Re: Consider buying American!

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:44:45 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:47:56 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:53:51 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> z wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 12, 9:09 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 re****ted 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 im****tant 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 cor****ations want it bad enough,
it happens.  How did NAFTA get passed?  Was there a sudden groundswell
of popular sup****t 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