By on November 9, 2016

Ford F150 assembly line

That sound you hear — besides that of pollsters hastily preparing new career paths — is the American automobile industry collectively holding its breath.

Donald Trump’s move from presidential candidate to president-elect, largely the result of disaffected voters in traditional manufacturing hot spots (though a nationwide movement to shake up D.C. can’t be ignored), could spell a tumultuous near future for automakers.

“May you live in interesting times,” the saying goes. How interesting remains to be seen.

Trump spent much of his campaign railing against the move of automobile manufacturing to lost-cost jurisdictions, Mexico specifically. He sparred with Ford CEO Mark Fields, singling out that automaker for its pledge to move small car production south of the border — a practice favored by numerous companies, including all members of the Detroit Three.

During his campaign kickoff, Trump threatened Ford with a 35-percent tariff on parts and vehicles imported from Mexico. Other automakers likely sat up and took notice of that threat. He’s also vowed to repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement, which makes the practice easy and profitable for automakers. (Those automakers would counter with a claim that it frees up capacity for higher-profit models, thus keeping the company on solid financial ground and U.S. workers employed.)

Reportedly, Trump and Fields spoke after the Ford CEO fired back at the candidate. It’s safe to say that call probably wasn’t the most relaxed exchange, but Trump’s comments did compel Ford to issue statements claiming its home is, and always will be, the United States.

Now, industry executives wait to see if Trump performs what Britons like to call a “U-turn.”

If Trump fails to flip-flop on his Mexican manufacturing stance, expect higher sticker prices on low-cost vehicles, says Charles Chesbrough, executive director of strategy and research at the Original Equipment Suppliers Association.

“His trade policies could add $5,000 or more to the price of a small car from Mexico,” Chesbrough told Reuters.

It’s true that auto manufacturing is on the rise in Mexico — the country makes up a growing 20-percent slice of North America’s vehicle volume — but repealing NAFTA wouldn’t be a walk in the park.

“Dismantling NAFTA at this point would be pretty hard to do,” Kristin Dziczek, director of industry, labor and economics at the Center for Automotive Research, told Reuters.

What’s notable of Trump’s win is the role played by voters in Rust Belt states. Michigan went red for the first time since 1988, while Ohio returned to the Republican fold after two previous Democratic wins. According to exit polling published by Fox News, union households only favored Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton by eight percentage points — a 10-percent drop from 2012. That’s the lowest union support for a Democratic candidate in two decades.

The UAW spent most of last night and this morning congratulating UAW-backed Democratic candidates on Twitter.

In a brief statement posted to UAW.org, union president Dennis Williams said, “The results are in and the American people have spoken. As a nation, it is time for us to once again unite for the common good of our country. We want to thank our members and retirees for their hard work during this democratic process.”

He continued, “It’s obvious there is work to be done. We have high hopes that elected officials heard the American people loud and clear about trade, jobs, education and the inequality in this country.”

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

270 Comments on “What Does Trump’s Win Mean for the Auto Sector?...”


  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Time will tell. I suspect that reality will set in and a more moderate course will have to be followed. He did say that he would be President for all of the people.

    • 0 avatar

      This is NOT the time for moderation. Would the Democrats moderate and cross the aisle to make nice with the opposition?

      Hell no. They crammed Obamacare down our throats without a single republican vote. Without any input from their opposition. And they’ve ruled with an iron fist in the same manner since.

      The Democrats have unwittingly foisted this on themselves. That’s the way they ruled. Live by the sword, die by the sword. They fell on their swords.

      The working American has taken a stand here. Drawn the line. Enough is enough.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        They crammed Obamacare down our throats without a single republican vote.

        Oh I forgot about those halcyon days when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during the Obama presidency.

        • 0 avatar
          Rochester

          I remember the first half of 2009 well. Six months of actual governance before Teddy passed away.

          And now we’re paying the price, as a white supremacist rips our nation apart. It will take a generation to recover, if at all.

          • 0 avatar
            SCE to AUX

            You bought the hype. This ‘white supremicist’ did worse with white voters than Mitt Romney, and Mrs Clinton did worse with minorities than Obama.

            Neither candidate was the stereotype the media would have you believe.

            Besides, all the Messiah Obama did for race relations over the last 8 years was stir the pot – it’s much worse now than in 2008.

          • 0 avatar

            Last I heard they are still trying to figure out the demographics as exit polling was only done in 27 states. But white rural less educated voters turned out in very large numbers for Trump.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            mary jo kopechne could not reached for comment

          • 0 avatar
            Higheriq

            White supremacist…LOL!

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            It seems pretty fair to define a guy who wouldn’t disavow David Duke except under extreme pressure, who retweeted about one white supremacist tweet a month throughout the campaign, and who first got his campaign noticed by calling brown people rapists, as a white supremacist.

          • 0 avatar
            Keith Tomas

            Yeah, but the white supremacist President will protect white people, that is all that they care about. As long as their asses are safe, they could care less about the rest of the world. Trump won’t do squat for the auto industry, or the nation. They will regret their choice.

        • 0 avatar
          FormerFF

          IIRC, the Republicans refused to participate in the process as they didn’t want to expand the government’s role in healthcare.

          • 0 avatar
            MRF 95 T-Bird

            The “Shoved down our throats” meme gets tired.
            There were 160 Republican amendments to the ACA.

            “Despite the partisan vote on the bill, the fact is that the Affordable Care Act was a product of exhaustive bipartisan compromise. Indeed, some of the most important provisions in the bill were actually GOP ideas:

            A high-risk pool for uninsured people with preexisting conditions
            Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines
            Pools where the self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance”

            http://www.americasfairhealthcare.org/blog/entry/fact-check-how-the-health-care-law-was-made/

        • 0 avatar
          56BelAire

          Come on Dan, you are a smart guy and I like you…..you surely know Obamacare was passed without any GOP votes. Not to mention, most Democrats didn’t even know what was in the bill when they voted to pass it.

          Maybe Donald will bring back Mercury so we can have a new Gran Marquis. Wink, wink.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            @56BelAire, I was being sarcastic.

            Personally when I’m paying over $500 per month for a family healthcare plan (Blue Cross Blue Shield negotiated by the state for state employees) and my employer is paying MORE than that for their contribution you can’t tell me there isn’t a more cost effective way of doing this while maintaining or increasing the quality of care.

            I also think any system that doesn’t provide health care for EVERYONE in a modern democracy is a freaking crime.

          • 0 avatar

            I’m with you Dan. Health care cost explosion will kill our economy faster then politics if we don’t do something.

          • 0 avatar
            NickS

            @PD – “I also think any system that doesn’t provide health care for EVERYONE in a modern democracy is a freaking crime.”

            If you travel regularly you’ll have to explain that to every non-American you encounter. I haven’t been able to satisfy anyone with my answers.

            I lived in Ontario Canada for a number of years, and I still find it absolutely bizarre what we have here in the US. The worst part is seeing how easily we poke fun at Canadians without knowing anything about what they have. If we don’t invent it, apparently, it doesn’t exist.

          • 0 avatar
            56BelAire

            Okay Dan, sorry I didn’t pick up on your sarcasm.

            As far as national healthcare, we a had a system that worked for decades. Healthcare insurance markets should be opened nationally and not allow insurers to pick and chose certain states and pull out of others. There needs to be more competition and the premiums should normalize. Obamacare is not working, premiums, co-pays, and deductibles are skyrocketing to the point average working people simply can’t pay.

            Many young healthy people simply don’t want to buy healthcare insurance and shouldn’t be force to buy it or get fined by the government.

            Tort reform has been talked about for decades yet nothing gets done. We need to get sleazy lawyers out of the healthcare equation. Sure there are legitimate lawsuits but the ambulance chasing lawyers sure contribute to the dysfunctional healthcare industry.

            As far as “healthcare should be provided to EVERYONE”…….as far as I know, the poor and immigrants without insurance have always been treated at hospitals….. for decades without paying. People show up in emergency rooms by the thousands and are treated……every day and never pay a cent. That’s part of the reason a bandaid is billed at $20.00 on your hospital bill.

          • 0 avatar

            Tort reform was enacted in Texas over a decade ago. It made Dr’s wealthier and insurance companies more profitable. Costs rose the same as the rest of the country.

            Premiums were going up double digits annually years before Obamacare.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “I also think any system that doesn’t provide health care for EVERYONE in a modern democracy is a freaking crime.”

            if you can’t afford health insurance, it’s your fault because you deserve to be poor. how dare you ask for a handout.

          • 0 avatar
            FormerFF

            @56BelAire, the percent of Americans covered by private health insurance had been declining for more than a decade when the ACA was passed. And, it’s not just Obamacare premiums that are going up, group plans are going up as well.

            Most states have already implemented medical tort reform, it hasn’t helped.

          • 0 avatar
            WildcatMatt

            I still firmly believe the best thing would be to decouple health insurance from the employer, so everyone buys from the same marketplace and insurers have to market plans people will buy.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Several reasons why no employer or health insurance company wants this.

            -Tax benefits to employer.
            -Employer touts it as benefit to employees.
            -Employees don’t have to search for their own coverage.
            -Much easier for the insurer to administer group plans, rather than underwrite individuals.

        • 0 avatar
          VW16v

          PrinceDan, have to watch white trash use the hospital system without insurance was a nauseating experience. Basically if you do not have insurance you should not use medical services. On the other hand people with preexisting conditions could not even get health insurance. Obama care is not perfect but having more people actually being responsible for there own Healthcare for the past few has been great.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        So instead of fixing all the country’s problems, the GOP should take this opportunity to exact revenge on their political opponents? Is this the United States or some third world sh_tshow?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          I hope it doesn’t go that way, but we aren’t very far removed from “I Won…Elections have consequences.”

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            The USA the only first world nation without universal health care. Medical expenses being the number one cause of bankruptcies.

            I believe that the majority of humans believe that having access regardless of income to health care is a much greater human right than the ability to carry a handgun.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Arthur Dailey – agreed. You got the right to a gun but not the right to get the bullet holes repaired.

  • avatar

    I hope the Trump win means a Renaissance period for the American worker. For the Auto worker. For protecting the working family. For peace through strength. For the end of a criminal ruling class. For the peace,safety and peace of mind of your children and grandchildren.

    Will there be a painful restructuring for American automakers? You bet your bippie.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      I hope you’re right. My suspicion is that you will be proved wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      While it may help manufacturing workers, it will come at the expense of consumers. It could be a net benefit to the country. However, it may mean the end of the everyday low prices that consumers have come to expect.

      • 0 avatar
        orenwolf

        This is probably the most likely outcome, and generally, a welcome one – the west, in general, is underpaying for goods thanks to cheap labour. Moving to domestic production and labour will definitely cost more, but you’ll be supporting better livelihoods as a result.

        The problem, though, is that incomes will not increase for the average joe not in the manufacturing sector, which means, in general, people will be able to afford even less than they do now. I don’t think most people pushing for this option are prepared for what it will mean in real-world terms like that, and I hope government economists have a plan to compensate when the cost of goods rises.

      • 0 avatar
        56BelAire

        @jmo, if it means we have to pay more for “Made in USA” instead of cheap crap made in China and elsewhere………so be it, bring it on. The land fills and recycling centers in America are overloaded with all the cheap crap be have been purchasing for 30 years.

        I recently took a 10 year old “fancy” expensive Chinese refrigerator to the local dump….yet my 30 year old garage fridge keeps humming along.

        @orenwolf, IMO, ZIRP and money printing by the FED has created a false economy, a false recovery while doubling the national debt…….when it comes home to roost it won’t be pretty.

        • 0 avatar
          never_follow

          I paid a premium for a Bosch sensor last week – it came with an anti-counterfeit seal from their Chinese factory.

          If I wanted dirt cheap crap, I’d have paid for dirt cheap crap. Country of origin labeling should be stiffened up, so that consumers can make an educated choice.

          • 0 avatar
            orenwolf

            “Country of origin labeling should be stiffened up, so that consumers can make an educated choice.”

            Won’t work. Ask Microsoft and their war with counterfeit windows CDs awhile back. The counterfeiters in China have *better* access to fancy printing technology than most anyone else. The labelling isn’t what needs to change, instead, you need to order only directly from sellers who can verify their entire supply chain. This, again, raises prices, but if you really want to buy authentic, it’s really the only way to go.

        • 0 avatar
          dantes_inferno

          > I recently took a 10 year old “fancy” expensive Chinese refrigerator to the local dump….yet my 30 year old garage fridge keeps humming along.

          I hear ya. I have a 40-year old GE manual-defrost fridge still going strong. I’m already on my second “frost-free” fridge.

          • 0 avatar
            orenwolf

            Ha. Have you ever looked at what you paid for those appliances in inflation adjusted dollars?

            The real issue is you can’t choose to spend 50% more to buy a higher quality refrigerator that will last longer because the market of people willing to do that is too tiny.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            Orenwolf, have you looked at what salaries were back then in inflation adjusted dollars?

          • 0 avatar
            DougD

            15 years ago I bought a fridge that was made in the GE fridge factory in my city, I paid extra so that I would have a locally made product. It was crap, it broke, replacement parts didn’t fit. After 5 years replaced with with a Mexican fridge that has been flawless. The fridge factory is now a conference center. It was a disappointing experience for everyone involved, wish it had been different.

            The truth about fridges today. Where’s that guy with the fridge avatar when you need him?

          • 0 avatar
            la834

            The original GE/Hotpoint fridge from my 1951 house is still keeping the beer cold in the basement.

            General Electric sold their appliance business to Chinese manufacturer Haier earlier this year BTW, along with the rights to continue using the GE logo for the next 10 years, so don’t be fooled you’re buying American.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In today’s dollars, a mundane refrigerator during the early 50s cost about $3,000.

            (No, that is not a typo.)

            Now you know why they don’t make them here anymore.

        • 0 avatar
          ponchoman49

          I am partnered with both a vacuum/appliance repair shop and occasionally help my friend at his used car dealership. The crap made in the past 20 years is beyond reproach and quite insufferable. Just about any Chinese part we put on a car or truck doesn’t last very long. Our vacuum shop is loaded with modern junk vacuum cleaners and other small appliances made in the past 20 years, some as little as 6 months old, and the vast majority of it is unfixable or not worth the effort. Meanwhile 90% of the cleaners made from the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s 70’s and 80’s are still in working order and useable with but a new belt or bag.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Do small appliance and television repair shops even exist anymore?

            The local colleges no longer have TV or appliance repair courses. All the local TV repairs shops have been closed for years.

            It is cheaper to buy a new small appliance than to try to fix it. Even if it can be fixed. When our toasters or toaster ovens break we pull out the old one from the 1950’s that sits in the basement. It still does the job.

            The major appliance manufacturing plants in Ontario are now long closed. The Inglis facility which was one of the world’s largest manufacturers of armaments during the wars is now Liberty Village a hipster community.

            We recently purchased a new washing machine. Tried for a ‘local’ product. The best I could find was one labelled “Assembled in the USA”.

          • 0 avatar
            WildcatMatt

            There’s a reason I hold on to my Electrolux Super J.

          • 0 avatar
            la834

            There are two big reasons you don’t see small-appliance or TV repair shops anymore. One is that modern electronics are built with a few specialized circuit boards and other such parts that lack small replaceable parts like transistors or capacitors that could be fixed in older electronics (it’s the same reason they stopped making Heathkits – what’s the point of building your own TV set when all it involves is assembling a few circuit boards and a screen?). The other is that electronics become obsolete so fast now that nobody wants to spend anything repairing their five year old cellphone.

            Large appliances, like cars, still can be repaired although there’s increasing use of larger modular parts there too. I’ve worked on appliances from the 1950s and ’60s and can say with certainty that a new appliance built that well would cost double what today’s appliances cost. A few appliance manufacturers still build sturdy stuff – Miele to name one, True (commercial and some residential refrigerators) is another. The products of all such companies are very expensive.

          • 0 avatar
            Old Man Pants (nee Kenmore)

            My old method of leveling a new fridge by my lonesome of sliding a hardwood trim piece under the front frame cross-member and prying up, marking feet, racking them all the way up and counting turns coming down, slapping a level on top & side untill just the right amount of even back-lean for the door to self-close is achieved…*breathes*…is now kaput.

            The frame bends. On an empty fridge. Buckles, too, if yer too dumb to stop in time. That much cheap-out on the frame doesn’t bode well for any other component.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      So you are arguing that it will be great for American workers, but painful for American manufacturers. Makes about as much sense as everything else in this campaign.

      Maybe it’s a comment on the so-called gig economy? There’s a big pool of workers, but they don’t work for employers… I guess I should have known that was an ironic millennial beard in your avatar.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      It is much better if you read these words humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Your proposal might accelerate the END of the American auto industry. All this stuff would add to the cost of cars, which are already struggling to sell with steep incentives. That price hike would slow sales even further and possibly trigger another recession. Everybody loses.

      The main issue for domestics is, ironically, all their union legacy crap. If they can untangle all that they would be able to compete with the myriad of foreign automakers with plants here full of happy well paid workers building competitively designed/built/priced product. No tariffs, no unions, no ancient pointless protectionist BS. The tumultuous story of D3 shows how poorly that crap works

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @sportyaccordy
        I thought the Australian Auto Manfacturing industry may end first, but I could be wrong. US Industry has a lot of problems,that could sink it

      • 0 avatar
        la834

        > The main issue for domestics is, ironically, all their union legacy crap.

        Some of it is, but an even bigger issue is the huge amount they owe current and former employees for retirement plans and pensions. That did alot to cause old GM’s bankruptcy – one high-level executive described GM as a huge healthcare provider that makes cars on the side. I read a calculation done around 2005 showing how those legacy costs add about $2,100 to a new GM car but only $700 to a US-built Toyota, because Toyota didn’t have the burden of some many retirees they had to pay for. In other words, America’s healthcare system that puts most of the burden on employers rather than the government hugely penalizes any company that has employed Americans for several decades, and benefits foreign companies that have only recently set up shop here.

    • 0 avatar
      notwhoithink

      “I hope the Trump win means a Renaissance period for the American worker. For the Auto worker.”

      Do you know why US companies do most of the manufacturing in countries other than the United States these days? It’s not because they hate America, it’s because manufacturers from other countries are doing it and it’s the only way to stay cost competitive. If they move all of these manufacturing jobs back to the US then sure, there might be more manufacturing jobs here. At least for a little while. But then prices will go up or companies will go out of business because they won’t be able to compete with cheaper products made by foreign companies. Can Apple manufacture iPhones here in the US? Sure. But instead of costing $800 they’ll cost $1800. And yes, they can slap tariffs on imports to try to keep American made products price-competitive, but all that is likely to do is spark a trade war, resulting in other countries imposing tariffs on our already too-expensive products which will make it even harder to compete.

      This is about the advancement of society. In ancient times there were hunter-gatherer societies, and you survived primarily on your ability to find food and fend off predators. Then we shifted to an agrarian-based economy. In the 1850s over 80% of Americans worked on the farm. Then as technology advanced and the industrial revolution took off jobs shifted to the manufacturing sector in the big cities. And now those jobs have given way to the information economy. Today less than 2% of Americans work in agriculture, and manufacturing has been relegated primarily to developing nations. One day those nations will also shift to the information economy as well (probably once those low cost workers are completely replaced by machines). This is the progress of the human race, and you can’t turn back the clock to the 1950’s and expect everything to be OK again.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      ” For the end of a criminal ruling class…”

      …which superstar multi-billionaires would NEVER be a part of to begin with…

      Unfortunately, too many Trump supporters don’t see the irony of this.

    • 0 avatar
      carlisimo

      Fiat is a cautionary tale, though. Protectionism in Italy contributed to a decline in their competitiveness. EU regulations forced Italy to let them compete in a more open market, and by then their products were so behind that it almost killed them. They eventually recovered, and that did involve opening factories in cheaper places (like buying the old Yugo factory), but it was close.

      Basically, protectionism is short-term gain for long-term weakness. Much like Trump’s climate non-plan, or his tax/spending plan. We’ll likely pay dearly a few decades later.

    • 0 avatar
      JaySeis

      Underground mining eh?

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      Trump fed off the ignorance of this nation. Art of the deal was his approach and it worked. While the little man voted for Trump they will also be banged from behind while basking in his great salesmanship.

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    It won’t mean jack sh1t.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @tresmonos – agreed. He will soon realize that he isn’t going to be able to change much of anything.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Correct. He was elected President, not King. And as a politician we know his pants were on fire because his lips were moving. Anything he sees fit to change (or build, like walls) has to go thru Congress. Granted his party has a majority now, but half those liars didn’t want him either. I feel he is in for a major uphill battle. Running the country ain’t like owning a company where you can scream “your fired” at people when things don’t go your way. However you can’t overlook the power of owning golf courses, that is going to win him some major points with those in DC.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    He’ll do nothing of the sort. he’s a Republican, he’ll give big business whatever they want.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      FormerFF – all of Trump’s trade rhetoric is decidedly left wing totalitarian. Clinton may be a Democrat when it comes to social issues but her trade beliefs are decidedly free and open market neoliberal (read – conservative Milton Friedman Laissez-fair)

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      Trump is at best “conveniently” Republican.

      • 0 avatar

        Yeah you don’t hear it much but real Trump may be the most RINO canidate ever to win a major office in the US. I mean he was Literally a democrat most of his life. And yes Hillary was the default big business choice in this election.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        That’s a stretch, too. Trump is an independent who ran as a Republican, who donated to Hillary Clinton in elections past.

        I suspect his potential SCOTUS picks will find a very receptive audience amongst Democrats.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I suspect his potential SCOTUS picks have all been cleared with the GOP national committee – i.e., “the elites” that his supporters were under the impression that they were giving the middle finger to.

          That will be just one of the things he probably had to agree to go along with in order to gain national party support, which he would not have won without.

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    It means nothing other than BTS was right…

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      I started thinking about this last night.

      It was then reinforced when I saw an exchange on Facebook he was having with Steve Lang. It was a bit disturbing to be forced to consider:

      1) The correctness of BTSR.
      2) That he is in fact a real person and not a cartoon.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Next thing you know I’ll run into Yosemite Sam on the street.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        BTSR was correct?

        I have a broken watch, and twice a day…well, you know the rest…

        My question is what our blowhard friend with a 203-pound chip on his shoulder and an arsenal comparable to several Third World countries does when he figures out Trump lied right through his teeth to him. That might be interesting to watch.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          FreedMike – interesting observation. That might be why Michael
          Moore said that Trump might be the last President of the USA.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Watch for the Golitsyn Thesis: East-West convergence through peaceful means or first strike. The whole cozy with the Kremlin thing must be watched carefully.

            But I suppose its better to the alternative, a return to 1962 which was almost certainly in the cards.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Well, Michael Moore hasn’t sold many tickets since “Fahrenheit 911,” so there’s that, Lou.

            But, no, Trump will not be the end of our republic. If we survived Nixon we can survive anything.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            FreedMike – Moore is stroking the political fires for his own financial benefit. I do agree that it will not be the end of the republic.

            I do believe that what we are seeing is an ongoing uprising of the masses against Neo-liberal ideology. Total free market economies only benefit the elites. The middle and lower classes always suffer more. Walling off a country literally or financially doesn’t work either. Communist Russia proved that point and what we are seeing in various parts of the world is proving that neo-liberalism also doesn’t work for the masses.

            Somehow, balance and moderation have become dirty words.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            28-Cars-Later – I do agree. That is why the Kremlin prefers Trump as CIC. He can be manipulated whereas Hillary was seen as Putin in drag.

        • 0 avatar

          So, with the election of Donald Trump, political correctness really is dead? I know Trump said a lot of things about getting rid of political correctness but I never expected to see BTSR mentioned in the comments here followed by “Go, I say go away boy, you bother me,” Foghorn Leghorn or no.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Would you like to debate the race/racism of cartoon characters? Especially one who’s first appearance was in 1946.

            If we start imposing modern standards on them you could always use the LGBTI interpretation of “boy” which would make that quote all together different.

      • 0 avatar
        Paragon

        I also was thinking, even before I logged into the computer, that I had to comment on our old buddy BTSR. You know he would be the first one commenting and pointing out that HE WAS RIGHT!!! Probably saying Long Live our President Trump!!!

  • avatar
    ajla

    What about fuel economy targets, CAFE, and emission rules? Would Trump and the Congress roll them back to 2006 levels? What about EV subsidies?

    I’m guessing the EPA is going to be defunded to the point of uselessness.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “I’m guessing the EPA is going to be defunded to the point of uselessness.”

      I hope not; the ‘good old days’ prior to 1970 weren’t so good. Perhaps the EPA could use better oversight, accountability, and common sense, but the US needs an agency that looks after the protection of its citizens and neighborhoods from environmental hazards.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “His trade policies could add $5,000 or more to the price of a small car from Mexico,” Chesbrough told Reuters.

    If that’s true, it’ll be good news for the transplants who build cars in the US.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      The cheap car you were selling on Craigslist is also now able to pull more money.

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        We may see small cars moving down to a niche status soon with midsizers and small SUVs becoming the entry level. Right now, I can walk into my local Nissan store, plop down $16k and walk out with a fairly well kitted Altima. Going down a size is going to be negligible in terms of fuel economy.

        When those kinds of deals are on the table along with demand for trucks/SUVs and cheap gas in general, there isn’t really that solid of an argument for small cars.

        • 0 avatar
          Daniel J

          This is my thought as well. Small cars have gotten so pricey compared to midsizers anyways, I don’t see the value advantage of buying small cars. Big cities and easy parking, sure. But the rest of America?

          • 0 avatar
            ponchoman49

            I just checked out a bunch of compact sized cars this past weekend consisting of Elantra’s Cruzes and Focuses. They were priced as high as 28K! For 28K I can get into a brand new 2016 2LT Impala with a V6 engine and convenience package or a fully loaded Sonata Limited or a Fusion SE with appearance package and a 2.0 liter turbo.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “We may see small cars moving down to a niche status soon…”

          Interesting thought, but it may actually be the midsize that’s becoming a niche.

          Compacts are, for all intents and purposes, midsizers now anyway. They’re plenty roomy, comfortable, and can be optioned up to upwards of $30,000.

          That may explain part of the decline of the midsize segment.

        • 0 avatar
          tedward

          That killer deal on the mid sizer is a sign of weakness, not strength. Compact cars are meanwhile rapidly expanding in terms of body configurations and price range.

      • 0 avatar
        MoDo

        With abundant local oil (Keystone gets the go ahead immediately) nobody will want small cars anyway. You can forget about any Chinese car maker setting foot in the US now under any previous plan, and for good reason. I am thinking the Japanese/Koreans/Germans may be forced to build more factories in the US as well regarding the amount of cars they sell. Many ways to look at it…

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “With abundant local oil (Keystone gets the go ahead immediately)…”

          You mean, abundant oil in China, right? Because that’s where the Keystone oil’s going.

  • avatar
    mtmmo

    The American middle class worker just got validation and will now have a real voice in President Trump. The economy can now be saved! As a result we will have a booming economy, a strong energy policy, and a growing auto industry and vehicle sales. Today is a great day for the USA.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      Let’s check back in say, nine months, and compare notes. Methinks you will be sorely disappointed.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Ironically, as I pointed out earlier – Trump’s trade policies are leftist totalitarian. Clinton is opposite with a trade view that is neo-liberal or conservative open market.

        Stock markets are all currently down in reaction to Trump’s victory.

        It isn’t so much a vote on saving the economy but a vote on the complete mistrust the populace has towards the ruling class.

        Michael Moore predicted a Trump victory because of this, “a vote for Donald Trump would transpire to be the “biggest f**k you in human history”.”

        • 0 avatar

          Yeah this was a angry vote again politicians as much as about actual policy. I’m curious how it plays out. Trumps comments just during the election often contradict each other. And going back further in his life in interviews they contradict almost everything. It will be interesting to see what actual policy comes out.

          Also kind of amazing that a White Billionaire from NYC was the anti political power choice. Never saw that coming.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            Mopar,

            We all change views as we see more and have exposure to both sides. I’m not taking up for Trump, but its a fact that most of us contradict ourselves throughout life as our perception changes and our knowledge grows.

          • 0 avatar

            I agree that was one of the issues Bush had he never changed his mind. In Trumps case other then immigration and Trade his views vary almost daily, It will make the next 6 months entertaining, he’s just a bit more unpredictable then your average politician. You used to watch say Mitt change his views for a few townhalls in Nebraska then say something different in Boston, we know why he did it, with Trump it’s all over the place.

            Cable news must be falling all over themselves they thought there run of Trump fueled ratings was done for.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            “White Billionaire”

            Maybe he’ll release his tax returns to show us what a big wheel he is.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            @JohnTaurus: But this isn’t thoughtful evolution over time. Trump had literally 15 different positions on the minimum wage just during the course of the campaign. He says whatever gets him applause at the time. What he actually would do is anyone’s guess.

            But judging from his debate performances…his attention span, stamina, knowledge of the facts and interest in the details are so lacking that he’ll just subcontract all the work to Pence. That means the traditional wings of the party—the big-business tax-cut crowd on one side and the family-values bigots on the other—will have their way with us, per usual, and Joe Six-Pack will just have to be content with the fact the president is neither a black guy nor a lady.

        • 0 avatar
          Higheriq

          Down? The DOW was up 318 points at last check this afternoon.

      • 0 avatar
        56BelAire

        @FormerFF, many(50%)? have been “sorely disappointed” in the last 8 years.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    By bringing back manufacturing to the US, his actions could cause more harm than good. It is how he goes about it

  • avatar
    Speed3

    Those manufacturing jobs are gone and they are not coming back. Contrary to what Donald Trump says, its robots that took those jobs, and they are coming for more.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      ttiguy

      +1000 but that’s not what people can wrap their heads around.

    • 0 avatar
      MoDo

      The study done on manufacturing back in the car czar days of 2008 was that the majority of manufacturing jobs don’t pay very well, not well enough to bail out with bazillions of dollars (they did anyway though). Sure the guy on the line at the car plant makes a good living, but the kid down the street at the suppliers shop making seat belt latches only makes 1/2. I’d know, I did those jobs in my early 20’s – if I did it again I would have just got a job at the mall selling shoes and gawking at chicks all day.

      • 0 avatar
        orenwolf

        Right, but part of why that happens is the supply guy is competing with foreign parts. If things really go the way of the tariff, and if the tariff is against components instead of entire vehicles, then, in theory, parts guy gets more money – but car prices go up as well.

        All fine for those who can afford more expensive, locally-produced vehicles – not so much if you are already struggling with your car payment, though.

    • 0 avatar
      ponchoman49

      Which is seriously troubling as the worlds population continues to grow and grow each year.

  • avatar
    Jagboi

    I know a person in the model train manufacturing business. He said that if he brought production to North America the average cost of a single model train car (HO scale) would be between $1500- $2000, simply because of the labour content.

    I doubt there are many people willing or able to pay that much for a hobby, and that’s part of the reason why production isn’t coming back from China.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      More likely it will move to Vietnam or Bangladesh, China is getting too expensive.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m assuming those are Brass models. The plastic ones are fairly price competitive made here or abroad mostly do to automation. The brass ones are hand assembled and labor figures in big time. I know a company that makes rolling stock here in the US plastic injected and they cost a few percent more then the imports.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Yet another irony of the Trump True Believer Movement…

      If he succeeds in getting all the low-priced consumer junk we buy from China and elsewhere manufactured here, it’ll cost a lot more. Rich guys like Trump won’t care. But it’ll hurt lower paid folks…many of whom voted for Trump.

      But I’m sure they’ll find a way to blame $1500 model train cars on Obama…

      • 0 avatar
        orenwolf

        “If he succeeds in getting all the low-priced consumer junk we buy from China and elsewhere manufactured here, it’ll cost a lot more. Rich guys like Trump won’t care. But it’ll hurt lower paid folks…many of whom voted for Trump.”

        This is, of course, the heart of the matter. Many of us here have the money to vote with our wallets on what we buy (I try to buy local wherever possible), but many *more* people do not. The key to good government is making sure you can help those who cannot afford to purchase locally do so. The question is, how?

        Discounting local products for low-income families is contrary to a lot of existing trade agreements, so, if you go that route, you get out of those agreements. But of course, your export markets can now do the same thing. That may not matter, though, if the voters have decided that the export economy of the US doesn’t matter. Besides, us Canadians will continue to buy American too, since our local market for many goods is tiny :)

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      This sounds a lot like farm toys. Some really old-school collectors won’t buy stuff from the Ertl Company because it’s made in China and Korea, only from Scale Models (Dyersville, IA) or SpecCast (Rockford, IL). But if Ertl made all their stuff in the U.S., even something like a tiny 1:64-scale tractor might cost close to $100 instead of $10, which would make it impossible for a young or beginning collector (most of whom are farm kids) to get into the hobby, not to mention all the little mom-&-pop outfits or retirees that dabble in the trade at farm toy shows. And the detail and construction quality of the Chinese Ertl toys is still great, if not mind-blowing.

      http://media1.diecastmodels.co/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/e/r/ert45317-01.jpg

      At the end of the day, it is just a hobby, but for some people, hobbies are what keeps them going.

  • avatar
    redapple

    We are not saying take the EPA reg s to 1969.
    Stop it.

    We are saying leave it.

    We are already 99% cleaner than 1969. Going to 99.5% clean or what ever costs billion$.

    China is 99% dirty or so. Same with India.

  • avatar
    319583076

    Sanctimonious opinion mingled with folksy bromide!

  • avatar
    Macca

    Where is APaGttH? He said he would bring the popcorn.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    He is coming after Ford to make America great again.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    The case against Ford is not so clear, since Ford is moving production, not closing a factory. However, the case against others, such as Carrier, would appear to be a lot stronger. Close the factory, and move production to Mexico, then import the previously domestically-made air conditioners back into the U.S. While it may make sense at the individual company level, on a mass scale, I think everyone ought to be able to see the problem. There are many, many communities outside of the big cities that depend upon a single employer. When that employer moves away, the people living there are stranded. Their one big asset-their house- drops precipitously in value. Where can they go? What can they do? It’s a problem that simply hasn’t been addressed. If you had, as I did in the past year, made a slow trip back and forth across the U.S. not on the Interstates, you would see many, many communities that are not doing well. Shuttered small businesses, etc.

    Small business growth has been zero in the Obama administration. So, there’s lots more that could be done than simply raising tariffs.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Well said Bruce.

    • 0 avatar
      56BelAire

      Bruce, ^^^^^^+100^^^^^^. spot on.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Small business growth is a huge issue, but offshoring has nothing to do with it.

      People can’t start small businesses here because it’s too risky. Fail and you end up with not only no money, but no health insurance. No one with any preexisting medical issue, no matter how irrelevant to the ability to run a business, would be in their right mind to start a business. Instead they stay in McJobs with employer-provided health insurance.

      Obamacare and its subsidies were at least an attempt, no matter how imperfect, to address this problem, although they were better designed for low-wage workers than business owners. The better way would be a German-style system where health insurance, while still private, is decoupled from employment and regulated as a utility, with everyone covered regardless of income.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “Small business growth has been zero in the Obama administration.”

      …in no small part because loaning lots of money to small businesses is risky, but investing on Wall Street isn’t.

      And if you had enough money to invest that you could expect a million-dollar annual return, what would be more attractive to you – risking it all on a small business that has a great chance of failing, only to be taxed at the highest marginal rate, or telling your financial advisor to just buy and sell equities on Wall Street, diversify the investments to mitigate your risk, pay a far lower capital gains tax rate off the profits, and live off the interest and dividends? I’d take Door Number Two, and that’s exactly what the super-wealthy in our country – i.e., the folks who could EASILY fund startups – are doing. It makes perfect sense.

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        The marketplace isn’t very friendly to very small businesses these days. Think about your spending over the last year, how much of it goes to a small individual business? I know in my case, it’s quite small.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          I’d really like to support the small businesses in my town, but I currently have no need for women’s clothing, fancy tobacco, computer repair, assistance in planning a vacation, little knickknacks you always see in middle-aged Midwestern ladies’ homes, or tae kwon do lessons.

          • 0 avatar
            FormerFF

            Things we buy from small local businesses: home services like painting, restaurant meals, and dentistry.

          • 0 avatar
            Paragon

            Same here, DrZ. The only time I have in recent years was to a small print shop, rather than the big-name one.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Well, we do have two good sit-down restaurants, two local (non-chain) fast food places, a dentist, and a print shop that embroiders or screen-prints on shirts and coats and stuff like that (all made in China, of course). But none of those are places I visit more than once every few weeks, and more like six months for the dentist.

    • 0 avatar
      Daniel J

      I think the votes in the Rust Belt states pretty much are in agreement with your assessment.

    • 0 avatar
      ponchoman49

      You just described much of Upstate, NY pretty well. It is seriously shocking to see all the large companies that have shut down- light bulb manufacturers because the Obama admin condemned conventional incandescents. Coal driven powerplants. Hospitals. Manufacturing. 100’s of smaller businesses with abandoned buildings left to rot. Now the only employers most of these areas have is Walmart. Who can make a living on that?

      The funny part is that despite switching over to all this green energy conserving crap my electric bill is higher than ever. All they do is jack up prices to compensate.

      I’m not against energy conservation or technological progress. But when going green means putting thousand out of jobs and technology putting even more out of work then there is a serious problem.

      • 0 avatar
        onyxtape

        Your electric bill went up because the rates went up.

        My rates stayed constant, and my bill dropped by half after switching out my 60W bulbs with 10W LCDs that cost $2 each.

  • avatar

    Listen, there’s not yet a TTIP, a free trade deal between the U.S. and the EU. That means that for instance German automakers have to pay import tariffs to sell their cars in the United States, which made BMW invest in the Spartanburg factory, btw the U.S.’ largest car exporter. I can understand where this is all coming from. Take GM for instance. On one hand counting on government bailouts, at the same time offshoring car manufacturing to China, expecting American taxpayers to purchase Made in China GM cars like Buicks.

  • avatar
    Tstag

    Would it be worthwhile for Ford to make a small car in the USA? Assuming Donald Trump brought in these changes wouldn’t Ford just stop making small cars for the US or try and ship them in from Europe where people buy small cars?

    Not a brilliantly thought out policy from a man who failed to win the popular vote.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    I’m really surprised that anyone here takes anything that Trump has said as what he will do. While it’s true that all politicians lie, Trump has raised it to an art form. This is widely documented, go to Politifact or any other fact checking site.

    Face it, we have no idea what he may or may not do. Plus, he has to get it through a Republican congress that has shown that it is hostile to wage earners.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Problem is, all those “silent white voters” who just turned out for him don’t believe he’s BS’ing.

      • 0 avatar
        orenwolf

        “Problem is, all those “silent white voters” who just turned out for him don’t believe he’s BS’ing.”

        Well, they get to find out what it feels like to have *their* candidate fail on their promises for once. :) It’ll be especially bad this go around I think, though – only because of the candidate, who, for many topics, was both for and against many positions.

        That’s fine, though – aside from a few hot-button items, that’s technically how the government is supposed to work – representatives take on a challenge and choose the path that makes the best sense for their constituents. Sometimes that doesn’t match the candidate’s original plan – but you elect them because you believe that, ultimately, they will make the best decision for you. Hopefully, when that happens, his supporters will accept that.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “Hopefully, when that happens, his supporters will accept that.”

          The same people who went on the anti-Clinton jihad for almost 30 years?

          We’ll see. Don’t bet on it, though.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “Problem is, all those “silent white voters” who just turned out for him don’t believe he’s BS’ing.”

          One of two things will happen: 1. His supporters will turn on him or 2.Turn on the “system”.

          Option 2 is most likely.
          They voted Trump as a big “F^ck You” to the system and will believe that the system “turned” Trump. In other words, Trump has an out when the house of cards comes crashing down.

          • 0 avatar
            FormerFF

            For years, the Republican Party has been playing these folks for suckers, positioning themselves as the guardians of traditional values, and collecting their votes while neglecting their economic needs, while telling them that things will “trickle down” to them in time. I’m fully expecting that Trump will do the same.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            FormerFF – agreed.

  • avatar
    mmreeses

    Ah finally one TTAC political threat :)

    I’m happy we won’t have a president who thinks that setting up a no-fly zone in Syria is a good risk-free idea.

    Tired of optional wars—and let the Russians bomb ISIS if they want—they did lose an airliner full of citizens to terrorism

    Killing Russians in Syria would kinda be bad for the auto sector.

    • 0 avatar

      Of course in exchange for that we got one that thinks limited nuclear war may be a good idea and giving Japan and South Korea Nukes seems like a good idea. But yes I agree on an overall basis his foreign policy has been less offensive then Hillary’s.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Instead of a no-fly zone over Syria, if we believe his campaign promises, we’ll get full-scale invasions of at least four Middle Eastern countries. Are you sure this was the better result?

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “Killing Russians in Syria would kinda be bad for the auto sector.”

      Not true…most auto plants are outside the cities that Putin would end up nuking.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    The US is a major exporter of motor vehicles and motor vehicle tech.

    Slapping tariffs on imported goods and services, more protectionism will only cost the consumer more. This is across the board.

    America needs external trade to maintain its current high standard of living.

    If costs rise to live so you can have “Made in ‘Murica’ people will have less to support the bar staff, waiters, lawn mowers, etc.

    The standard of living will drop.

    People must realise the US isn’t what it was 50 years ago. Others have caught up increasing competition.

    Trump thinking he can make the rules to ‘play the game’, which will be biased towards the US will see the US have a large drop in the standard of living.

    Other countries will move away from the US costing the US economy trillions ….. unless Trump does a rather large back flip. The US’s influence has waned and it needs more than ever external trade as it has done since day dot.

    I believe other nations will attempt to maintain their current trade arrangements, increasing their position at the expense of the US.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    This popcorn tastes like crap and I don’t want any more.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      When are you gonna run, Dal?

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        As soon as it’s not a suicide pact. Seriously, I’m grateful to people who run for office, but I don’t get why they’d do it. You get no money, nonstop ignorant abuse, and people who spend their whole lives digging into everything you’ve ever said, written, or done.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          I agree, it’s a terrible job. I think it’s a glory/power issue for them. Both are true for our current president elect.

          Your views on on-street parking and the Evoque would do you in after the primary anyway. :)

        • 0 avatar
          56BelAire

          @dal,
          “I’m grateful to people who run for office. but I don’t get why they do it. You get no money, nonstop ignorant abuse, and people who spend their whole lives digging into everything you’ve ever said, written, or done.”

          The Clinton’s would disagree with you. Hillary is famous for saying they were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001…..now they are worth around 1/4 Billion $…….nice.

          Many newly elected congressman and senators arrive in Washington as normal “non-millionaires”. If they end up being reelected for a couple of decades, they leave as rich multi millionaires…..how does that happen?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            To be clear, I wasn’t just talking about the presidency (which offers plenty of opportunities to make money after leaving office) but about elected office in general.

            For instance… state legislators in my state, which is the usual first step in a political career around here, are paid a salary of $45k/year. They typically work more than full time during the session, which lately has been seven or eight months in “on” years and four to five in “off” years. They get just as much crazy constituent mail as federal legislators and the campaigns are almost as vicious. Yet many of them on both sides of the aisle do excellent work. I’m grateful to them for running but have a really hard time understanding why they do it.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          ” I’m grateful to people who run for office, but I don’t get why they’d do it.”

          because they’re almost all psychopaths.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      What do you expect when your popcorn is covered with spray tan instead of partially hydrogenated soybean oil, beta carotene, buttery flavoring, TBHQ & polydimethylsiloxane?

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    What worries me about Trump?

    Well, aside from the fact that I have a gay daughter who might well be riding the back of the bus again as soon as the Republicans get another “non-activist, strict constructionist judge” on the Supreme Court (and don’t fool yourself, kids…that war’s gonna be fought again), I’m mainly worried about what happens two years from now. By then, we’re going to know whether Trump’s “build the wall and Mexico’s gonna pay for it” / “I’m gonna singlehandedly dismantle NAFTA” turned out to be another Great Moment of American Political BS (and, yes, my party’s had any number of those too).

    Problem is, when you listen to True Trump Believers, they don’t consider it to be bulls**t. They turned out for him because they bought into his campaign rhetoric. And what else is true of his True Believers? Almost all of them are angry, there’s a fair percentage of them who are actual racists, and a large percentage of them are armed to the teeth.

    What are they going to do when they figure out Trump was channeling Elwood Blues when he said “It wasn’t lies…it was just bulls**t”?

    THAT is scary.

    • 0 avatar
      Daniel J

      Who wins? A large part of Hillary supporters were just as racist and just as bigoted, but in entirely different ways. Most of the Trump supporters I knew were more angry at two specific things: Hillary’s emails and Obamacare. Even some admitted that Trump was probably a bigot, but felt the other two issues were far more important. Fundamentally, this is why we need a viable third party, and why I voted for Johnson.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “A large part of Hillary supporters were racists”

        Who, precisely? Not to say they aren’t out there…but I didn’t see much of it.

        • 0 avatar
          Daniel J

          Locally and from what I can tell in the media, many minorities are racist against the white demographic. Much of the media plays into the notion of “fairness” when its apparent from reading and listening to national outlets as well as listening to the local minority groups, many aren’t really interested in fair. Many want a distinct advantage over the white working class. Many politicians play on this vote. Trump is outright a bigot, no doubt. The reason he won much of the rust belt states is because he was their voice. The rust belt was tired of the supposed “fairness” not allowing them to go back to work. When I talk about “fair”, I use this in a very general way. The “fairness” in how blacks fit in the workplace, education, and government dependence. The “fairness” in illegal immigrants wanting to work here freely.

          • 0 avatar
            Old Man Pants (nee Kenmore)

            Racism is fun, free and universally popular. Holy Handgrenades, read some of the major Asian blogs that have an English page if you think Americans are hostile.

            But at least *we* insist on some modicum of difference in phenotype before we get our inner bigot on, not like Indian/Pakistani or Chinese/Japanese hatred. *They* think they’re all distinct, unique races.

  • avatar
    mtmmo

    It’s hilarious seeing all of the snowflakes melting. The American people have spoken, Obama has been a disaster, now the adults are taking over. President Trump will jumpstart the economy and as a result you’ll see car sales increase year over year. As a Democrat who caught lots of flack for supporting Donald Trump I simply say it’s now President Donald J Trump!

    • 0 avatar
      swester

      Before you get all excited about this being some incredible mandate against Obama, it’s worth noting that he didn’t even win the popular vote. And that’s while running against a candidate who isn’t even widely liked by many liberal voters. Not exactly a stunning triumph.

      Trump merely pursued a strategy of riling up folks in a few key states with a mix of fear and populism. Once the election wears off and he actually discovers the learning curve is, I’d be shocked if he even accomplishes 1/4 of the things he claimed he would do. We’ll quickly just revert to the mean again, and in 2018 Congress will likely go back to the Democrats.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “It’s hilarious seeing all of the snowflakes melting”

      On one side melting snow flakes and on the other side, mittscrew dribbling down a pant leg.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “now the adults are taking over.”

      you mean the “adults” who have been the absolute model of p!ss-poor behavior for the last year and a half?

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    If Trump had half a brain, he’d know GM, Ram and Toyota are sneaking high margin, hecho en Mexico pickups into the US.

  • avatar
    Old Man Pants (nee Kenmore)

    I live surrounded by main force Trumpites yet all but one were strangely silent at work today and Mr. Noisy got nothing but pensively thoughtful looks in response to his brief bluster.

    It frankly was very eerie. I would have preferred the oafish gloating I had expected, particularly from the most virulent Hillary haters. Made me imagine what ordinary Confederates must have felt the day after Sumter.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    The president does not have the power to repeal treaties without Congressional approval. Madison and other founders addressed this issue and rejected the idea of the president holding unilateral power to terminate treaties, and historical precedence has maintained that position — treaties are treated as law, and the Congress has to approve repealing laws.

    Free trade is one issue that wins bipartisan support in the Senate. So you can put NAFTA repeal in the Ain’t-gonna-happen file.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      No, he’s going to make it happen. It’ll be GREAT. I promise.

      See my African American over there? Isn’t he great?

      Seriously, WTF did this country just do?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “Seriously, WTF…”

        It was either him or Donald Duck. It proves most of this country is FED UP with the system.

      • 0 avatar
        Loser

        Seriously, WTF did this country just do?

        Like he said, “I love the poorly educated”

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Give a big finger to the ruling statists. Would you like me to draw you a picture?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            So to give a finger to statists they elected an admitted authoritarian? Dumber than Marchionne’s CAFE strategy.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Running numbers on this, I’m forced to conclude that it’s more about Clinton losing than Trump winning (Ohio and possibly Pennsylvania excepted.)

            Key blocs of Democratic voters simply didn’t show up. The Dems would have been better off had Biden decided to run.

            As for Marchionne, he’s wise to focus on profits now and to worry about CAFE later. If he doesn’t manage for profitability now, then there won’t be a CAFE problem because the company will fail. (It’s amazing how companies that no longer exist have fewer things to worry about…)

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Biden is a worse candidate than Hillary in almost every substantive respect — the man’s just not that bright — but he would have probably done better against Trump. The folksy style would have fought one of Trump’s big advantages more effectively than Clinton’s terminal wonkishness.

            I agree with you that this is more about Democratic voters staying home than anything else. Trump’s numbers, allowing for a little variation here and there, are basically in line with Romney’s in 2012.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Biden is coated in Teflon. He’s likable and can project the idea that he feels your pain, which counts for something these days.

            This stuff comes down to the margins. If he could have won over just another million people or so in the right places, that would have made the difference.

            I was surprised to hear that Clinton never once went to Wisconsin. If true, then that was stupid, as it was obvious that Trump would make a play for that part of the world — it was really his only option.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “The ruling statists”?

            You’re talking about nanny states and such, 28.

            We’re talking about a guy who wants to make Muslims register and put their mosques under surveillance. That’s KGB level stuff. Saddam’s kids got off on that kind of “statism”.

            Whole different ball game with this guy.

            But honestly, does he really want to do that, or is he just manipulating his followers? I’m going with the latter.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The only guy who is remotely a statist (i.e. a socialist) is Bernie Sanders, and he lost the primary by a wide margin.

          • 0 avatar

            He was pushed out by the DNC I’m pretty sure he would have crushed the General but oh well.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @dal

            Eh and also a master BS artist, making “law and order” part of the package. I’ll wait and see on authoritarian, maybe he’s just more of the same then. If he sticks to simply, rule of law, I’d be very impressed (and I hope to see many prosecutions, but I won’t hold my breath).

            @pch

            “The Dems would have been better off had Biden decided to run.”

            I agree, and he would have won.

            “The only guy who is remotely a statist (i.e. a socialist) is Bernie Sanders”

            Bernie isn’t ruling anything, the current President fits this mold.

            “Stimulus”
            Obamacare
            NDAA
            Numerous wars
            Huge deficit and ZIRP in lieu of real growth

            Trump may dive right in and do the same, I really don’t know what will happen.

            @Freed

            “We’re talking about a guy who wants to make Muslims register and put their mosques under surveillance.”

            I know you’re a pretty libertarian fellow, but f*ck those people. Should the US/Israel/West be bombing their countries? No. Will this now subside? Maybe, I hope so. But in general, they can and should go back to the sandy sh*tholes where they belong if they don’t assimilate or attempt to wreck society. GTHO and take your Sixth Century BS with you. If they can’t evolve their own societies (assuming no negative outside interference) then maybe they need to ask themselves how can we change and grow? Hint, its not by beheading the perceived infidel.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Thanks for proving my point that you don’t know what a statist is.

            They love to throw these terms around on right-wing blogs without having any clue what they actually mean. Go look it up; it isn’t what you think that it is.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @28:

            Official religious persecution is the worst possible kind of “statism.”

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It would be great if people would not use words that they don’t understand.

            A statist is a socialist. A socialist believes that government should own major industries and that private property should generally be made public.

            We don’t have any statists in American government. Your property rights are secured. Most industry is privatized. Stop whining about something that doesn’t exist here, lest it make you appear to be ignorant, crazy or something worse.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Key blocs of Democratic voters simply didn’t show up.”

            and some of them (union voters) did actually go to Trump.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            If the vote count in Wayne County in 2016 had matched what it had been in 2012, Clinton would have won Michigan.

            Much of the gap in Wisconsin would have been closed if Milwaukee did in 2016 what it had in 2012.

            Trump won about as many votes in Wisconsin as did Romney. Trump won the same percentage of votes in Florida (to the tenth of a percent) as did Romney. Of course, Obama won both of those states.

            Those are some examples of how much of this was due to Clinton losing rather than Trump winning.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            I dunno, I think Biden would have done a good bit better. he has the same “shoot from the hip” un-filtered speaking style as Trump, and wouldn’t have had the baggage of being seen as thinking it’s “his time” and that he “deserves” the presidency.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            28, go get to know some American Muslims. Your stereotype is spectacularly uninformed.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I mentioned above that Biden would have been a better choice. But he didn’t want the gig, and I don’t think that the constitution allows someone to be forced into seeking the presidency.

      • 0 avatar
        Daniel J

        You know, the argument I heard from democrats back when Obama won both times is why didn’t the republican party put forth a better candidate. The same can be said here. I don’t know if Bernie could have beat Trump, but I know I would have been willing to vote for a more centrist democrat, or at least one without the amount of crap Hilary was lugging behind her.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “bipartisan support in the Senate… So you can put NAFTA repeal in the Ain’t-gonna-happen file.”

      You don’t think the GOP (and some Dems) will cave if Trump makes enough noise? The establishment hasn’t exactly shown they have much of a spine if the going gets tough.

      I’ve also generally thought that if Congress won’t play ball on these trade deal “negotiations”, then Trump will just start using Homeland Security and other agencies to make imports tougher.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “The establishment hasn’t exactly shown they have much of a spine if the going gets tough.”

        I’m thinking their spines will be magically become as unyielding as Captain America’s shield when it’s their donors telling them they’ll vote to keep NAFTA or find new jobs.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “I’m thinking they will when it’s their donors telling them they’ll vote to keep NAFTA or find new jobs.”

          Yes. And it won’t just be the auto industry that rises up to lobby against it. There are numerous sectors that would absolutely oppose it and the precedent that it sets.

          One of the few benefits of yesterday’s election is that the Dems may become the party of industry, the role that the GOP has held since it was formed out of the wreckage of the Whig party. They’re a more dependable and stable bunch, and that counts for a lot in business.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          We’ll see. I didn’t expect him to win last night either, but here we are.

          Maybe I have the wrong read on the guy but he seems pretty vindictive and temperamental, so I’m not sure he’d be all that unwilling to use intimidation or extortion to get what he wants.

          However, there is also the chance he doesn’t really care about NAFTA in the first place and just used it as a talking point to get elected.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The US system is designed to make it difficult to change laws. This is one of those situations in which we should be thankful for this.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “I’m not sure he’d be all that unwilling to use intimidation or extortion to get what he wants.”

            Maybe so…but neither is the rest of the “establishment.” And this is the guy who got on tape talking about grabbing women by their privates and “moving on them like b*tches,” and bragging about his sex life on Howard Stern. How much more dirt is out there? Plenty, I’m guessing. Frankly, I’m shocked that there wasn’t a mile-long line of $2,000-a-night call girls playing tattletale on him (not uncommon among the super-privileged classes).

            Or how ’bout a little right wing Wikileaks of his tax returns?

            And maybe none of that matters to his supporters, but it sure matters to his party.

            Plenty of ways to play hardball with this guy, ajla.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Eliminating NAFTA will only generate so many jobs stateside, the real monster is WTO which I haven’t heard a peep about. That being said, I hope NAFTA is slowly eliminated along with the other gaffes of the Clinton administration.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “You don’t think the GOP (and some Dems) will cave if Trump makes enough noise?”

        No.

    • 0 avatar
      mtmmo

      Wrong. Using Article 2205 President Trump can withdraw from the NAFTA agreement and he doesn’t need Congressional approval to do it.

      Jack Baruth was right about you.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        You know nothing.

        • 0 avatar
          mtmmo

          That would still be more than you. NAFTA gone, TPP gone, 4 Supreme Court Justices coming your way. Maybe you can get a job on Ford’s small car line as it’s coming back!

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            My neighbor’s cat has a better understanding of the law than do you.

            I apologize for saying that you know nothing. You obviously know less than that.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Article 2205: Withdrawal

            “A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.”

            The question then becomes this,”Who has the constitutional right” to act unilaterally for “A Party”?

            “Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University, says it’s generally understood that in U.S international law, the president has the authority to unilaterally terminate an agreement.

            But that’s complicated by the fact that while NAFTA itself was signed by the president, it was Congress that enacted legislation to implement the deal (the NAFTA Implementation Act), and that statutes can only be repealed by Congress.

            To summarize: Trump could theoretically terminate American obligations to Canada and Mexico under NAFTA, but it is possible that would render the NAFTA Implementation Act invalid, since it wouldn’t be implementing anything any longer.

            Alternately, it could “continue to have a life on its own, almost as a zombie,” Dorf says. If that was the case, then at least some of NAFTA’s provisions might stay in effect.

            An even briefer summary of the situation, according to Dorf: “The answer is unclear.”

            If one considers the fact that many in congress are in favour of NAFTA. There would be a long drawn out fight internally over this very issue.

            Signatories like Canada and Mexico would be lining up their own lawyers and it would turn ugly internationally as well.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Goldwater v. Carter laid the basis for Congress turning a treaty termination into a constitutional question (although it didn’t rule specifically on the authority issue.)

            In other words, Congress could issue a resolution objecting to the dismantling of NAFTA or whatever, which would prevent it from happening unilaterally. It could go into effect if Congress did nothing, but it should not be expected for something such as NAFTA that Congress would do nothing. So it ultimately comes back to Congress if Congress wants it to, which it would.

            The unwinding is yet a whole other issue. Again, this ain’t gonna happen.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Maybe you can get a job on Ford’s small car line as it’s coming back!”

            Maybe you can get on the soon-to-be-announced Trumpcare plan. It’ll be great…I guarantee it. Look at my African American over there. Isn’t he great?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Pch101 – I am no expert on the matter but it is obvious even to me that Trump isn’t going to be able to shred NAFTA that easily. 5 minutes with google answered that question for me.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Clearly Trump pulled this whole thing out of his A$$. By now his advisors have explained all the ways it would backfire. How about shaming or directing consumers toward those cars made in the US? Maybe give them a small tax break or something?

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    What we heard was at least the talk of a man wanting to put a fight up for what remains of middle class in America. Sadly Democrats seem to only care for minorities and immigrants and high tech companies and big banks. They lost touch with manufacturing. I never heard Hillary talk about Ford Focus production going to Mexico, Carrier air conditioning closing plant in Indy or Nabisco plant moving from Chicago. When AT&T talked about a vertical purchase of Time-warner Trump and Bernie said flatly they are against these big company mergers where workers lose jobs as part of synergies and too much power at hands of one company, while Hillary said something soft about we need to review the merger. Build the wall and put tax on anything being built in Mexico and China going forward of 35%. Trump may or may not end up doing things he said, time tells, but he at least talked the talk of a middle class that Hillary and Obama have ignored at cost of very poor and wealthy

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      “Build the wall and put tax on anything being built in Mexico and China going forward of 35%.”

      Do you plan to purchase anything besides groceries in the next four years?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Ammunition. Lots of it.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Not really, but I am the minority.

        Seriously though I think a stiff tariff could work. Last I checked I don’t get some kind of monster discount for purchasing goods made in the third world vs USDM. The automobile is a great example, will GM give me a piece of the 3K labor savings if I buy a Mexican assembled truck vs one from the US? In fact I would rather pay more for a product assembled with quality materials in this nation just because it keeps more money in this nation.

        • 0 avatar
          orenwolf

          The problem isn’t the tariff. The problem is the retribution. There’s an awful lot of export dollars out there.

          As for manufacturing, so much is foreign – especially technology manufacturing, that NA would become the Stone Age if Asian tech manufacturing were tarriffed. Sure it can move back over here but you literally need YEARS to setup the infrastructure and train people.

          So yes, sound, deliberate policy could probably incentivize western manufacturing again (albeit at significant increased cost). But do you think that’s the policy the US will get?

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “The problem isn’t the tariff. The problem is the retribution. There’s an awful lot of export dollars out there.”

            yep. remember the “chicken tax” that car/truck geeks love to b!tch about? That was retaliatory.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      What you heard is a man braying about the middle class but actually proposing a tax policy where literally all of the gains go to the top 0.5%. I can’t believe people fell for the act.

  • avatar
    brenschluss

    Three things:

    1. youtu.be/-y32t10M3co

    2. My disquiet with this situation notwithstanding, watching Gawker melt has made me feel something I’ve never felt before. It’s not exactly schadenfreude, because the otherworldly beyond-histrionics are mostly coming from defenseless people who’s lives may be tangibly made worse and I can’t feel good about that, but considering the vitriol they’ve spat at those who are now having their day in the sun, they are truly reaping what they’ve sown in a fierce way.

    3. Perhaps most surreal to me is that Glenn Beck, of all people, has been voicing the sort of mildly uncomfortable curiosity that I think many well-positioned people who’s lives will probably continue to be OK are feeling, and has emerged as an inexplicable voice of moderation. This leads into something: News is circulating about a (“spooky,” in his words) call he took on his show from someone who said, somewhat explicitly, that there would be a price on Trump’s head if his most braggadocios “promises” were not made reality posthaste. I think reasonable people understand that compromise makes the world go ’round, but many seem to be expecting a simple 20 GOTO 10 implementation of policy and fruition of the promised results. There’s no such thing as a simple solution to any problem a POTUS needs to solve so I’m at a loss to how this will play out. I will say that I don’t expect the people who voted for a rust belt or low-skill labor sector revitalization will get quite what they wanted, and it might get weird.

    I honestly feel like I’m watching a slow-motion potential automotive collision in a four dimensional space; I have no frame of reference so I have no clue what’s supposed to happen. Maybe there’s no crash and everything is fine, but my instincts tell me I need to prepare to deal with something.

    • 0 avatar
      Old Man Pants (nee Kenmore)

      White ex-cons, the kind who kick teeth in for a smoother fit, have been unleashed.

      • 0 avatar
        brenschluss

        Well, right now a lot of people, be they great, good, bad, or terrible, have an extra pep in their step, and the latter two may well kick some teeth.

        But many paths are possible: Our president elect may turn out to be an actual bigot rather than simply a shameless person with changeable biases, and violently hateful elements of society may gain standing.

        Or maybe, cue Bill Hicks: “Any questions, Mr. President?”

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      brenschluss – agreed. I watched an interview with Glenn Beck and it was very interesting as to what he had to say. Winning matters more now than morality and the principles that founded the country.
      The new American Dream: Success at any cost.

  • avatar
    mtmmo

    “My neighbor’s cat has a better understanding of the law than do you. I apologize for saying that you know nothing. You obviously know less than that.”

    You have every right to be angry. You were schooled by me, JB, and a guy who looks like a Cheeto. Now get ready to enjoy economic prosperity and President Trump’s FOUR Supreme Court Justices. New cars for everyone!

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “You have every right to be angry. You were schooled by me, JB, and a guy who looks like a Cheeto. Now get ready to enjoy economic prosperity and President Trump’s FOUR Supreme Court Justices. New cars for everyone!”

      mtmmo – your quote will surface in the near future like a Kardashian sex tape except it ain’t gonna make ya famous.

  • avatar
    swester

    Once Trump discovers just how frustrating and challenging the learning curve of the executive branch is, I think he’ll end up just caving on the more ludicrous promises he made during the campaign trail. There are enough Republicans who don’t like him that I doubt he’d be able to move the needle all that much even with the two houses in his favor.

    Chances are pretty good that given the pent-up frustration after this election, the Democrats will regain Congress in ’18, and we’ll basically be back to the same old, slow-moving but relatively safe republic we all know and love.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      I don’t think he’ll even bother to discover that. Policy will be outsourced to conventional Republicans and Trump hangers-on who are actual politicians, starting with Mike Pence and continuing through the All-Scandal team of Giuliani, Christie, and Gingrich. As a result, policy in almost every area will be standard Republican policy, indistinguishable from anything that would happen under any other Republican administration.

      The one exception is that, instead of proposing zero investment in infrastructure like a normal Republican, Trump will propose some, albeit financed by a cockamamie private bond scheme that wastes a bunch of taxpayer money but allows the investment to look revenue-neutral.

      • 0 avatar
        swester

        Here’s the part I find the most amusing: a candidate who has been hoisted into office courtesy of what appears to be a massive anti-incumbent, anti-“establishment” base, to then turn right around and incorporate three of the MOST comically old-school establishment GOP types into his camp.

        You just. can’t. make. this. stuff. up.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Frankly, the thing I’m most interested in seeing is whether Trump will stand by his assertion that he’ll ditch the combover when he’s inaugurated, because it takes too much time to maintain.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I keep picturing him doing his hair like Christian Bale at the beginning of “American Hustle”.

      Come to think of it, isn’t that a great name for his campaign?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

        It ain’t gonna be pretty when the smoke clears.

  • avatar
    Sceptic

    Wow. So many crying liberals in the comments. Mr. Trump is a man of action, not only words. We are in for a lot of surprises(and that is good). The people whom you denigrated for so many years, called names – “deplorable”, “racist”, “gun-clinging”, “white males” have spoken. This is despite all the lies spread by the media! Despite all the voter intimidation, when people were afraid to say “I vote for Trump”! Trump won. Deal with it.

    • 0 avatar
      Old Man Pants (nee Kenmore)

      Yes, dear.

    • 0 avatar
      swester

      “A man of action.”

      I’m curious, which actions impressed you the most?

      His divorces?
      His bankruptcies and failed businesses?
      His fondling of women while married?
      His accusing the sitting president of not having a US birth certificate?
      His hosting a TV reality show?
      His schoolyard-level mocking of other candidates?

      I’m not all that worried about Trump’s presidency since the guy has a better track record of failing than fulfilling promises, but boy do I feel bad for the lower/middle class folks who are going to have a rude awakening when none of those impossible promises he made are going to happen.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        He has a proven record of spending his daddy’s money, and then his investors’ money. Now he gets to spend everybody’s money.

        He’s already stated that he would blow it all on vanity projects, so people know what they are getting into. I am confident in his ability to balloon the national debt. At least he had the honesty to say that up front, unlike every other GOP prez since RR who ran on conservative fiscal promises and then spent like a sailor on leave.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      We’re all gonna be “dealing” with it quite soon.

      Better question, Mr. Liberal Basher: when it becomes completely apparent that all of Trump’s campaign blather that you guys bought into – you know, “I’m gonna make Mexico build the wall,” “I’m gonna take down NAFTA,” “I’m gonna put Hillary Clinton in jail” – was complete bulls**t, then what?

      • 0 avatar
        56BelAire

        @Mike,

        Guess you haven’t read the news today that Canada’s Trudeau said he is willing to sit down with Trump and renegotiate NAFTA.

        Look, what Trump has said all along is that he wants out trade deals to be “fairer” to the US…..not so one sided. Is that a bad thing?

        In the 1992 presidential election, Independent candidate, Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the vote effectively giving the election to Bill Clinton who polled only 43%, and Bush Sr got 37%. NAFTA was a huge issue in that campaign and Perot made famous the phrase that, “NAFTA would be a large sucking sound on American jobs”…….he was prophetically 100% spot on.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @56BelAire – NAFTA hurt some of Canada’s industries. BC exports more lumber to Asia than to the USA courtesy of NAFTA and countervailing duties.

          Another point about Trudeau’s comments is the simple fact that it is better to be on good terms with one’s biggest trading partner.

          The USA and/or Trump isn’t too concerned about our side of NAFTA. It is the Mexicans that the middle class and Trump are targeting.

          If Trump wants to go after NAFTA then he has to go after laissez-faire capitalism in general.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    I’ll be waiting for a genuine, totally made-in-USA Zenith TV…

    Right now, I’m enjoying the stick through the eyes of the media!

    All in all, this may not end well. Heat up some popcorn, grab a beer and watch. I’ll be laughing all the way!

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      “Right now, I’m enjoying the stick through the eyes of the media!”

      My favorite part of this as well Zackman, and yes I share your sentiment for a desire to be able to buy more US-made appliances. I don’t mind having to save up and pay more for a quality item.

      My made-in-Iowa Maytag dryer (bought used) has been humming along ever since I gave the idler pulley bearing a squirt of lithium grease. My made-in-Fort-Worth gen 1 Motorola Moto-X smart phone still works great (and was perfectly affordable to buy I might add).

      I will still always have a special place in my heart for made in Japan cars and will probably always have an old one in my stable, but going forward with future new car purchases, I’m emphasizing buying as an American-made vehicle as possible both in terms of both assembly and parts content. The top vehicles that meet this requirement (all 75%+ domestic parts) all fit the bill for family hauling nicely: Camry, Odyssey, Sienna, GM Lambda triplets. Truly sad that a Fusion is now Made in Mexico only, and is only 49% domestic content. F150 has dropped below 75% for the first time but still assembled in USA thankfully. Crew Cab GM half tons are forever off the shopping list (made in Mexico), single and I think extended cabs(?) are made here in Indiana.

      My entire family of first generation Russian immigrants voted Trump, in no small part in protest of not being able to buy high quality made in USA goods any more (a lot of everyday items). My mom likes to tell the story of when we first moved here in ’92, we would walk to the neighborhood Woolworth’s in downtown Ithaca, and she’d be able to get nice fruit of the loom cotton t-shirts, always made here in the US. A seemingly trivial anecdote, and perhaps tinged in rosy nostalgia, but a powerful sentiment. I’m pretty sure our first Magnavox 22″ TV bought in ’93 was also made in the US (still works great), after upgrading from a black and white Zenith that we scrounged up from the curb.

      Speaking of appliances, it’s sad to drive through Mansfield Ohio, former home of a huge Westinghouse factory, as well as Tappan stoves (first commercially available home microwave as I recall). They managed to keep their steel mill open there and still have some manufacturing, but it’s a shell of what it used to be. Not saying a president can reverse that huge global trend, but what the hell, let’s give it a shot for a change.

      • 0 avatar
        Sceptic

        I observed the exact same voting behavior from immigrants in this heavily Democratic state. Many, many immigrants voted for Trump. Somehow immigrants are more patriotic and more engaged in politics than many native born Americans. They know what liberal policies lead to…

      • 0 avatar
        Whatnext

        It all sounds great until you ask you Mom to pay the prices that Made in America brings.

  • avatar
    Silent Ricochet

    Wow. I can practically taste the salt through my computer monitor right now.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    @ gtemnykh:

    “My made-in-Iowa Maytag dryer (bought used) …” Best comment of the week. A true TTAC’er, I mean, who buys appliances used? Oh, wait… guilty – just bought a lawn mower for $20.

    Also, regarding Mansfield, OH – every time I drove up I-71, it’s always snowing, at least flurries.

    BTW, I’m half Russian. I’m politically neutral, too.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      When I bought my built in ’42 house this spring, I went lawnmower shopping and lucked into a lightly used several year old self propelled Snapper with a Briggs and Stratton motor (American made) for $125 on craigslist. Runs great, my family has owned a ’85 self propelled Snapper since my parents bought their first house in ’94, and I think my brother still has a ’70 Snapper that he picked up for free from a friend and fixed up with minimal expense. Good mowers! Regretfully mine has a plastic deck, we’ll see how it holds up long term.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • indi500fan: I think the big unanswered question is battery life and resulting useful value in old age. The Nissan...
  • CoastieLenn: Don’t Dodge it, Ram it….. or burn it.
  • Socrates77: Big engines ate now stupid, what’s the point of having something so heavy? Why buy an old rotary...
  • Scoutdude: I should add that they also just pulled a number out of a hat for what it costs to have equipment...
  • Matt Posky: CoastieLenn That’s basically what I tried to impart here and as frequently as possible in most...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber