A123 to be acquired by Wanxiang Group

[davec]

their all sell-outs- sell your country piece by piece for self benefit
a123 management is to blame i can't believe they drove the company into the ground- the government should of got rid of their management before giving them tax dollars. but everything is about debt thes days
there is money to be made in the lithium industry- there is a need for batteries and there will continue to be a need
especially from big clients- grids- automotive customers-power tools they could of made money of us as well
the fact that these chinese are highly interested in a123 means there's value in a123- there will always be a need for lithium batteries--- a123 could have gone through a re-birth under new US management there is value there- what will the chinese do with it we'll see- will it benefit the US - i doubt anyone cares - it's sad to see another industry go that the government itself invested into lost
the chinese will turn it around- and the US will gain nothing from it

 

[999zip999]

If it triied on it's own it would have to of made strong choices just to survie.

 

[Chalo]

the fact that these chinese are highly interested in a123 means there's value in a123-

You don't know that. Wangxiang might only have wanted to take an opponent's piece off the board. If they can bag multibillion-dollar contracts with automakers that might otherwise have gone to A123, then it's well worth a quarter of a billion to make sure A123 goes away and stays away. If they win some worthwhile patented technology in the process, then that's gravy.

 

[Dauntless]

Dont feed the delusions of grandeur

Oh gee, as someone who regularly says 'Don't feed the growing monster' I don't argue with your logic, I just don't see how I was feeding him. And assuming I know which one you mean, I don't see him as that anyway, more like someone who has run out of people to argue with in real life, so he comes online --- Looking for TARGETS! Gee, he sees one that acknowledges being handicapped, a recurring pet peeve of his, plus talks of never getting a steady job. Sounds rabbit like. Tells himself this will be easy. . .

. . . .Boy, does HE find out!

Sometimes the whole attitude gets irritating even to one so post modern as myself, but mostly I just ask myself "What Would Bugs Do?"

[youtube]e6Cydgam6Gk[/youtube]

 

[Dauntless]

I'm not sure if Obama is in a race to destroy our country, but in his time, the debt has raised at double the rate than it did during the Bush Administration. This is due to being handed a major recession ( thus, less income for govt. ) and increasing spending in response ( because you know, Keynesian multiplier :lol: :lol: :lol: )

He wasn't handed a major recession, he grabbed at economic indicators that have successfully predicted 12 out of 3 recessions and set out to follow that old stage adage: If you MUST fail, fail SPECTACULARLY! Funny how the Reaganites just blamed and blamed Carter for the bad economy under Reagan, even though Carter's economy fared much better than Reagans' did, as well as better than Ford's. At what point will those Democrats who decried the Reaganites' irrational denials give up the irrational denials of their own and admit Obama is to blame for what Obama has done?

Gee, I guess you could make an excuse for Roosevelts' failures through Keynesianism in that he was the first to ever attempt it on such a scale. There's another where they try to blame the predecessor. ALL of America's highest unemployment numbers occurred during the Roosevelt Administration, much of it in his SECOND TERM, in the full throes of stimulus spending. Even Keynes himself would cite the Roosevelt years in backpedalling from his own theories and begging FDR to STOP THE INSANITY. Roosevelt just kept pointing the finger at Hoover. Of course they recorded unemployment differently back then, both Reagan and Obama would have similar unemployment numbers to Roosevelt if that 1930's system was used.

I've never quite understood the obession over the 'Military Industrial Complex.' A career military man could be expected to become exasperated over the salesmen and technical support people as he's leaving the presidency, but by and large the military is only as large or small as you make it. If you ask it to be a certain size, you ask it to do things that require it to be that size, you don't blame it for being that size or for costing so much. Study up on the Nixon Administration cutting into the military and the result of that. And of course the American military of the 1930's, even when war with Japan was expected for more than a decade before it broke out.

Why does the food stamp president suddenly have such a blind eye to the needs of people on medicare and social security? An old man working at the store near me had his second bike for the year stolen recently. He lives on his social security and his parttime job without a car, in a rundown neighborhood. Recently they figured out he was going to make more than $14k this year so they took away his last check of the year, just before the bike was stolen. Oh, he did use the medicare this year, too. He just started collecting a few months ago, has been expecting to catch up on so many bills sometime next year, then. . . .

But >98% of voters put these people who have failed to manage our country properly back into office.

I'm not sure I understand what that's supposed to mean. Obama didn't get 98% of the vote, neither did Barbara Boxer in 2010. I put their opponents in the same class of 'Not really electable, why were they nominated?' The only explanation of those two I can accept is they had happy endings the same was Gilligan always used to.

How 'bout some data?

The problem is you can get different numbers elsewhere. When Newt Gingrich got caught by surprise when he talked about the budget surplus of 1998 only to be told we ran a deficit that year, he wasn't the only one. They were calling a surplus I think it was the last 5 years of the Clinton presidency, don't forget. When you start talking about blaming people for their vote, remember it's not their fault that a lot of the information is faulty. Although some never bother to learn about even this wrong info.

Bush is gone, ain't no President Bush, only President Obama. Don't waste time talking about what doesn't exist. America was hit with a record freeze in which people died and were afflicted in other ways; so at the height of the suffering Obama heads for Florida and offers the media a soundbyte from the beach "It ain't cold here. It's beautiful." You really want to compare to Bush whose plane couldn't land in Louisiana so he flew over the Katrina damage to Obama? Then Obama should take much more heat for his lack of "Self Awareness" than Bush ever did. Ooops.

The same cold, indifferent President who spent that freeze basking in the sun is this time nervous about running off to Hawaii with the car he's driving approaching the fiscal cliff. (Don't blame all the passengers, HE is driving.) He runs to the media to have his hour of hate (Ever read '1984?' For real?) every day, but won't get to work on the problem. . . .

Oh, I can blame Obama easy enough. And be 100% right. That's why I have been. It's not a matter of people supporting the dishonest, there's always been huge numbers over the last 12 years who didn't support either one and weathered tremendous abuse because we didn't. People vote for them then don't support them. It is solely about making demands of them. When the lifelong corrupt politican Chester Arthur, (Who'd been fired from his government job in Customs because he was depositing more than 20 times the amount of his paycheck in the bank every year) became President, his party expected more of the same. When he shocked the world and didn't look half bad fighting corruption, at least, his party refused him the nomination for a second term. They had even been resigning from office in anger over anticorruption actions. Many of these same people had been involved 8 years earlier in using their majority to throw out the election results and seat the loser, from their party, in the White House. (Dubya was only the second loser to go to the White House anyway.) It was an era when they could get away with it.

I want to say things are at least better and they can't get away with such, but then this is the era when 70% of America DEMANDED the defeat of Obamacare but it was rammed down our throats anyway. Never mind the support issue, the lack of support didn't stop Obamacare. He's been told the majority don't favor his punitive tax hikes for the better off. It's about accountability. Until it becomes impossible for politicians to even complete their current term when they pull something like Obamacare, they'll continue to pull such things as Obamacare.

My state had a recall of a popular, JUST REELECTED governor and replaced him with a boorish actor who gloated on TV that he could solve problems with women by beating them because he was debating a female candidate. (Mentioned her by name as he was saying it.) My city just had 3 Councilmen recalled for no apparent reason and the known lapdog of a corrupt developer took one of the seats. Think of how easy it could be to recall those who deserve it. . . .

I dream the dream of the Boxer recall. . . .

 

[neptronix]

Long post; i have just one thing to point out:

But >98% of voters put these people who have failed to manage our country properly back into office.

I'm not sure I understand what that's supposed to mean. Obama didn't get 98% of the vote, neither did Barbara Boxer in 2010. I put their opponents in the same class of 'Not really electable, why were they nominated?' The only explanation of those two I can accept is they had happy endings the same was Gilligan always used to.

Let me explain this; >98% of voters voted for the 2 party system. Neither the republicans or democrats planned to cut spending to a level which is anything near sustainable. Even Mr. Paul 'atlas shrugged' Ryan went on TV and shamelessly defended medicare and promised to not cut it ( even though 66% of benefits received by the public are not paid for in taxes, they are just added to our national debt ). He and Mitt wanted to spend MORE money on military as well. Mitt Romney repeatedly said that he wanted to cut taxes and give us a better business environment, but when prodded, would never explain how. So he had no good ideas. If he had any, he wasn't willing to talk about them. The only cut on the table was big bird :lol:

The majority voted for more spending, more debt, more government growth, and people with no good ideas on how to return us to prosperity.

[youtube]2x2W4GhSLlQ[/youtube]

What about Gary Johnson? the governor of New Mexico who successfully impeded the growth of government during his term? left his state with a billion dollar budget surplus? the guy who wanted to end the wars and legalize pot? That dude got 0.99% of the vote. OK, now on the liberal spectrum, how did Rocky Anderson of the Justice party do? 0.03%. Jill Stein? 0.36%. >98% of your fellow citizens wanted more of the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Results

How does this tie back to the situation with A123? well, we have an awful business environment here, which has been worsening rapidly since the 1960's. The Obama and even the Bush Just wanted to throw money at these companies and hope it stuck. That's not enough. We have to compete with China. China will continue to win the green energy race. All these companies we invested in will end up abroad in time. It's inevitable.
We also have growing debt which means that our country is unsustainable and will face severe consequences when China and other countries stop loaning money to us. Who wants to invest in America's future when the country is on track for fiscal collapse?

>98% want to stay on that track.

 

[Dauntless]

I don't go along at all that voting for one of the two parties is supporting the winner. And noone has offered any legitimate complaint about the military spending. They're happy to see money thrown at ineffectual "Stimulus," but the far more successful military model seems to make them hate a strong economy. But then since ALL the economists, business leaders, tax theorists, etc., ALL say we need lower spending/NOT higher taxes and oppose Obama's plans, yeah, it's proven they must hate the whole idea of a strong economy.

Let's see, in 1980 Reagan was walking to the nomination while incumbent Carter had a walk in the mud with 'Slingin' Ted Kennedy.' A bit envious that Carter was winning his nomination AND getting all sorts of press coverage to the lastest Kenneday barrage, the republicans put up John Anderson to dream the impossible dream and enter the last couple dozen primaries/caucusi. According to Anderson, they even offered to pay for his campaign if he continued as a 3rd candidate in the runoff. Anderson took nearly 7% of the vote, nearly all from Carter. There's much conjecture about who would have won had Anderson not been there, but no question many more states would have never gone to Reagan.

In 1992 Ross Perot has been speculated as never intending to run the course in his presidential campaign, that he merely intended a redirect of the campaign issues. When he withdrew, 3rd place Clinton won his first poll, then began to regularly take nearly 60% until the closing weeks when, with Polls showing numbers like Clinton 59%-Bush 38%, Perot returned. Bush spent $69 million to collect about 35% of the vote, Perot spent $40 million on 18%, one vote from Bush for every 5 votes he took from Clinton, who spent $20 million for his 47%. (Numbers from memory, but that's more reliable than some website.) Bush was the incumbent, a vote for Clinton is a bit of a protest to begin with. If the protest had been stronger, they'd have objected to the removal of Bush.

And of course 2000. All the votes for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore. Even right winger Buchanan got some of Gore's votes on the crazy butterfly ballot in Florida. A vote for left wing extremism was a vote for right wing Emperor Bush the II rather than Gore. Take that away and the illegal declaring 90,000 black voters in Florida as ineligible to vote because they were "Convicted Felons" wouldn't have mattered, Gore would have slaughtered Bush nationwide.

So I'd say it's your 2% protest vote that's been supporting the bad guys most. Yeah, Occupy needs to lay off the 1% and go after that 2%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obamacare-pre-existing-condition-fee_n_2273005.html?ncid=webmail1

[youtube]GGgLsc8iNvY[/youtube]

 

[neptronix]

Stay in the matrix dauntless, it's far nicer in there.

 

[999zip999]

If they counted the military vote over sea vote Gore would have won but that would have taken to long. who where the workers in florida who plugged the machine under the Gore name ?

 

[USAEBIKECO]

My question is where are all these American billionaires and US multinational corporations??? why couldnt someone like Buffett or Gates, Apple or GE buy out A123 and turn it around??

Why a Chinese company??

 

[e-beach]

My question is where are all these American billionaires and US multinational corporations??? why couldnt someone like Buffett or Gates, Apple or GE buy out A123 and turn it around?? Why a Chinese company??

Don't expect too much patriotism from multinational capitalists. It goes against their nature.
Buffett once said that he only invests in things he understands. As an example, he said he really didn't understand cell phone technology so he didn't get involved in that despite the huge money making opportunity. Buffett probably doesn't understand battery tech. Gates and Apple probably think that their battery tech is fine so no need to do anything about batteries for their laptops. Then there is the GE question..... My guess is that GE just didn't see the money in it.

http://www.ge.com/innovation/battery/index.html

 

[e-beach]

If it triied on it's own it would have to of made strong choices just to survie.

Or they would just have died faster due to the same economic pressures that put them into bankruptcy in the first place. No magic to it. They over-spent and under-sold, got caught by the global economic downturn of 2008, and it's effect on electric vehicle purchasers and couldn't survive the length of time it has taken to recover. Even if they got no stimulus money, they would have managed themselves into bankruptcy.

 

[e-beach]

I dream the dream of the Boxer recall. . . .

Sorry for your dreams that will never come true there. Boxer is a beloved member of the deep blue California and will be a Senator for just about as long as she pleases. I am sure that can annoy some of those behind the Orange curtain. :lol:

 

[neptronix]

Yes, you could make something here but all the odds are absolutely stacked against you. The cost of complying with regulation would be huge for you, your materials would cost more, your workman's comp, your liabilities, your wages, product compliance, etc would all cost more than if you were manufacturing in China. You could never compete. On a good day, your products would cost twice as much as a Chinese product at an equivalent quality level. And people would pick the Chinese product because they cannot justify spending double on what you're selling.

It would be the honorable and patriotic thing to do. It's just that it's almost impossible. Due to how our trade agreements work, you're pitted against a country that has the level of regulation that America had in say, 1910.

This won't change until the powers that be reverse course, which is unlikely.

 

[e-beach]

Yes, you could make something here but all the odds are absolutely stacked against you. The cost of complying with regulation would be huge for you, your materials would cost more, your workman's comp, your liabilities, your wages, product compliance, etc would all cost more than if you were manufacturing in China. You could never compete. On a good day, your products would cost twice as much as a Chinese product at an equivalent quality level. And people would pick the Chinese product because they cannot justify spending double on what you're selling. It would be the honorable and patriotic thing to do. It's just that it's almost impossible. Due to how our trade agreements work, you're pitted against a country that has the level of regulation that America had in say, 1910. This won't change until the powers that be reverse course, which is unlikely.

Or we could just scrap "free trade" and go back to the ways of the USA founding-fathers and use tariffs to help fund the US government with taxes while at the same time driving up the cost of Chinese goods. This would help balance the cost of production, and save American jobs. And if the Chinese say "then we will do the same to you!", well Coca Cola might not like it, having to pay tariffs on boat loads of caramel tasting corn syrup, but the US doesn't export much any more any way.

 

[Chalo]

Yes, you could make something here but all the odds are absolutely stacked against you. The cost of complying with regulation would be huge for you, your materials would cost more, your workman's comp, your liabilities, your wages, product compliance, etc would all cost more than if you were manufacturing in China. You could never compete. On a good day, your products would cost twice as much as a Chinese product at an equivalent quality level. And people would pick the Chinese product because they cannot justify spending double on what you're selling.

Yet people have done exactly what you say they won't, many times. Remember the Yugo? Remember the Hyundai Excel? Those cost half what a decent car from a reputable manufacturer at the time did. And after the initial gee-whiz for those cheap cars died away, so did the cars. Folks paid double, because otherwise they were buying troublesome crap. People are almost smart when it comes to buying cars-- because they depend on them, they use them constantly, and they spend a large proportion of their available funds on them. Have you noticed the lack of Chinese cars around?

When it comes to buying geegaws they don't understand and hardly use anyway, of course they'll go for the cheapest item. Hence department store bicycles. (Made in China, assuredly.)

Germany and Switzerland have tighter environmental and product regulation, higher costs, higher wages, higher taxes, and more labor-friendly systems to work with, yet they maintain lots of profitable, state-of-the-art manufacturing there. What's your explanation for that, Mr. Galt? I think German and Swiss executive management are just not quite as intent on moving the whole deal to China if it improves their profits by 1%.

 

[neptronix]

Or we could just scrap "free trade" and go back to the ways of the USA founding-fathers and use tariffs to help fund the US government with taxes while at the same time driving up the cost of Chinese goods. This would help balance the cost of production, and save American jobs. And if the Chinese say "then we will do the same to you!", well Coca Cola might not like it, having to pay tariffs on boat loads of caramel tasting corn syrup, but the US doesn't export much any more any way.

That's actually how the federal government used to fund itself, before we had a federal income tax - it supported itself on customs fees. This encouraged our industry early on. But also at the time, America was in the same position of China; we had crappy labor and environmental laws. It meant that everything was made here though, and that's how we got rich and prosperous early on.

Now we have a huge expansive federal government which taxes you anyway, and no manufacturing jobs or possibility to really get our manufacturing sector back. it's the complete opposite situation.

I'd say China would be better off without McDonalds and America would be better off without Walmart, unfortunately our federal government does not agree. I have my theories on why, but that's a long story for another thread, we've polluted this one pretty badly already.. :lol:

 

[neptronix]

Germany and Switzerland have tighter environmental and product regulation, higher costs, higher wages, higher taxes, and more labor-friendly systems to work with, yet they maintain lots of profitable, state-of-the-art manufacturing there. What's your explanation for that, Mr. Galt? I think German and Swiss executive management are just not quite as intent on moving the whole deal to China if it improves their profits by 1%.

That's great for them. Maybe they currently have a better system than we do.

But don't forget that we were once the manufacturing engine of the world at one point. We had the most freedom to innovate due to lower regulation, we had lower costs on everything, were more flexible on labor regulations, and had tons of profitable manufacturing here. This made the USA the place to be if you wanted to invent or make something. The brightest people from all around the world wanted to come here to have a piece of the action. Why? we were the best place in the world to do business or make things.

Silicon valley was called silicon valley because they produced computer and electronic parts like mad, until they lost manufacturing to the Irish, then the Japanese, then China. Oregon and Northern California were hotspots for manufacturing everything digital.

We had hundreds if not thousands of car companies at one point, now we have 3. Detroit and the midwest as a whole used to be a bustling hotspot, which made the west coast's major metro areas look pathetic in comparison. Now you can buy a house in Detroit for chump change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_manufacturers_of_the_United_States

There was a time when all the bicycles sold here were made here, other than some random Japanese and European imports.

If you bought some kind of machinery, it was likely made out of steel in Chicago. That went on for about a hundred years.

What happened that crippled our industry, Chalo? I don't like our system and i don't think you do either. I doubt there is a single American here who does. China didn't come onto the scene until the 1990's, but our industrial decline really started in the 1960's or so.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

We are #10 in economic freedom now and Hong Kong is #1. Switzerland is #5.

 

[Dauntless]

But don't forget that we were once the manufacturing engine of the world at one point. We had the most freedom to innovate due to lower regulation, we had lower costs on everything, were more flexible on labor regulations, and had tons of profitable manufacturing here. This made the USA the place to be if you wanted to invent or make something. The brightest people from all around the world wanted to come here to have a piece of the action. Why? we were the best place in the world to do business or make things.

The US became #1 by default. European factories were in ruins, many of their great craftsmen were refugees, some came here. Who ran our space program? I can see why you like it in the matrix so much. The fact is there wasn't much will to stay on top, only the expectation to.

What happened that crippled our industry, Chalo? I don't like our system and i don't think you do either. I doubt there is a single American here who does. China didn't come onto the scene until the 1990's, but our industrial decline really started in the 1960's or so.

The US taught Japan how to manufacture because it was cheaper. They didn't have to be so productive over there in a factory because the labor was so cheap. The were protected, had all the time in the world to develop. Coupled with the euphemistic decline of economic freedom in America, costs in America rising faster than costs in the rest of the world, there's no point in even asking what happened. There's no such thing as perpetual growth. Every time you raise the minimum wage prices balance out so things stay the same for the buying power of the minimum wage worker, except that as others get raises to stay ahead of minimum wage the cost of overseas labor falls some more in comparison.

There is no mystery. Political expediencies were determined to make things worse here, while everyone else was getting better.

 

[Chalo]

And yet the manufacturing specialists of Western Europe have higher minimum wages and better worker protections than we do (along with universal health care, a public dole, and a lot of other stuff you probably disapprove of that would benefit you personally), and they still outperform the USA in manufacturing. I wonder why that is?

Hint: Have a look at income disparity and tax rates for the wealthiest citizens.

 

[Dauntless]

And yet the manufacturing specialists of Western Europe have higher minimum wages and better worker protections than we do (along with universal health care, a public dole, and a lot of other stuff you probably disapprove of that would benefit you personally), and they still outperform the USA in manufacturing. I wonder why that is?

Hint: Have a look at income disparity and tax rates for the wealthiest citizens.

You meant to say 'And yet the manufacturing specialists of ALL Europe have higher unemployment and greater despair than we do (Along with universal bankruptcy and default of their debt, a doleful currency, plus a lot of other stuff you SHOULD disapprove of that can hurt you personally), plus they still depend on their diaspora to send money home to support themselves when those work in America. I wonder why that is?'

(I mean, you see what was wrong with what you said, right? I sure am glad I didn't own ANY of those European bonds. Paying back 23 cents on the dollar, but you can't fund your economy by burning EVERYONE you come in contact with for long. I wonder what Obama will say when European universal healthcare ends as they drag the whole world into the huge depression as predicted. I wonder if he'll still be president right then.)

Hint: Have a look at the full picture of income disparity and tax rates for the wealthiest citizens.

 

[neptronix]

The US became #1 by default. European factories were in ruins, many of their great craftsmen were refugees, some came here. Who ran our space program? The fact is there wasn't much will to stay on top, only the expectation to.

Ah, but why were they in ruins? there was a large resistance to using machines and automation. There were also higher labor standards, and maybe back then they also had a nasty regulatory/taxation setup too. We became #1 because we didn't have those problems. It wasn't by default though - it was by thinking of things differently. The amount of freedom that Americans had back then, economically and personally was really unparalleled. If we had the same political and regulatory baggage, we wouldn't have flourished.

Do you really think we don't want to be on top anymore? I think we have lost some spirit over the ages, but it's still there, just too difficult to do. We are in Europe's position and China is now where we were at, but in a lot of ways they don't have the freedom. But it seems like the stench of communism is clearing away very slowly over time.

The US taught Japan how to manufacture because it was cheaper. They didn't have to be so productive over there in a factory because the labor was so cheap. The were protected, had all the time in the world to develop. Coupled with the euphemistic decline of economic freedom in America, costs in America rising faster than costs in the rest of the world, there's no point in even asking what happened. There's no such thing as perpetual growth. Every time you raise the minimum wage prices balance out so things stay the same for the buying power of the minimum wage worker, except that as others get raises to stay ahead of minimum wage the cost of overseas labor falls some more in comparison.

Now do you mean that we literally taught them - or that they copied our stuff and sold it back to us like the Chinese did? :lol: Early Japanese stuff was total trash, they figured out manufacturing in time and did an even better job than we did IMHO. They were only on top for about 2 decades though? rather sad. We had over a century of ass-kicking under our belt. Perhaps the nature of what's manufactured today has something to do with it though. America could not keep up with producing electronics for example after the 1980's, the exception being Intel's processor factories and some really high tech military stuff which is kept going only by non-market forces. So just as Europe didn't make the leap to industrial process and automation out of fear that they'd lose all their jobs to robots, we didn't figure out how to manage the pollution of high tech manufacturing, maybe because we didn't have the will to do so, or i don't know what.

Yeah, you can adjust the minimum wage upwards but everything else will increase in price. Europeans have high wages but look at how much goes into taxes. I've heard quite a few complain about their buying power being lower.

There is no mystery. Political expediencies were determined to make things worse here, while everyone else was getting better.

I don't think that was the intention of our policy makers, but it always seems to turn out that way over time with any government. The good news is that governments have limited lifespans. They have to reinvent eventually. America is due for that very soon. Our founding documents meant to limit the size and scope of government, in order to prevent it from growing as big and nasty as it is today. But it's as good as toilet paper. Freedom can only increase over time though, so i do wonder what is next.

 

[999zip999]

Northen europe you must take 6 weeks off they lock you out. Go tell your boss you want 6 weeks off and get back to me.
Plus where in the U.S. can you throw tomatoes or even hold up a sign go try it in downtown L.A.

 

[Dauntless]

The US became #1 by default. European factories were in ruins, many of their great craftsmen were refugees, some came here. Who ran our space program? The fact is there wasn't much will to stay on top, only the expectation to.

Ah, but why were they in ruins? there was a large resistance to using machines and automation. There were also higher labor standards, and maybe back then they also had a nasty regulatory/taxation setup too. We became #1 because we didn't have those problems. It wasn't by default though - it was by thinking of things differently. The amount of freedom that Americans had back then, economically and personally was really unparalleled. If we had the same political and regulatory baggage, we wouldn't have flourished.

Uh, no, they were in ruins because of bombs, tanks, hand grenades. . . .

There was no money for automation. In England people were LUCKY to have a motorcycle with a sidecar to get around with, but of course there was 'The Society to Banish Sidecars Forever.' There was a lack of available resources after they were used up in the war, the U.S. then burned all these aluminum planes instead of scrapping them and making all the materials available for reuse, etc. There isn't even a 'Maybe' available, there was NO nasty regulator/taxation because they didn't have the nasty universal healthcare that caused it yet.

It WAS by default, much has been written about what Europeans though of doing and could have done if there was only the opportunity.

Funny to talk about the freedoms Americans had back then, ever see 'The Road to the Wall?' Two of those dirty, rotten communists standing on top of you know what with one saying "Those AMERICANS! They have too many RIGHTS!" with the other responding as to how they will take those rights AWAY! Didn't happen that way, did it? Of course they were afraid in Russia, the U.S., France, Britain, etc. INVADED them at the end of WWI, the Russians were expecting it to happen again. You always hear that Patton was speaking publicly of getting ready to do so. But once Stalin was gone, things started loosening up there. While Americans DID start to see their freedoms taken away. By. . . ? The stench of communism and FACISM grows every day.

Do you really think we don't want to be on top anymore? I think we have lost some spirit over the ages, but it's still there, just too difficult to do.

Like, YEAH, huge numbers don't want to be on top anymore. Are you aware that Dubya offered TAX INCENTIVES to take all our jobs to China? I love the quote the one guy made, "We gave away more than 100 years of manufacturing advantage to gain nothing for it." Except of course that much polluting industry is now offshore. I listen to kids finishing high school routinely saying they don't want to do "ANY hard, physical work." Such as they want to work in television without having to actually carrying any of the camera equipment that as gotten lighter every year since I got started. And I got started using equipment that was about when I was born, quite heavy.

Now do you mean that we literally taught them - or that they copied our stuff and sold it back to us like the Chinese did?

Now do I mean that GM bought Isuzu, Chrysler bought Mitsubishi, Ford bought much of Mazda, etc.? (Obviously teaching them to build cars.) Yes, I mean that now and back then. Volumous effort was made by American companies to train Japanese workers, things like 'Just In Time' were American developments, as were technology such as the CD and the player. That's it.

Early Japanese stuff was total trash, they figured out manufacturing in time and did an even better job than we did IMHO.

How early? At the beginning of the 20th century the Japanese had the British build them 6 battleships of the like that the British weren't going to build for themselves anymore, they were finishing the 'Dreadnought.' But the Japanese believed they had the newest and the greatest, futher impressed at the success they had (While they were having pyrrhic victory after pyrrhic victory against the sloppy Russians in the RussoJapanese War that they would have lost if it continued but didn't realize it) and developing the ability to build their own out of date ships rather than buying them.

Further, as they captured German soldiers during WWI (The Japanese were Allies in that war) they didn't really hold them prisoner, the "Guests" were allowed to go into town and get jobs, WHERE THEY TAUGHT the Japanese A LOT! With factories in Europe manufacturing war supplies, shelves worldwide were getting stocked with Japanese goods that were made by a people who didn't understand modern metallurgy and had other problems. (This is not a half century since the Japanese finally decided to embrace limited contact with the rest of the world.) When the war ended they were shocked when suddenly nobody wanted their goods anymore.

There was a bit of a resurgence in the 1930's when such things as Smoot Hawley in the U.S backfired as America was struggling to produce anything anyway, thus helping the Japanese to build their war machine as Americans bought their products. But as impressed as the Japanese seemed to be with how good they were when they ran amok about a decade before and during WWII, there was quite a wakeup call when the only reason they were slapped around at the Battle of Midway was because they were actually still quite backward. Four of their best aircraft carriers had fewer engineers and machinists total than just one American carrier, because they couldn't train any more. I like to say that the biggest difference was that a little boy in Japan grew up on a farm using horicultural hand tools and helping cooking, while a little boy in the U.S. grew up driving the tractor and running other agricultural tools and ALL the little boys helped dad fix the car in the driveway. Much quicker to train an American mechanic than a Japanese. A bit of insight into what really changed in the U.S., do you really know how much we have lost shop/technical ed. in K-12 schools, the Boys Club of America, as well as other places?

They were only on top for about 2 decades though? rather sad.

They helped train China, shipped jobs there, etc. Whose fault is THAT?

We had over a century of----

Never kicking anyone's ass, behaving as though there WAS no ass to kick and there NEVER WOULD BE another ass to kick. Even when our own ass was getting kicked in the 1930's we pretended it wasn't. If Europe hadn't been flattened in WWII, things would have been much different between the end of WWII and the end of the Vietnam War.

America couldn't be bothered to keep up with producing electronics, too much desire to buy European and ship our own manufacturing to Japan.

There is no mystery. Political expediencies were determined to make things worse here, while everyone else was getting better.

I don't think that was the intention of our policy makers, but it always seems to turn out that way over time with any government. The good news is that governments have limited lifespans.

Oh right, we get rid of Reagan but wind up with Bush the I continuing much the same bad road. Clinton can't clean up in 8 years what they messed up in 12, but instead of continuing the good work we step down to Bush II, step further down to Obama. . . . 4 of our last 5 presidents have been among our 10 worst, the current and last among our 5 worst. No, the limited lifespans don't mean anything as long as the people voting are limited in their thinking.

. . . .I do wonder what is next.

Next Obama will continue to pout about wanting to put in place even more destructive economic policy that EVERYONE KNOWLEDGEABLE has told him will be a disaster. Europe will continue to smash through the next floor and the next on their way to the basement, propelled by their deficit spending because of their unsustainable universal healthcare economic model that requires buyers to lose money on their bond purchases that noone will buy anymore. China will issue MORE of these ultimatums such as they've taken to issuing, while developing sanctions with which to enforce them. (Remember the 1973 Arab oil embargo was only Libya on October 19, the others joining October 20, then the murky issue of full shipments resuming days later but the backlog of supply causing the Arabs to cut back production for lack of storage; with the inability to ship enough oil to catch up leaving the U.S. behind close to a year.) Hard to say what the sanctions will be, but the UNION harbor strike in Southern California will play out with lasting repercussions, the Chinese will be bigger.

Oh, there'll be a lot of arguing with no real thought or facts to back it up, it'll be impossible to accomplish anything because, as the old saying goes, 'It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored.' Too many saying 'NOT your rights, my priviliges and my privileges only.' Obamacare, etc.

So its gonna be bad.

 

[999zip999]

Tax the top 2%, cut taxes on the 98% and have congress take a 10% haircut - plus cut the military complex by 20% just by taking out the waste then cut it by 10%. So just a 10% cut. Small work for welfare just about anything.