Trade doesn’t really work in terms of political borders anyway. Winnipeg, Canada, is just as far a drive from Minneapolis as Chicago is. Why should I buy something made in Honolulu over something made in Canada? Some political borders are really pointless in this sense. I get not buying from Myanmar because of the slave labor or other areas for political concern. Even there, are the people really better off if the way they pay for their food is cut off?

Some of the best “welfare” in the world is to allow people to work. Buying something made in a poorer nation (from the perspective of the US, that means almost every other nation) helps provide a living for poorer people.

This is an oversimplistic example, but it explains one of the largest forces driving trade. When I bought a Prius (“American” manufacturers weren’t in the market for smaller more fuel-efficient cars because they had too much overhead per vehicle) that was made in Japan, most of the money I paid for it went “to Japan” where most of the value-added was (it paid the workers, engineers, etc.). Now, Toyota has a bunch of American dollars. Where do they use that? Only in America. They could exchange currencies around all day long, those dollars will have to be spent in the US. If not, it means someone just gave me something of value in exchange for a slip of paper. What a deal! Unfortunately, they don’t do that. They bring it back here in investment or otherwise (not necessarily as Toyota because they might exchange it for yens, but that person or whoever else farther down the line who traded the yens or other currencies for the dollars will “spend” it in the US). If the foreign holder of the money wishes to simply hold on to my former American dollars and just collect a bunch of them, it causes currency fluctuations. It causes the dollar to decline against their currency (“they” have a bunch of dollars and not a lot of yen with nothing else to compensate, the dollars depreciate with respect to the yen because there are just so many dollars and less to do with them or there are so few yen and so much to do with them). This situation makes the dollar cheaper and makes American goods less expensive to holders of yen (primarily Japanese people). This makes it more difficult for Japanese companies to compete against American companies. Remember the roller-coaster ride of gas prices? If you look at crude oil, a fungible commodity (a gallon of crude is a gallon or crude is a… it doesn’t intrinsically change much value every day, but currencies do), you’ll notice that it went up when the dollar slid and came back down when the dollar went back up. The media fixated on “high gas prices” instead of reporting on the “low dollar” and the benefits to exporting industries that this situation created.

Another way to think of it is like this. If the US had two separate currencies, one for west of the Mississippi and one for east of the same river, what difference would it make? The currencies would fluctuate as the regions are distinct in many ways even under the same currency. A trade wall would make both sides worse off (though California steel would do better without competition from the eastern states, California’s tech giants would eat a loss — there is no net gain in this situation). If the US owned Baja California, would it suddenly become okay to buy a car that was made from there?

I believe this country is the greatest on earth, but I’ve learned that Canadians, Mexicans, and other people are just as human as Americans; America is a special place, but Americans are not special. The death of a Chinese person is just as tragic as the death of an American. “We” may disagree with “their” governments or policies, but, at the end of the day in most places on this planet, it’s mostly the workers and their dependents who benefit from trade. This is especially the case for the poorest people on earth (not to be confused with the poorest people in the US).

This only scratches the surface and I understand if it doesn’t initially make any sense. There are a number of issues this touches that can’t be adequately addressed in a web posting, but I hope this little bit helps.

Trade doesn’t really work in terms of political borders anyway. Winnipeg, Canada, is just as far a drive from Minneapolis as Chicago is. Why should I buy something made in Honolulu over something made in Canada? Some political borders are really pointless in this sense. I get not buying from Myanmar because of the slave labor or other areas for political concern. Even there, are the people really better off if the way they pay for their food is cut off?

Some of the best “welfare” in the world is to allow people to work. Buying something made in a poorer nation (from the perspective of the US, that means almost every other nation) helps provide a living for poorer people.

This is an oversimplistic example, but it explains one of the largest forces driving trade. When I bought a Prius (“American” manufacturers weren’t in the market for smaller more fuel-efficient cars because they had too much overhead per vehicle) that was made in Japan, most of the money I paid for it went “to Japan” where most of the value-added was (it paid the workers, engineers, etc.). Now, Toyota has a bunch of American dollars. Where do they use that? Only in America. They could exchange currencies around all day long, those dollars will have to be spent in the US. If not, it means someone just gave me something of value in exchange for a slip of paper. What a deal! Unfortunately, they don’t do that. They bring it back here in investment or otherwise (not necessarily as Toyota because they might exchange it for yens, but that person or whoever else farther down the line who traded the yens or other currencies for the dollars will “spend” it in the US). If the foreign holder of the money wishes to simply hold on to my former American dollars and just collect a bunch of them, it causes currency fluctuations. It causes the dollar to decline against their currency (“they” have a bunch of dollars and not a lot of yen with nothing else to compensate, the dollars depreciate with respect to the yen because there are just so many dollars and less to do with them or there are so few yen and so much to do with them). This situation makes the dollar cheaper and makes American goods less expensive to holders of yen (primarily Japanese people). This makes it more difficult for Japanese companies to compete against American companies. Remember the roller-coaster ride of gas prices? If you look at crude oil, a fungible commodity (a gallon of crude is a gallon or crude is a… it doesn’t intrinsically change much value every day, but currencies do), you’ll notice that it went up when the dollar slid and came back down when the dollar went back up. The media fixated on “high gas prices” instead of reporting on the “low dollar” and the benefits to exporting industries that this situation created.

Another way to think of it is like this. If the US had two separate currencies, one for west of the Mississippi and one for east of the same river, what difference would it make? The currencies would fluctuate as the regions are distinct in many ways even under the same currency. A trade wall would make both sides worse off (though California steel would do better without competition from the eastern states, California’s tech giants would eat a loss — there is no net gain in this situation). If the US owned Baja California, would it suddenly become okay to buy a car that was made from there?

I believe this country is the greatest on earth, but I’ve learned that Canadians, Mexicans, and other people are just as human as Americans; America is a special place, but Americans are not special. The death of a Chinese person is just as tragic as the death of an American. “We” may disagree with “their” governments or policies, but, at the end of the day in most places on this planet, it’s mostly the workers and their dependents who benefit from trade. This is especially the case for the poorest people on earth (not to be confused with the poorest people in the US).

This only scratches the surface and I understand if it doesn’t initially make any sense. There are a number of issues this touches that can’t be adequately addressed in a web posting, but I hope this little bit helps.

Each one of your companies has an issue that should tick every taxpaying soul off.

Take a look:

FORD:

Mr. Mulally, you are asking for a $9 billion line of credit –”just in case”. You have testified under oath that you really don’t need the billions, but want it just in case one of the others goes belly up. That would help your business sell more cars, right? With all due respect, good bye. No money for you.

CHRYSLER:

A few years ago, Chrysler decided to get into bed with Cerebus Capital. The Cerebus folks thought they were buying Chrysler at a bargain price and therefore, they were going to make a killing by changing your management and business plan. Cerebus took Chrysler off the market so that they could get ALL the profits. They did not want to merely invest in Chrysler along side the rest of us, they wanted it all. Greed got the best of Cerebus and they bought a lemon.

Sorry Cerebus and Mr. Nardelli, you wanted all the profits, now you get all the losses — no money for you!

GENERAL MOTORS:

All I can say about GM is that you, Mr. Wagoner, have been asleep at the wheel. You should have been selling or closing units to raise money long ago. There is no reason to hang on to Saturn, Pontiac, or Hummer. Keep on making Cadillac, Chevy and Buick (we hear Buick is popular and profitable throughout Asia). And what the heck took you so long to move on the Chevy Volt (hybrid/electric)? That car will unfortunately never see the light of day under the GM logo IMHO. Mr. Wagoner, you were slow to change and we don’t feel responsible for your errors in business judgment. No money for you, sorry.

UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNION:

Mr. Gettelfinger, you sir should be ashamed of yourself. I spend most of my day on TV talking about the demise of the U.S. auto industry. I am bombarded with e-mail messages and phone calls from Americans who are disgusted with the situation. Most don’t want to bail your business out with taxpayer money but everyone wants to know where ground zero is. I can only blame you, sir. Your union is the reason for the skew in cost per vehicle produced between Detroit’s Big Three and, say, a BMW built in America with American employees. Your “Legacy costs” burden Ford, GM and Chrysler so much that the following is true according to Standard & Poor’s:

Profits per employee:

Audi: $56,471 profit
Toyota: $38,645 profit
Honda: $29,840 profit
BMW: $29,810 profit
Nissan: $22,555 profit

Ford: ($46,841) loss
GM: ($90,444) loss

It is your union, Mr. Gettelfinger that negotiated absurd items like job banks where idled workers literally play crossword puzzles and video games while receiving up to 95% of their pay and benefits. It was you, sir, who refused to grant the wish of every American watching your Capitol Hill testimony — a complete rewriting of your contracts with our auto industry. .

I have the utmost compassion for the employees of Detroit’s Big Three. I HATE to see anyone out of work. It pains me to recommend that your group not get bailed out because there will be job cuts.

My Promise:

I PROMISE to purchase a vehicle from each of the Big Three automakers who agrees to undergo a Chapter 11 reorganization.

I hope to buy a vehicle from a re-organized and re-patronized U.S. auto maker, one that is devoid of the shackles your union offers Detroit.

My view is that, contrary to the pleas you have been making to the American people, we will, in fact, buy your cars, SUV’s and pick-ups even if you are in a structured bankruptcy.

The public outpouring of sentiment to “buy American” will never be stronger. I will be a foot soldier in your battle to encourage our citizens to buy American cars and trucks from reorganized U.S. automakers not from a bailed out, unionized Detroit.

Sincerely,

Eric Bolling

Each one of your companies has an issue that should tick every taxpaying soul off.

Take a look:

FORD:

Mr. Mulally, you are asking for a $9 billion line of credit –”just in case”. You have testified under oath that you really don’t need the billions, but want it just in case one of the others goes belly up. That would help your business sell more cars, right? With all due respect, good bye. No money for you.

CHRYSLER:

A few years ago, Chrysler decided to get into bed with Cerebus Capital. The Cerebus folks thought they were buying Chrysler at a bargain price and therefore, they were going to make a killing by changing your management and business plan. Cerebus took Chrysler off the market so that they could get ALL the profits. They did not want to merely invest in Chrysler along side the rest of us, they wanted it all. Greed got the best of Cerebus and they bought a lemon.

Sorry Cerebus and Mr. Nardelli, you wanted all the profits, now you get all the losses — no money for you!

GENERAL MOTORS:

All I can say about GM is that you, Mr. Wagoner, have been asleep at the wheel. You should have been selling or closing units to raise money long ago. There is no reason to hang on to Saturn, Pontiac, or Hummer. Keep on making Cadillac, Chevy and Buick (we hear Buick is popular and profitable throughout Asia). And what the heck took you so long to move on the Chevy Volt (hybrid/electric)? That car will unfortunately never see the light of day under the GM logo IMHO. Mr. Wagoner, you were slow to change and we don’t feel responsible for your errors in business judgment. No money for you, sorry.

UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNION:

Mr. Gettelfinger, you sir should be ashamed of yourself. I spend most of my day on TV talking about the demise of the U.S. auto industry. I am bombarded with e-mail messages and phone calls from Americans who are disgusted with the situation. Most don’t want to bail your business out with taxpayer money but everyone wants to know where ground zero is. I can only blame you, sir. Your union is the reason for the skew in cost per vehicle produced between Detroit’s Big Three and, say, a BMW built in America with American employees. Your “Legacy costs” burden Ford, GM and Chrysler so much that the following is true according to Standard & Poor’s:

Profits per employee:

Audi: $56,471 profit
Toyota: $38,645 profit
Honda: $29,840 profit
BMW: $29,810 profit
Nissan: $22,555 profit

Ford: ($46,841) loss
GM: ($90,444) loss

It is your union, Mr. Gettelfinger that negotiated absurd items like job banks where idled workers literally play crossword puzzles and video games while receiving up to 95% of their pay and benefits. It was you, sir, who refused to grant the wish of every American watching your Capitol Hill testimony — a complete rewriting of your contracts with our auto industry. .

I have the utmost compassion for the employees of Detroit’s Big Three. I HATE to see anyone out of work. It pains me to recommend that your group not get bailed out because there will be job cuts.

My Promise:

I PROMISE to purchase a vehicle from each of the Big Three automakers who agrees to undergo a Chapter 11 reorganization.

I hope to buy a vehicle from a re-organized and re-patronized U.S. auto maker, one that is devoid of the shackles your union offers Detroit.

My view is that, contrary to the pleas you have been making to the American people, we will, in fact, buy your cars, SUV’s and pick-ups even if you are in a structured bankruptcy.

The public outpouring of sentiment to “buy American” will never be stronger. I will be a foot soldier in your battle to encourage our citizens to buy American cars and trucks from reorganized U.S. automakers not from a bailed out, unionized Detroit.

Sincerely,

Eric Bolling