Friday, November 1, 2013

Why Do Liberals Buy Foreign Cars?

Since I have to sit in traffic on 494N most evenings, I have too much time to think and observe.  And since I have been writing about Liberals, car buying loyalties, causes of the wealth gap, causes of slow growing wages for American workers, etc, I have been looking at cars...  In particular I have been reading bumper stickers... Apparently Conservatives aren't too into bumper stickers, however so far I have 5 clearly Liberal stickers... (2 VW, 1 Subaru, 1 Honda & 1 Toyota & 0 Domestics...  To bad it isn't an election year, I could collect the data much quicker.

So I decided to do a little google searching to determine if I was being biased, or if it is true that Liberals prefer cars built by foreign firms.  Well, it appears I am not alone in this belief.  The first link is actually written by a Liberal who is asking one of the exact same questions.
LHL Why Do Liberals Buy Foreign Cars and Conservatives Buy American?
Baristanet Do You Drive a Liberal or Conservative Account?
Washington Times Political Leanings Drive Car Choice
I'm Right: The Most Liberal Cars in America
Politics Daily Liberals, Get Patriotic and Ditch the Volvo
US News Is Your Car a Republican or Democrat?

So with all this in mind, the questions I posted on MinnPost still remain unanswered.  I know it is unlikely I will get answers here, however I thought it was worth one more try before moving on to new and more fertile ground.  Besides maybe it will help some folks to at least test drive a modern GM, Ford or Chrysler.
""counterfactual to claim that 50% liberal consumers buying cheap imported stuff are more responsible for wealth disparity than the other 50% of conservative consumers" Where did I claim this?

I have asked. Do the Liberals accept their huge personal contributing role in the current situation? 

And are they willing to change their personal behaviors and spending habits to help their American co-workers? 

Or are they going to keep sending their money over seas while blaming others for what they perceive to be problems in America?

If every Liberal bought a GM or Ford vehicle next time, just think what that would do for American jobs..." G2A  MinnPost Wealth
Here is a link to a site that tries to be more accurate in their Foreign/Domestic index.  They do this by trying to account for more than just the Manufacturing content.
 Kogod Now



35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's because liberals believe in free markets. Is this one of those instances when Republicans are contradicting their own talking points?

--Hiram

John said...

It does seem they do believe in free markets when it benefits their wallet or personal buying criteria.

However, then they want someone to pay for the benefits they have garnered from the free market... (ie tax the rich, force American employers to pay more, have gov't prop up the employee unions, etc)

That is what I find so confounding about the topic.

I am looking to buy new tires for my Suburban, I appreciate the free market since it keeps prices down and has forced quality /perfomance improvements, however I am working to find Good Year/Dunlop or Cooper tires because they are the most "American" tires. I do this because I do want to support "American" workers even if it costs me 10% more.

Now if an anti-union fiscal Conservative understands how this is critical to the properity of America, how is it that the Liberals just don't get it?

Anonymous said...

Not many people like free markets when they don't work to their advantage. As even Adam Smith noted, whenever two businessmen get together for lunch, the topic of conversation invariable turns to price fixing.

As it happens, in practical terms, the distinction between foreign and domestic cars has blurred to the point of extinction. I, personally, would never drive anything other than an American branded car, but I am well aware that the car may very well have a substantial foreign component.

One of the problems with this line of thinking is that it tries extrapolates personal choice into policy thinking, sort of like when people are criticized for taking advantage of tax breaks they personally oppose. This is wrong for at least two reasons. First, rules are rules, and there is nothing wrong with playing by the rules even if you disagree with them. Secondly, the soundness of policy choices doesn't depend on the person who makes them. The fact is, for various reasons, we have policies that discriminate against domestic manufacturers. Instead of requiring people to purchase from domestic manufacturers against their personal interests, the better policy is to change those discriminatory policies.

--Hiram

John said...

"distinction between foreign and domestic cars has blurred to the point of extinction"

Did you not read the Kogod link??? I'd say there is a pretty big difference between a Chevy Malibu at an index of 85, and a Kia Sedona, VW CC, Audi A6, Mercedes C class, BMW 3 series, etc at an index of ~1.5. Thoughts?

Tell me more about this... "we have policies that discriminate against domestic manufacturers"

And I have no desire to have the government requiring anyone to buy anything against their will. I am just puzzled that the Liberals who swear that they support American unions, workers, tax revenues /social programs, higher wages, etc seem to be proud of their low domestic content foreign cars. The ones that have undercut everything they say they stand for...

And it seems to just keep growing now that Samsung, LG and others are in the major appliance market. I bet one can put quite a few refrigerators, washers, driers, etc in a shipping container...

John said...

Man... And look how many containers they can put on a ship.
Image 1
Image 2

Anonymous said...

"we have policies that discriminate against domestic manufacturers"


We make companies pay their employees health care and pension costs.

--Hiram

John said...

I know the businesses are legally required to pay about half the payroll taxes & other things. (ie SS, Medicare, Unemployment / Workman Comp, insurance, etc)

However, I thought health insurance benefits were optional until ACA mandated it. Meaning that companies offered the other benefits to attract and retain good employees.

So the irony continues, since the Liberals seem to support mandating that US companies provide even more for their employees, and want to prevent the companies from sending jobs overseas when it is more cost effective.

In summary, the Liberals want to use government to mandate that companies pay more to operate in the USA. While they actively exercise their freedom to buy products that they deem best and most cost effective. Then they rant about how the American companies and rich are ruining America. It is all very confusing...

John said...

Oh, I forgot... Then they also want to increase the US corporate tax rates, which of course costs the American corporations more.

Anonymous said...

I thought health insurance benefits were optional until ACA mandated it.

Not in a practical sense. First, businesses must provide health insurance benefits to be competitive in attracting workers, and secondly, tax laws make it attractive for them to provide health insurance as a part of compensation. That is, in fact, why the Obama administration isn't terribly concerned about deferring the mandate requirement on businesses. They know that market forces already compel businesses to provide health insurance.

==Hiram

John said...

I guess I wouldn't call those policies that discriminate, however ACA, higher corporate taxes and laws to prevent off shoring certainly would be. And I am pretty sure that most Liberals do support those policies.

Sean said...

There are lots of reasons that can help explain this that aren't related to liberal/conservative.

For instance, an important reason that rural drivers prefer American cars is because foreign manufacturers don't open dealerships in small, rural towns. If you're a farmer or a rancher who's dependent on your vehicle, you're far more likely to buy from your Chevy or Ford dealer a couple of miles away versus driving to the nearest mid-size city to get parts or service.

This is a stupid, pointless, divisive thread. There are lots of liberals who drive American cars, and lots of conservatives that drive foreign cars.

Sean said...

And just for the record, our family's two cars have a combined Kogod index of 160.

John said...

I see this thread as no more devisive than all the Liberal threads that villify the wealthy and business people for being selfish and greedy because jobs are sent overseas, employees are not paid enough, unions are failing, tax revenues are too low, etc...

Then after writing and ranting about the "evil people" that are destroying the middle class and good paying jobs, they grab a pop out their Samsung refrigerator, make a call on their LG phone and go for a drive in their Volkswagon Passat to the IKEA store...

Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Reminder: Conservatives promote free trade, low cost product, and the consequences that come with it. Therefore it makes sense that they drive domestic or foreign cars. What they do is consistent with what they say...

John said...

Regarding the Kogod index, excellent !!!

John said...

You got me curious... I am averaging 80 also...
(ie Chevy Suburban, Honda Pilot, Chevy Cobalt)

Sean said...

"Conservatives promote free trade"?

Really? When was the last time conservatives pushed to make it easier for foreign professionals to compete with American professionals?

When was the last time conservatives pushed licensing reform to lower barriers of entry in many professions?

Conservatives have pursued policies, disguised as "free trade" that have been designed to destroy unions and protect their patrons.

John said...

I think you have been listening to too many Liberal sources. You know the ones, the folks driving those foreign cars...

I guess I have to disagree, all 3 of the "Conservative" design and manufacturing companies I have worked for have been huge free trade supporters. Not so they could bring product in, they needed it to improve exports.

~70% of my current employers sales are exports to Europe, Asia, South America and Australia. Thankfully they are interested in buying "Made in the USA" product, even if some folks here are not...

You wouldn't believe the taxes that we have to pay to get product into non-free trade zones like China, India and Brazil...

As for resisting licensing changes, that sounds like a Teacher's union type issue. I am sure Lawyers, Doctors, Accountants, etc all take a similar position. Usually exercised to keep their incomes higher at the expense of the consumers and quality.

John said...

Food for Thought...

Off Shoring Greater Threat than Terrorism

And just think, even the government is starting to do it...

Sean said...

You've just proved my point. Why aren't conservatives working to bust the licensing and immigration rules that make it hard for foreign professionals to do work in America? Or, for that matter, that make it hard for people to work within America?

We make it easy to move manufacturing jobs offshore, but we require folks who want to work in the cosmetology industry take about $10K worth of schooling to get licensed. We limit the number of doctors that can enter the country in a given year -- and for the one that do come they frequently can't practice for years once they do get here because of byzantine state regulations.

Where are the free market conservatives on this?

John said...

What exactly do you think they should be doing? Do you have any specific instance of where Conservatives have tried to block foreign parties from getting licenses?

They are working to get alternative licensing for Teachers, and the pro-Union folks say they are trying to "destroy unions and protect their patrons". Where as I think they are trying to reduce tax payer costs and ensure only the best Teachers are in the classroom.

As for Doctors and Nurses, it seems there is no problem getting them in and licensed.

More importantly, what does this have to do with...

How do we get Liberals to buy cars that have a higher domestic content? Or if they understand that their behaviors are undermining the American workers they are sworn to defend?

Sean said...

You're the one who brought up free trade, dude...

As for doctors and nurses, there's no problem with those who went to college here. If you didn't go to college here, though, it's very difficult to get in.

John said...

And you are the one who took off talking about stream lining the licensing for "professionals"... Which I personally still don't know who is fighting for or against...

As for licensing challenges, I know multiple Doctors and Nurses who got their degree elsewhere. It was a bit challenging for the Doctors, but not terrible... They had to do some "residence" type work and within a few years they were good to go and making a lot more money than they were used to. It does look like they will have a hard time if they don't do well on the tests. (ie like US students)

I think I am pretty happy that we don't just let them come in and start operating... AMA Doctor Process

It looks easier for Nurses.

Just curious... Would you want them to just give Doctors licenses based on their transcript?

Sean said...

Your own NY Times link shows how difficult it is to immigrate into this country and practice. AS part of trade agreements, we regularly negotiate standards on lots of things. There's no reason we couldn't set a benchmark for "free trade" in professional workers. Graduate from a school with a certain accreditation, pass a standard competency exam and you're in. This should be combined with reform of state licensing laws. The only reason we limit lawyers, for instance, from practicing freely across state lines is local protectionism.

John said...

"The only reason we limit lawyers, for instance, from practicing freely across state lines is local protectionism."

Are you sure? It seems it might be important that the Lawyer know the state's laws...

Does this mean you are a supporter of "alternative licensure" for Teachers? Or letting foreign Teachers in for a cost that is lower than the steps/lanes?

How is the Lawyer situation similar or different from your perspective?

At least, when the experienced Doctor, Nurse, or Lawyer does get licensed, they are free to negotiate their starting salary. Whereas the steps/lanes mandates a low starting wage. Thoughts?

Sean said...

I have no problems with the concept of alternative licensing for teachers. (The devil is in the details on any given particular proposal to make that happen, though.)

I also have no problems with collective bargaining for teachers.

As for the lawyer issue, shouldn't that be a "buyer beware" situation? If I hire a Minnesota lawyer to handle a California legal issue, I have to assume that they may have lower level of familiarity with that state's law.

John said...

That "buyer beware" view is sounding very conservative like. I'm impressed.

Collective bargaining is a lot like price fixing though... Would you like the Lawyers getting together to determine what they can each charge?

How do you rationalize being concerned about Lawyers limiting low priced competition, while being supportive of Teacher limiting low priced competition?

I personally wish we could reduce barriers to entry in both realms.

John said...

And with Lawyers, the buyer may be incompetent to judge the Lawyer competency.

Whereas in the school system the Administrators certainly should be proficient at evaluating Teachers, since they have been trained to do so.

Sean said...

Lawyers are free to organize the way teachers have, if they so choose.

If we're concerned about "buyer competency", you're going to have to take steps in a whole lot of areas, aren't you?

John said...

We already do worry about "buyer beware"... Lawyers, Doctors, Professional Engineers, Nurses, Certain Accountants, Land Surveyors, Financial Planners, Teachers, Architects, Plumbers, Electricians, etc, etc, etc.

Many many Professions require a State License in order to perform certain work. If I want to practice as a Professional Engineer in a different state, I'll need to jump through some hoops.

So do you really think a bunch of MN Lawyers could band together to set prices?

Sean said...

Lawyers are free to try and start a union. Some government attorneys are unionized.

I agree that licensing can have some value under certain circumstances. But frequently it doesn't.

http://brickcityblog.com/2013/01/14/under-the-radar-the-impact-of-licensing-regulations-on-employment/

John said...

Brick City: Impact of Licensing Regs on Employment

I'll check it out later.

John said...

Yes I do understand that many folks are able to organize in the Public domain... Maybe the government / taxpayers are the only folks who can afford collective bargaining / price fixing while staying in business... Unfortunately all of us in the Private domain have to pay additional taxes to cover their marked up prices.

Robbinsdale schools reduced transportation costs by $1+ million a year when they outsourced that activity. One has to wonder how much a big district like that could save, or how many additional Teachers it could hire if the protectionism was not in place...

John said...

I agree with your post, however I think it is the big government folks who want lots of licensing and regulations. I just can't see the Koch Brothers promoting more State or Local licensing.

Ironically, there is a huge push by the DFL to keep increasing the "quality" of daycare providers. They already have to be licensed and have continuing ed hours... Yet many folks think it is still is not adequate.

No wonder daycare is so expensive in MN. And if the license mania folks have there way, more stay at home Mom's will exit the business because it is just too much of a pain.

jon said...

If you think that buying a specific brand of car means you are a liberal or conservative, then you need a reality check in all honesty.

John said...

Many people would agree with you that I need a reality check.