Consider buying American!

z wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:09 am, Jeff > wrote:

<...>

> why do we include canada as 'domestic'? not that i have anything
> against canada, god knows, but if we're going to be jingoistic, let's
> be jingoistic.

Because that is the way they are reported on the content stickers on the
cars when they are sold. The domestic content on the stickers includes
both US and Canada. It has to do with a treaty between the US and Canada.

Jeff

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:53:51 GMT, Jeff >
wrote:

>z wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 9:09 am, Jeff > wrote:
>
><...>
>
>> why do we include canada as 'domestic'? not that i have anything
>> against canada, god knows, but if we're going to be jingoistic, let's
>> be jingoistic.
>
>Because that is the way they are reported on the content stickers on the
>cars when they are sold. The domestic content on the stickers includes
>both US and Canada. It has to do with a treaty between the US and Canada.

Which is a product of the (formerly Big) 3. They wanted the freedom
to build cars in Canada and still be able to distinguish themselves
from the "fern" manufacturers. A stroke of the legislative pen and
voilla, Canada is domestic.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:53:51 GMT, Jeff >
> wrote:
>
>> z wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 9:09 am, Jeff > wrote:
>> <...>
>>
>>> why do we include canada as 'domestic'? not that i have anything
>>> against canada, god knows, but if we're going to be jingoistic, let's
>>> be jingoistic.
>> Because that is the way they are reported on the content stickers on the
>> cars when they are sold. The domestic content on the stickers includes
>> both US and Canada. It has to do with a treaty between the US and Canada.
>
> Which is a product of the (formerly Big) 3. They wanted the freedom
> to build cars in Canada and still be able to distinguish themselves
> from the "fern" manufacturers. A stroke of the legislative pen and
> voilla, Canada is domestic.

It's a treaty. It took a lot more than a stroke of the pen.

The vast majority of the content from Michigan 3 cars comes from the US.

Most of the Michigan 3 plants that produce cars for the US are in the US.

Jeff

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:53:51 GMT, Jeff >
> wrote:
>
>> z wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 9:09 am, Jeff > wrote:
>> <...>
>>
>>> why do we include canada as 'domestic'? not that i have anything
>>> against canada, god knows, but if we're going to be jingoistic, let's
>>> be jingoistic.
>> Because that is the way they are reported on the content stickers on the
>> cars when they are sold. The domestic content on the stickers includes
>> both US and Canada. It has to do with a treaty between the US and Canada.
>
> Which is a product of the (formerly Big) 3. They wanted the freedom
> to build cars in Canada and still be able to distinguish themselves
> from the "fern" manufacturers. A stroke of the legislative pen and
> voilla, Canada is domestic.

Interesting, but the Stoned Wheat Thins from Red Oval Farms I buy are
labeled "imported".

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:47:56 GMT, Jeff >
wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:53:51 GMT, Jeff >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> z wrote:
>>>> On Feb 12, 9:09 am, Jeff > wrote:
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> why do we include canada as 'domestic'? not that i have anything
>>>> against canada, god knows, but if we're going to be jingoistic, let's
>>>> be jingoistic.
>>> Because that is the way they are reported on the content stickers on the
>>> cars when they are sold. The domestic content on the stickers includes
>>> both US and Canada. It has to do with a treaty between the US and Canada.
>>
>> Which is a product of the (formerly Big) 3. They wanted the freedom
>> to build cars in Canada and still be able to distinguish themselves
>> from the "fern" manufacturers. A stroke of the legislative pen and
>> voilla, Canada is domestic.
>
>It's a treaty. It took a lot more than a stroke of the pen.

OK, the strokes of two pens.

The Automotive Products Trade Agreement, commonly known as the Auto
Pact or APTA, was an important trade agreement between Canada and the
United States. It was signed by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and
President Lyndon B. Johnson in January of 1965.[1]

It removed tariffs on cars, trucks, buses, tires, and automotive parts
between the two country's, greatly benefiting the large American car
makers. In exchange the big three car makers (General Motors, Ford,
and Chrysler) agreed that automobile production in Canada would not
fall below 1964 levels and that for every five new cars sold in
Canada, three new ones would be made there.

>
>The vast majority of the content from Michigan 3 cars comes from the US.

Impossible to tell. You can get the percentage of domestic content on
any given model. You cannot get the percentage of US content.
"Domestic" built cars generally have a domestic content of 60 - 90%.
Honda ranges 55 - 70%, Toyota 60 - 85%, Ford 60 - 95%, GM 50 - 90%
Chrysler 69 - 85%.

<http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-03-21-car-content-chart_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip>

>Most of the Michigan 3 plants that produce cars for the US are in the US.
>
>Jeff

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:47:56 GMT, Jeff >
> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:53:51 GMT, Jeff >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> z wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 12, 9:09 am, Jeff > wrote:
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>> why do we include canada as 'domestic'? not that i have anything
>>>>> against canada, god knows, but if we're going to be jingoistic, let's
>>>>> be jingoistic.
>>>> Because that is the way they are reported on the content stickers on the
>>>> cars when they are sold. The domestic content on the stickers includes
>>>> both US and Canada. It has to do with a treaty between the US and Canada.
>>> Which is a product of the (formerly Big) 3. They wanted the freedom
>>> to build cars in Canada and still be able to distinguish themselves
>>> from the "fern" manufacturers. A stroke of the legislative pen and
>>> voilla, Canada is domestic.
>> It's a treaty. It took a lot more than a stroke of the pen.
>
> OK, the strokes of two pens.
>
> The Automotive Products Trade Agreement, commonly known as the Auto
> Pact or APTA, was an important trade agreement between Canada and the
> United States. It was signed by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and
> President Lyndon B. Johnson in January of 1965.[1]
>
> It removed tariffs on cars, trucks, buses, tires, and automotive parts
> between the two country's, greatly benefiting the large American car
> makers. In exchange the big three car makers (General Motors, Ford,
> and Chrysler) agreed that automobile production in Canada would not
> fall below 1964 levels and that for every five new cars sold in
> Canada, three new ones would be made there.

I am sure that Johnson didn't say to Mr. Pearson, "Hey Les, lets make a
treaty about how many cars you guys have to make!" There was a lot more
than two pens.

Is there any action required by Congress before a treaty becomes valid
in the US?

It was a different treaty that had to do with domestic content that
labels stuff built in the US and Canada as domestic. It was a prelude to
NAFTA.

>> The vast majority of the content from Michigan 3 cars comes from the US.
>
> Impossible to tell. You can get the percentage of domestic content on
> any given model. You cannot get the percentage of US content.
> "Domestic" built cars generally have a domestic content of 60 - 90%.
> Honda ranges 55 - 70%, Toyota 60 - 85%, Ford 60 - 95%, GM 50 - 90%
> Chrysler 69 - 85%.
>
> <http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-03-21-car-content-chart_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip>

Only about 1/2 of Japanese brand cars are build in the US.

Look at the location of the plants that build car parts in the US. The
vast majority of them are in the US for each of the Michigan 3.

>> Most of the Michigan 3 plants that produce cars for the US are in the US.
>>
>> Jeff

bjn wrote:
<...>

> Can't believe this discussion is still taking place in this day and age of
> global commerce.

Take a look at the campaign for president in Ohio. For some odd reason,
people in Ohio don't like NAFTA. They have this weird thing about
wanting jobs.

Jeff

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:44:45 GMT, Jeff >
wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:47:56 GMT, Jeff >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:53:51 GMT, Jeff >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> z wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 12, 9:09 am, Jeff > wrote:
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>
>>>>>> why do we include canada as 'domestic'? not that i have anything
>>>>>> against canada, god knows, but if we're going to be jingoistic, let's
>>>>>> be jingoistic.
>>>>> Because that is the way they are reported on the content stickers on the
>>>>> cars when they are sold. The domestic content on the stickers includes
>>>>> both US and Canada. It has to do with a treaty between the US and Canada.
>>>> Which is a product of the (formerly Big) 3. They wanted the freedom
>>>> to build cars in Canada and still be able to distinguish themselves
>>>> from the "fern" manufacturers. A stroke of the legislative pen and
>>>> voilla, Canada is domestic.
>>> It's a treaty. It took a lot more than a stroke of the pen.
>>
>> OK, the strokes of two pens.
>>
>> The Automotive Products Trade Agreement, commonly known as the Auto
>> Pact or APTA, was an important trade agreement between Canada and the
>> United States. It was signed by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and
>> President Lyndon B. Johnson in January of 1965.[1]
>>
>> It removed tariffs on cars, trucks, buses, tires, and automotive parts
>> between the two country's, greatly benefiting the large American car
>> makers. In exchange the big three car makers (General Motors, Ford,
>> and Chrysler) agreed that automobile production in Canada would not
>> fall below 1964 levels and that for every five new cars sold in
>> Canada, three new ones would be made there.
>
>I am sure that Johnson didn't say to Mr. Pearson, "Hey Les, lets make a
>treaty about how many cars you guys have to make!" There was a lot more
>than two pens.

I am aware that the requirements for ratifying a treaty are more
rigorous than other legislation, but in the end it is just
legislation. If big, multi-national corporations want it bad enough,
it happens. How did NAFTA get passed? Was there a sudden groundswell
of popular support for making cheap Mexican labor more available?

>
>Is there any action required by Congress before a treaty becomes valid
>in the US?
>
>It was a different treaty that had to do with domestic content that
>labels stuff built in the US and Canada as domestic. It was a prelude to
>NAFTA.
>
>>> The vast majority of the content from Michigan 3 cars comes from the US.
>>
>> Impossible to tell. You can get the percentage of domestic content on
>> any given model. You cannot get the percentage of US content.
>> "Domestic" built cars generally have a domestic content of 60 - 90%.
>> Honda ranges 55 - 70%, Toyota 60 - 85%, Ford 60 - 95%, GM 50 - 90%
>> Chrysler 69 - 85%.
>>
>> <http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-03-21-car-content-chart_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip>
>
>Only about 1/2 of Japanese brand cars are build in the US.
>
>Look at the location of the plants that build car parts in the US. The
>vast majority of them are in the US for each of the Michigan 3.
>
>>> Most of the Michigan 3 plants that produce cars for the US are in the US.
>>>
>>> Jeff

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:30:58 -0600, Gordon McGrew >
wrote:

CUT

All this chat about Jobs, Money and the like - US is a big place where anyone
can be president if he/she was actually born in the US. Any bugger can be King
or Queen of England - at the moment we have German descendents but we have had
Vikings, Dutch and even the French have tried - we have even given them a tunnel
but they still can't make it!

But hang on a mo! We now have an enlarged EU or rather a 3/4 USE (United States
of Europe) with all your employment problems drifting in from the old Eastern
Bloc and middle Far East car makers are being coerced or bought up by the big
EU/US makers and even BMW are building in China and apparently selling there
too.

In the UK - like the US we are a multi racial society with all the problems that
brings but now even the local Supermarket has 10% Polish/Lithuanian food on it's
shelves and all the queues at the employment dept are Polish and ex Eastern Bloc
as are 90 of the daytime drunks and they are also responsible for the 50%
increase in attacks on women and actual rape.

Kia are offering a 100K mile 7 year warranty on their new cars and the cheapest
is around £7K or $14KUS.

Rolls Royce now have 3 models on sale and are selling them like hot cakes and
Bentley have at least 2 all sold out @ well over $400K each. So who is buying?
No me or you I bet but someone is.

Let alone Gas (not petrol) prices have gone up as have electricity prices Gas &
Diesel is around $8 gallon and wages have increased by an average of 3% for the
average Joe but 30% for those employing him/her.

It doesn't matter whether you are in US or UK or EU

Out Gov' say **** the workers (even Labour) and let's get out of it what we can.

Anyway why cares a **** - when the Asteroid his us in 2012 they'll be nobody
left.

Hugh


>>>
>>> It removed tariffs on cars, trucks, buses, tires, and automotive parts
>>> between the two country's, greatly benefiting the large American car
>>> makers. In exchange the big three car makers (General Motors, Ford,
>>> and Chrysler) agreed that automobile production in Canada would not
>>> fall below 1964 levels and that for every five new cars sold in
>>> Canada, three new ones would be made there.
>>
>>I am sure that Johnson didn't say to Mr. Pearson, "Hey Les, lets make a
>>treaty about how many cars you guys have to make!" There was a lot more
>>than two pens.
>
>I am aware that the requirements for ratifying a treaty are more
>rigorous than other legislation, but in the end it is just
>legislation. If big, multi-national corporations want it bad enough,
>it happens. How did NAFTA get passed? Was there a sudden groundswell
>of popular support for making cheap Mexican labor more available?
>
>>
>>Is there any action required by Congress before a treaty becomes valid
>>in the US?
>>
>>It was a different treaty that had to do with domestic content that
>>labels stuff built in the US and Canada as domestic. It was a prelude to
>>NAFTA.
>>
>>>> The vast majority of the content from Michigan 3 cars comes from the US.
>>>
>>> Impossible to tell. You can get the percentage of domestic content on
>>> any given model. You cannot get the percentage of US content.
>>> "Domestic" built cars generally have a domestic content of 60 - 90%.
>>> Honda ranges 55 - 70%, Toyota 60 - 85%, Ford 60 - 95%, GM 50 - 90%
>>> Chrysler 69 - 85%.
>>>
>>> <http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-03-21-car-content-chart_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip>
>>
>>Only about 1/2 of Japanese brand cars are build in the US.
>>
>>Look at the location of the plants that build car parts in the US. The
>>vast majority of them are in the US for each of the Michigan 3.
>>
>>>> Most of the Michigan 3 plants that produce cars for the US are in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

Jeff wrote:
> bjn wrote:
> <...>
>
>> Can't believe this discussion is still taking place in this day and
>> age of
>> global commerce.
>
> Take a look at the campaign for president in Ohio. For some odd reason,
> people in Ohio don't like NAFTA. They have this weird thing about
> wanting jobs.

Very much the same in MI.