th of 1% loss of GDP have on the Great Depression, especially when spread over a 4-year period?

From the actual statistics, the true "harm" caused by the Smoot-Hawley is completely fictional. The harmful effects exist only in the minds of self-serving Globalist propagandists.

Based on available statistics, Smoot-Hawley had almost NO effect on the Great Depression. At the very most, caused a -3.8% decline in GDP from loss of exports. But factoring in the GDP increase from a decline in imports, it caused less than 1% of the GDP decline.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff did not cause the Great Depression, nor did it worsen it or extend it. Claims to the contrary are false and easily refutable. The evidence to disprove those claims is abundant, overwhelming, and freely available to the public. The available GDP numbers completely exonerate the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from any contribution to the Great Depression.

The Smoot-Hawley myth needs to be put to rest, once and for all. The claim that it worsened the Great Depression is nothing but a fairy tale. « Last Edit: Feb 12, 2011, 0:03 by unlawflcombatnt »


Read more: http://unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalization&action=displa y&thread=2528#ixzz1gqxFYKBJ

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Doug Langevin , Grants Pass , Ore on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 11:23 pm:

Ricks : Sure , no real big VISIBLE effect on the already-depressed U.S. market . That`s to be expected , as Smoot-Hawley was aimed at slowing down or stopping all imports INTO the U.S.A. , thus stimulating U.S. manufacturing to replace those inexpensive lost imports , creating jobs , in theory . BUT , the U.S.A. is NOT the only country in the world . Smoot-Hawley was devastating to those countries that were exporting TO the U.S. , as it destroyed their industrial base . This action spread the Great Depression all over the world to all our former trading partners , AND their trading partners that supplied the raw materials to the manufacturers that formerly supplied the imports . It also caused an elongation of the Great Depression due to retaliation by our former trading partners , who raised tariffs on U.S.A.-manufactured goods coming into THEIR countries , too , causing a cutback in manufacturing here in the Good `OL U.S.A. . What you posted focuses on " Trade Balance " . Sure , THEY couldn`t export to us , and WE couldn`t export to them , due to the new tariff laws . The trade balance loss equals very little to the U.S. , BUT HUGE to our trade partners , who had MUCH smaller economies . Remember , the U.S.A. had the largest economy in the world , even then . With Smoot-Hawley , a lot of the world that would have escaped the Great Depression was dragged into it , quietly .


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks_-_Surf_City on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 11:52 pm:

This is a post from economist Ian Fletcher from TradeReform.org on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.

Following on from the above ... about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff:
It had almost zero effect on the Great Depression.

Fletcher uses somewhat different numbers, but the conclusion is exactly the same.


Protectionism Didn’t Cause the Great Depression

by Ian Fletcher

Oct 26, 2011

"The debate over free trade is riddled with myth after myth. One that keeps resurfacing again and again, no matter how many times it is discredited, is the idea that protectionism caused the Great Depression. One occasionally even hears that the same protectionism — specifically the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 — was responsible in significant part for World War Two! This is nonsense dreamed up for propaganda purposes by free traders, and can easily be debunked.

Let’s start by reminding ourselves of a basic fact: the Depression’s cause was monetary. The Federal Reserve had allowed the money supply to balloon excessively during the late 1920s, piling up in the stock market as a bubble. The Fed then panicked, miscalculated, and let the money supply collapse by a third by 1933, depriving the economy of the liquidity it needed to breathe. Trade had nothing to do with it.

The Smoot-Hawley tariff was simply too small a policy change to have so large an effect as triggering a Depression. For a start, it only applied to about 1/3 of America’s trade: about 1.3% of our GDP. One point three percent! America’s average tariff on goods subject to tariff went from 44.6 to 53.2%–not a very big jump at all. America’s tariffs were higher in almost every year from 1821 to 1914. Our tariffs went up in 1861, 1864, 1890, and 1922 without producing global depressions, and the great recessions of 1873 and 1893 spread worldwide without needing the help of any tariff increases.

If Smoot-Hawley had caused a global trade disaster, it would necessarily have been by triggering a sharp decline in American imports of goods subject to the increased tariff. Did this happen? The data say no. In the words of economic historian, former member of the U.S. International Trade Commission, and avowed free trader Prof. Alfred E. Eckes,


'Official data show that higher U.S. tariffs had little impact on American imports. From 1929 to 1932, imports of dutiable and duty-free goods fell almost the same percentage, suggesting that higher tariffs had little impact on most trading partners… The sharpest drop in exports involved commodity-exporting countries, including some like Brazil, largely unaffected by higher U.S. tariffs.'


World trade did indeed decline, but this was due to the Depression itself, not higher American tariffs. This is no surprise, as declines in the values of the currencies of America’s major trading partners wiped away much of the effect of the tariff anyway.

In light of the facts noted above, it is, in fact, true that just about every serious economist or economic historian....has come to the same conclusion.[i.e., that Smoot-Hawley did NOT cause the Great Depression].

This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, either: famous economists who have denied that Smoot-Hawley caused the Depression range from Milton Friedman on the right to Paul Krugman on the left.

The same fact can be ascertained by looking at Smoot-Hawley’s impact on the world economy at large. As the economic historian (and free trader) William Bernstein puts it in his book A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World,


'Between 1929 and 1932, real GDP fell 17% worldwide, and by 26% in the United States, but most economic historians now believe that only a miniscule part of that huge loss of both world GDP and the United States’ GDP can be ascribed to the tariff wars. .. At the time of Smoot-Hawley’s passage, trade volume accounted for only about 9% of world economic output. Had all international trade been eliminated, and had no domestic use for the previously exported goods been found, world GDP would have fallen by the same amount — 9%. Between 1930 and 1933, worldwide trade volume fell off by 1/3 to 1/2. Depending on how the falloff is measured, this computes to 3 to 5% of world GDP, and these losses were partially made up by more expensive domestic goods. Thus, the damage done could not possibly have exceeded 1 or 2% of world GDP — nowhere near the 17% falloff seen during the Great Depression… The inescapable conclusion: contrary to public perception, Smoot-Hawley did not cause, or even significantly deepen, the Great Depression'.


The oft-bandied idea that Smoot-Hawley started a global trade war of endless cycles of tit-for-tat retaliation is also mythical. According to the official State Department report on this very question in 1931:


'With the exception of discriminations in France, the extent of discrimination against American commerce is very slight…By far the largest number of countries do not discriminate against the commerce of the United States in any way.'


That is to say, foreign nations did indeed raise their tariffs after the passage of Smoot, but this was a broad-brush response to the Depression itself, aimed at all other foreign nations without distinction, not a retaliation against the U.S. for its own tariff. The doom-loop of spiraling tit-for-tat retaliation between trading partners that paralyses free traders with fear today simply did not happen.

The myth of Smoot-Hawley continues to poison U.S. policymaking even today, as it renders the U.S. government fearful of retaliating against problems like Chinese currency manipulation. But hopefully, the present controversy over free trade will eventually provoke enough public debate that this hoary myth can finally be put to bed forever."

For a more detailed discussion of these issues, please see Chapter 6 of my book:

"Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why."



Read more: http://unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalization&action=displa y&thread=2528&page=6#ixzz1grG5wbus


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Doug Langevin , Grants Pass , Ore on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 12:25 am:

Ricks : I could post a LOT of articles on MY side of the argument , too , and take up a ton of column space . It would PROVE NOTHING . Dueling Economist`s OPINIONS are NOT the REAL WORLD , they are still just OPINIONS . PEOPLE ARE THE REAL WORLD . ECONOMIC PAIN IS THE REAL WORLD . You have your opinion , I have mine . I will not change yours , and you cannot change mine . The point of my original post is still : What you are proposing has already been tried before , with BAD results . Deal with that statement as you wish .


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John F. Regan on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 01:08 am:

Ralph:

I stand by my post. It would be impossible for the USA to have come this far if we were using the policies you outline. Simple ideas work best - work more get more. Self reliance. Large centralized government and the usual resultant tyranny is what our forefathers feared most and is why they wrote the Constitution to protect the future generations from exactly the monster that we have created. I can agree to disagree since at least so far I still have the right to disagree.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Doug Langevin , Grants Pass , Ore on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 01:25 am:

John : AMEN .


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By rik van on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 03:40 am:

anyone wanna talk about model T's? rumor had it that in order to drive up production, quell rebellions and drive down already low wages Henry Ford would hire "ringers" guys who appeared to be hired off the street making the same wages or less but could complete the work 10-30% faster than the norm and in fact were paid under the table by the union busters. and didn't his flunkies shoot a few people at the strike who didn't agree with his point of view? love the car but imagine what the world would be like now if this dude had run for president when he was still riding the crest of popularity achtung baby! hate the game not the player


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks_-_Surf_City on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 08:21 am:

Why are you CONservatives so quiet when it comes to protecting American sovereignty? Do you really favor One World Government?
___________

The WTO had again ruled against US Country-of-Origin labeling for meat. Mandatory labeling of meats by country-of-origin was passed by Congress in 2008. In the 50 years prior to that, it had been an optional policy, with specific legislation being left up to states.

Nov 22, 2011

by Sara Haimowitz.

(originally from Public Citizen.
Contact: Bryan Buchanan, 202-454-5108--Public Citizen)


WTO Rules Against Country-of-Origin Meat Labeling Law:
3rd Ruling Against U.S. Consumer Safeguards in 2011



"The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ruling today (Nov 18, 2011) against another highly popular U.S. consumer policy – country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for meat cuts and products – will only intensify public opposition to more of the same backwards trade pacts, Public Citizen said. A panel report released today announced that Mexico and Canada have succeeded in their WTO attack on the labeling rule; today’s WTO ruling is the third this year against popular U.S. consumer or environmental measures.

“Today’s ruling makes very clear that these so-called ‘trade’ pacts have little to do with trade between countries and a lot to do with our major agribusiness corporations being free to sell mystery meat in the United States, with neither consumers nor our elected representatives in Congress able to ensure its safety, much less even know where it is from,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.

After 50 years of state efforts to institute COOL for meats, and federal experimentation with voluntary COOL for meat, Congress passed a mandatory COOL program as part of the 2008 farm bill. In their successful WTO challenge, Mexico and Canada argued that the mandatory program violated the limits that the WTO sets on what sorts of product-related “technical regulations” WTO signatory countries are permitted to apply.

In their filings to the WTO, Canada and Mexico suggested that the U.S. should drop its mandatory labels in favor of a return to voluntary COOL, or to standards suggested by the Codex Alimentarius, which is an international food standards body at which numerous international food companies play a central role. Neither option would ensure that U.S. consumers are guaranteed the same level of information as the current U.S. labels.

Today’s decision follows WTO rulings this year against U.S. “dolphin-safe” tuna labels and a U.S. ban on clove, candy and cola flavored cigarettes.

“These 3 rulings – with the WTO slapping down safe hamburgers, Flipper and children’s smoking prevention policy – make it increasingly clear to the public that the WTO is leading a race to the bottom in consumer protection,” said Wallach.

In today’s ruling, the trade panel specifically found that COOL labeling requirements violated the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), one of 17 agreements administered by the WTO. While the WTO has ruled on nearly 200 disputes, the TBT had played a major role in only a few cases thus far.

“There has been widespread concern that this provision could empower a WTO panel to 2nd-guess the U.S. Congress, courts and public by elevating the goal of maximizing trade flows over consumer and environmental protection,” said Todd Tucker, research director for Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.

“Today’s ruling shows that consumers’ concerns were well-founded.”.

“The Obama administration is in the process of negotiating its first-ever trade deal – the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement – and so far it looks like it will replicate many of the anti-consumer rules present in the WTO terms and the North American Free Trade Agreement,” noted Wallach.

“These WTO rulings show the need for President Obama to start fulfilling his campaign pledges to create a trade policy Americans can believe in and stop expanding the old trade pact model.”

Do we need any more reasons to withdraw from the WTO?

Our food safety and health is being sacrificed by the Free-Traitors in our own Government--by their persistent refusal to withdraw from the WTO.

The Constitution specifically obligates them to regulate trade in the best interests of the American citizenry.
From Article I of the Constitution:
Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


Is enforcing such a ban fulfilling that Constitutional obligation?

Occupy Wall Street needs to add this to their list of demands.

And since the labeling now becomes optional, Americans need to refuse to buy meat that isn't labeled by Country-of-Origin. And protestors need to block entrances to stores that refuse to voluntarily label their products.


Read more: http://unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalization&action=displa y&thread=9980#ixzz1gtJImyYu


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks_-_Surf_City on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 08:25 am:

This is a few years old, but you get the idea:


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Neil Kaminar on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 09:31 am:

Getting back to the original topic, I don't see why a production manager couldn't go to Vietnam to straighten out their manufacturing. The person would have to be an expert in manufacturing tires and it would help if they spoke Vietinese. It may only be a question of not knowing how to produce a good tire. The tooling and process is in place and just needs some tuning up.

With regards to the US dept and trade imbalance, IMO we are in deep dodo. Hold on to your hat, this decade will be a rough one.

Neil


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Craig Sutton on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 09:32 am:

I'd just like to have white and gray tires available again...


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mack J. Cole on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 09:42 am:

I honestly think the over the pond companys and people COULD do better,but folkes selling their goods over here frankly dont give a crap if the product is good or not.Because if they are the only source,and our own unions and goverment makes things impossiable to make here and be practical,they know they have the customer by the nards.
If companys would send men overseas,and threaten to shut down,and move back home if the quality dont improve,something would get better.
It all goes back to this,buy junk from them or do without.And they dont care.If they did,the companys would read this,and see the problem and be proactive about solveing it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Stitt-Oregon on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 11:14 am:

Good thing we didn't get into the Bretton Woods Accords.
All the bashing aside we can and still do make stuff here. Going elsewhere needs vindication hence the war on the worker.
You can buy an American made 110-555 Motorola semi truck alternator for $135.00 new.
You certainly could make tires too. What Asia does offer is small runs and willing to do it. We may re-emerge yet with boutique manufacturing.
I enjoy the TV show how it's made...ever notice how automated the factories are and mostly out of Canada? They too have environmental laws and inspectors. America will be just fine.
Now if we can stop demonizing everything IMHO the issue is in part cost but by and large quality. With as many members as this club has I would invite the folks that import tires to come to the table and have a discussion. My T has 40 year old tires, is that possible again? This would a great forum to do so..There has to be another side of the apple we don't see.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks_-_Surf_City on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 12:09 pm:

Energy NOW!

This half hour on Saturdays on Bloomberg seems pretty balanced. It's sponsored by Chesapeake Energy, but claims to be editorially independent.

I just finished the one on rare earth minerals. Communist China says, "The Mideast has oil; China has rare earth minerals."

Rare earths are critical parts of batteries for hybrids, wind generators, tv and all computer displays, etc. . You wanna' build a device containing rare earths? The Commies say you have to make it there.

There is a rare earth mine in the SoCalif desert that has the potential to supply our needs. It shut down in 2003 due to falling price and demand, and is now up and running again, so there's hope.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Craig Sutton on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 02:39 pm:

Unfortunately, the key words there are MINE (regulated by MSHA, our friends at .gov), CALIFORNIA (that crazy place way off to the LEFT in so many ways it's not funny), and HOPE (I won't even go there).

It's hard enough to keep a mine legal here in PA - can't imagine doing that in Kali.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Max L. Christenson on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 11:46 pm:

On Sunday evening, I examined the white tires on some bicycles at Walmart. I could not find a manufacturer brand mark on them anywhere. Therefore, the entity that manufactured those tires is not readily apparent. Perhaps that could be determined from some numbers on the tires? I didn't notice if they had DOT approval, because I was not looking for that: I was only looking for a brand name on those tires, but I'll go back and check for DOT approval. As far as quality is concerned, the white tires on the bicycles at Walmart might only be good enough to make it out of the store in their current uninflated condition.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Peter Borland. Bathurst NSW Australia. on Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 11:48 pm:

G'day,
At least you lot still manufacture tyres in the US. They shut down the last tyre plant here in South Australia this year, same tyres are available from the suppliers, Made in Australia has been replaced with Made in Thailand.We don't even make lightbulbs!!!


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration