NationStates

The of Japan wrote:

Confederate States of German America wrote:
Obviously, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Point is that there is no reality to the claim the U.S. couldn't compete with Japan and Germany in automotives.

Point is, we are undercompetitive in these industries.

Point is that can be changed.
Competitiveness in certain things is hard to change. Oil for example:
Geology is the biggest limitation. And you cannot really change geology.

But cars are not a factor of geology.

We could become more competitive via trade policy modifications and investments.
Japan built its car industry on protectionism, subsidies and intellectual property theft as much as it did on innovation and skill.

Again you cannot treat automotives as a free and fair market subject to free trade.
They do not work that way because the successful ones do not play by pure free trade rules.
You have to bend and break the rules to win the game, if your competitors are doing the same.

Novus America wrote:

The of Japan wrote:Point is, we are undercompetitive in these industries.

Point is that can be changed.
Competitiveness in certain things is hard to change. Oil for example:
Geology is the biggest limitation. And you cannot really change geology.

But cars are not a factor of geology.

We could become more competitive via trade policy modifications and investments.
Japan built its car industry on protectionism, subsidies and intellectual property theft as much as it did on innovation and skill.

Again you cannot treat automotives as a free and fair market subject to free trade.
They do not work that way because the successful ones do not play by pure free trade rules.
You have to bend and break the rules to win the game, if your competitors are doing the same.

Of course, in certain industries protectionism makes sence.

The of Japan wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Point is that can be changed.
Competitiveness in certain things is hard to change. Oil for example:
Geology is the biggest limitation. And you cannot really change geology.

But cars are not a factor of geology.

We could become more competitive via trade policy modifications and investments.
Japan built its car industry on protectionism, subsidies and intellectual property theft as much as it did on innovation and skill.

Again you cannot treat automotives as a free and fair market subject to free trade.
They do not work that way because the successful ones do not play by pure free trade rules.
You have to bend and break the rules to win the game, if your competitors are doing the same.

Of course, in certain industries protectionism makes sence.

And I am not blaming Japan. They did what was best for Japan.
The US was stupid for not responding in kind though.

The US did the same things for much of our industries up until the 60s.
The US built our beginning industry on intellectual property stole from Britain, subsidies and protective tarrifs. That is how we got our first modern manufacturing industry, textiles.

Not by fair play and free trade. We initially could not compete with the UK.
So we stole their tech, blocked out their products and subsidized our own.

Same thing Japan did in the 60s through 80s (and too a lesser degree still does) Or China does now.

I would not consider thoose cities as rust belt cities. You need to have a productive working class so be a rust belt city.

The of Japan wrote:

Confederate States of German America wrote:
Obviously, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Point is that there is no reality to the claim the U.S. couldn't compete with Japan and Germany in automotives.

Point is, we are undercompetitive in these industries.

Currently, yes. For most of the automobile's history, we were the top dog.

Novus America wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Well, clearly Germany can afford to subsidize their auto industry, as they remain first world in no uncertain terms. As for Japan, you'll need to be a bit more specific than "unfair trading practices."

But for the USA, any support for Detroit has thus far proven half-hearted. Their industries were bailed out, yet they're still struggling. Their people were given enough to survive but not much more, (I'm sure you've seen the videos from its ghettos) and the political will to pour more money into a place whose economic purpose seems increasingly obsolete shows no sign of resurfacing anytime soon. I think something drastic like subsidizing relocation instead will force the issue, if nothing else.

The problem is trade policies. We cannot keep pretending free trade can actually apply to subsidized industries like autos. Sure we supported our auto industry less, and less effectively than Japan and Germany did. But that is not because their vehicles are inherently better, or because we cannot produce our own. It is a failure of government policies.

Umm most people in Detroit have already relocated anyways.
And people are still leaving. I fail to see what purpose subsidizing the depopulation of the city accomplishes.

Sure rebuilding the Detroit auto industry to its pre 70s glory days is not going to happen.
But there are other things Detroit can do or make.

Are they things that require one to be across the river from Windsor?

No?

Then abandon it completely and seal it off so we never have to worry about it again.

Novus America wrote:Japan built its car industry on protectionism, subsidies and intellectual property theft as much as it did on innovation and skill.

Curious, then, that Japan's more high-tech than the USA in almost every other context as well.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Novus America wrote:
The problem is trade policies. We cannot keep pretending free trade can actually apply to subsidized industries like autos. Sure we supported our auto industry less, and less effectively than Japan and Germany did. But that is not because their vehicles are inherently better, or because we cannot produce our own. It is a failure of government policies.

Umm most people in Detroit have already relocated anyways.
And people are still leaving. I fail to see what purpose subsidizing the depopulation of the city accomplishes.

Sure rebuilding the Detroit auto industry to its pre 70s glory days is not going to happen.
But there are other things Detroit can do or make.

Are they things that require one to be across the river from Windsor?

No?

Then abandon it completely and seal it off so we never have to worry about it again.

Novus America wrote:Japan built its car industry on protectionism, subsidies and intellectual property theft as much as it did on innovation and skill.

Curious, then, that Japan's more high-tech than the USA in almost every other context as well.

But why? What good does shutting it off serve? Besides moving the criminals just moves the crime. The problem is certain people there, not the physical location. And yes, being right across from Windsor means it can easily get parts and energy from Canada.
Nothing wrong with the location. It is actually perfect place for a NAFTA assembly point and trade hub.

Although Japanese technology is grossly exaggerated they did the same thing with other industries as well, not just cars. Also they did improve on the technology they initially copied and stole.

Just like we did with a lot of the stuff we copied or stole from Britain back in the 1800s.

Novus America wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Are they things that require one to be across the river from Windsor?

No?

Then abandon it completely and seal it off so we never have to worry about it again.



Curious, then, that Japan's more high-tech than the USA in almost every other context as well.

But why? What good does shutting it off serve? Besides moving the criminals just moves the crime. The problem is certain people there, not the physical location. And yes, being right across from Windsor means it can easily get parts and energy from Canada.
Nothing wrong with the location. It is actually perfect place for a NAFTA assembly point and trade hub.

Although Japanese technology is grossly exaggerated they did the same thing with other industries as well, not just cars. Also they did improve on the technology they initially copied and stole.

Just like we did with a lot of the stuff we copied or stole from Britain back in the 1800s.

Scattering the criminals scatters the crime... into cities better equipped to handle it. Detroit has thus far failed in that regard.

I still think you need to be more specific about Japan, being that you're blaming one of the world's most revered countries for the collapse of one of its most hated cities.

If "proximity to Canada" is so valuable, wouldn't outsourcing to Canada constitute even closer proximity?

sell the cities to OmniCorp (a branch of OCP)

Cetacea wrote:sell the cities to OmniCorp (a branch of OCP)

You clearly didn’t pay attention to the film. It was a warning about what not to do

Novus America wrote:Another key issue is ending property taxes and replacing them with land value taxes.
Maybe additional taxes for underutilized property.
Currently developing your property creates and additional tax burden, which of course encourages speculators to actually leave their property unused and decaying.

Our current property taxes activity discourage property development.

How would land value be calculated, and how would it be different from measuring the value of the property built on the land?

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Confederate States of German America wrote:I hate the suburbs with a passion, but liquidating them for cash to fund education in the ghettos isn't a valid policy proscription:

(Image)

While that makes excellent ad copy, the pretty line of rising education costs doesn't just need to be normalized against the CPI (a measure of overall inflation), but against inflation in skilled labor wages, since that's what makes up the bulk of the cost of education. I'm pretty sure the cost of education is still rising more quickly than the (lack of) increase in test scores, but I'd like to see less-biased data before saying so.

I also wonder if standardized test scores are normalized so the mean/median/etc. stays within a certain range over a period of several years.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Novus America wrote:
But why? What good does shutting it off serve? Besides moving the criminals just moves the crime. The problem is certain people there, not the physical location. And yes, being right across from Windsor means it can easily get parts and energy from Canada.
Nothing wrong with the location. It is actually perfect place for a NAFTA assembly point and trade hub.

Although Japanese technology is grossly exaggerated they did the same thing with other industries as well, not just cars. Also they did improve on the technology they initially copied and stole.

Just like we did with a lot of the stuff we copied or stole from Britain back in the 1800s.

Scattering the criminals scatters the crime... into cities better equipped to handle it. Detroit has thus far failed in that regard.

I still think you need to be more specific about Japan, being that you're blaming one of the world's most revered countries for the collapse of one of its most hated cities.

If "proximity to Canada" is so valuable, wouldn't outsourcing to Canada constitute even closer proximity?

But still why would other cities want it?
Why not just throw the criminals in jail for life and leave the rest alone?
There are still parts of the city doing okay.

Japan is not solely to blame, but they did play a part in destroying Detroit manufacturing.
If not for the flood of Japanese cars in the 70s onward things would have been better.
That is obvious.

And whether or not some “revere” Japan is irrelevant.

And I do not believe you understand how NAFTA supply chains work.
Not everything would come from Canada.
Energy, raw materials, some parts. Other parts from other parts of the US even Mexico.
Detroit is a good physical location.

There is nothing wrong with the physical location. So you are looking at the situation completely backwards.

Nouveau Yathrib wrote:

Novus America wrote:Another key issue is ending property taxes and replacing them with land value taxes.
Maybe additional taxes for underutilized property.
Currently developing your property creates and additional tax burden, which of course encourages speculators to actually leave their property unused and decaying.

Our current property taxes activity discourage property development.

How would land value be calculated, and how would it be different from measuring the value of the property built on the land?

Northwest Slobovia wrote:
While that makes excellent ad copy, the pretty line of rising education costs doesn't just need to be normalized against the CPI (a measure of overall inflation), but against inflation in skilled labor wages, since that's what makes up the bulk of the cost of education. I'm pretty sure the cost of education is still rising more quickly than the (lack of) increase in test scores, but I'd like to see less-biased data before saying so.

I also wonder if standardized test scores are normalized so the mean/median/etc. stays within a certain range over a period of several years.

I would presume it would be calculated using the recent sale prices of vacant lots of same size.
Or some sort of average pricing.

Basically a one acre lot would be taxed the same regardless of if it was empty or developed.

We already asses land value and the value of improvements separately and tax them both.

Also Singapore uses a land value tax instead of property tax, we could use them as a basis on the actual implementation.

Admittedly land value is not an exact science, but neither is full property value.

The key is to tax a building and vacant lot the same, to prevent a perverse incentive to keep the lot vacant and run down to pay fewer taxes.

If you charge more tax on a developed lot, you discourage development.

Novus America wrote:Japan built its car industry on protectionism, subsidies and intellectual property theft as much as it did on innovation and skill.

Except MITI actually thought Japanese auto industry didn't made any sense. It didn't want Mitsubishi and Honda to build cars and forced them to merge into a few large firms, a move that is vehemently resisted by firms at that time so MITI yielded. They are never favored in the first place, and the impact of state intervention to Japanese automobile (or cement, paper, glass, bicycle, or motorcycle) industry is relatively minimal.

Novus America wrote:Why not just throw the criminals in jail for life and leave the rest alone?

Because they have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Novus America wrote:If not for the flood of Japanese cars in the 70s onward things would have been better.
That is obvious.

Of course. The question is of whether their supremacy over Detroit was legitimately earned or not.

Novus America wrote:And I do not believe you understand how NAFTA supply chains work.
Not everything would come from Canada.
Energy, raw materials, some parts.

So why not manufacture the cars right where the "raw materials" were extracted, and save on unnecessary shipping costs?

Novus America wrote:There is nothing wrong with the physical location.

Is there?

Americans' main reason for backing out of their "if Trump wins I'm moving to Canada" promise is that "Canada's too cold." Detroit has a climate comparable to Toronto, and it's along the same river as Windsor. If America's advantage over Canada was in its warm summers and/or mild winters, what's the advantage of Canada-esque geography in US territory?

San Lumen wrote:

Cetacea wrote:sell the cities to OmniCorp (a branch of OCP)

You clearly didn’t pay attention to the film. It was a warning about what not to do

I think your sarcasm detector is faulty.

I'm not sure why we need to do anything to fix these cities. The tax base left for greener pastures.They left for a reason, and aren't likely to change their minds, especially generations later when suburban life is their new norm. I genuinely can't see why anybody would prefer the city to...well, anything. Cities are vile.

Kernen wrote:

San Lumen wrote:You clearly didn’t pay attention to the film. It was a warning about what not to do

I think your sarcasm detector is faulty.

I'm not sure why we need to do anything to fix these cities. The tax base left for greener pastures.They left for a reason, and aren't likely to change their minds, especially generations later when suburban life is their new norm. I genuinely can't see why anybody would prefer the city to...well, anything. Cities are vile.

No they aren’t vile. Suburbia is bad for the environment. What are you suggesting that the government cut these places off and leave them to rot?

San Lumen wrote:

Kernen wrote:I think your sarcasm detector is faulty.

I'm not sure why we need to do anything to fix these cities. The tax base left for greener pastures.They left for a reason, and aren't likely to change their minds, especially generations later when suburban life is their new norm. I genuinely can't see why anybody would prefer the city to...well, anything. Cities are vile.

No they aren’t vile. Suburbia is bad for the environment. What are you suggesting that the government cut these places off and leave them to rot?

They are vile. Too many people. Not enough greenery. Too loud. Smells like car fumes and garbage. I would literally rather spend my life in a tent in the middle of the woods than live in any city on Earth.

I don't see why not. Its unlikely the systemic problem, a large tax base, will ever return. It isn't fair for outsiders to prop up the redevelopment of a city they don't live in. Unnecessary expenditure is unnecessary.

Kernen wrote:

San Lumen wrote:No they aren’t vile. Suburbia is bad for the environment. What are you suggesting that the government cut these places off and leave them to rot?

They are vile. Too many people. Not enough greenery. Too loud. Smells like car fumes and garbage. I would literally rather spend my life in a tent in the middle of the woods than live in any city on Earth.

I don't see why not. Its unlikely the systemic problem, a large tax base, will ever return. It isn't fair for outsiders to prop up the redevelopment of a city they don't live in. Unnecessary expenditure is unnecessary.

And yet it requires extensive state interventions to keep suburbs desirable. Once we dismantle them, perhaps it can be discussed whether suburban or urban lifestyle is more desirable, and indeed it might be the choice of each individual to opt for either.

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:Grew up in Detroit. I can guarantee you Democrats didn't kill the city. White flight did. Even the staunchest right wing city in the world could not survive the loss of the wealthiest 65% of it's population.

You want to save the rust belt? Ever notice that all the military bases and government offices are located on the coasts? Sure you can find some inland but by and large most military and beaurocratic spending effectively subsidizes a handful of very lucky states. Start with that.

Edit: btw Detroit legalized weed years ago.

Start a campaign to build a new giant Naval base in Detroit and Chicago.

Protect the Michigan Lake from the Canucks.

Darussalam wrote:

Kernen wrote:
They are vile. Too many people. Not enough greenery. Too loud. Smells like car fumes and garbage. I would literally rather spend my life in a tent in the middle of the woods than live in any city on Earth.

I don't see why not. Its unlikely the systemic problem, a large tax base, will ever return. It isn't fair for outsiders to prop up the redevelopment of a city they don't live in. Unnecessary expenditure is unnecessary.

And yet it requires extensive state interventions to keep suburbs desirable. Once we dismantle them, perhaps it can be discussed whether suburban or urban lifestyle is more desirable, and indeed it might be the choice of each individual to opt for either.

I agree suburbs should be dismantled. They were quite literally founded on racism and segregation. More abs more people are moving to cities and we ought to stop the special treatment of suburbia

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Novus America wrote:Why not just throw the criminals in jail for life and leave the rest alone?

Because they have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Novus America wrote:If not for the flood of Japanese cars in the 70s onward things would have been better.
That is obvious.

Of course. The question is of whether their supremacy over Detroit was legitimately earned or not.

Novus America wrote:And I do not believe you understand how NAFTA supply chains work.
Not everything would come from Canada.
Energy, raw materials, some parts.

So why not manufacture the cars right where the "raw materials" were extracted, and save on unnecessary shipping costs?

Novus America wrote:There is nothing wrong with the physical location.

Is there?

Americans' main reason for backing out of their "if Trump wins I'm moving to Canada" promise is that "Canada's too cold." Detroit has a climate comparable to Toronto, and it's along the same river as Windsor. If America's advantage over Canada was in its warm summers and/or mild winters, what's the advantage of Canada-esque geography in US territory?

Of course they are innocent until proven guilty. But most serious criminals are repeat offenders.
I am not saying we arrest everyone obviously.

Most people in Detroit are not criminals you know.

Just preventing repeat crimes would drastically cut the crime rate.

Detroit is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be either.

It is not like literally no one wants to live there. It is still a good size city with many successful areas. Just because it also has many really bad or abandoned areas does not mean it is all bad.

Because the shipping costs are a factor, but not the only one. Because the raw materials are not all from the same place you know. The raw materials for one product could come from multiple locations a across the US an Canada.

So placing the factory near only one supplier of many makes less sense than using a central location.

American’s reasons for backing out of their “I am moving to Canada” BS is not because Canada is cold. It is because that was a stupid meme.
New York and Boston are also cold.

The reason for Detroit’s decline was not the weather.

San Lumen wrote:

Darussalam wrote:And yet it requires extensive state interventions to keep suburbs desirable. Once we dismantle them, perhaps it can be discussed whether suburban or urban lifestyle is more desirable, and indeed it might be the choice of each individual to opt for either.

I agree suburbs should be dismantled. They were quite literally founded on racism and segregation. More abs more people are moving to cities and we ought to stop the special treatment of suburbia

Umm he is not saying the suburbs should be dismantled.
Just saying they get subsidized. But then again so do cities as well.

Plus the suburbs are why we have such a high housing ownership rate.
They have benefits and downsides.

Extreme black or white policies are not the solution.

Darussalam wrote:

Novus America wrote:Japan built its car industry on protectionism, subsidies and intellectual property theft as much as it did on innovation and skill.

Except MITI actually thought Japanese auto industry didn't made any sense. It didn't want Mitsubishi and Honda to build cars and forced them to merge into a few large firms, a move that is vehemently resisted by firms at that time so MITI yielded. They are never favored in the first place, and the impact of state intervention to Japanese automobile (or cement, paper, glass, bicycle, or motorcycle) industry is relatively minimal.

Except they did.
In the 50s Japan hard extremely strict quotas on foreign cars.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost ... 850269/amp

Only $500,000 worth of foreign cars could enter Japan every year.

Japan has long had a history of supporting domestic industries and placing various barriers on foreign ones.

Admittedly it does not do as much today as it did in the 70s but it still engages in protectionism.

And I have nothing against that. But the US should have done the same thing to Japanese goods.
Japanese cars to the US should have be subject to the same restrictions Japan placed on American cars.

And the US should have continued to support our own industries more, like we used to do before the grim dark days of the 70s.

Our trade policies in the 50s and early 60s worked.
Our new policies in the 70s were a total disaster.

I've never heard Baltimore being referred to as a rust belt city.