Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Victor in the Debate? No One
This may come off as evading the question, but I don't really feel like any of our groups got to the core issue here, mine included: the broader economic implications of the debate. It represented the various interests of American industry versus foreign competitors. We have "the American middle class" upon whom there is a perceived "war" waged by foreigners, and the unmentioned consumers themselves. The consumers had the best chance to actually address how important their role in the debate was. They are the reason free enterprise exists. They're the reason we have this debate in the first place. They're the largest, and sole, market for American cars. Everyone has to appeal to them. But I felt as though they took a stance that was more belligerent toward American manufacturers and workers rather than pro-consumer. Had they not done this, they would have had the debate in the bag. I think we were all arguing with utility in mind; the UAW wanted to maximize utility for the workforce, the Sierra Club wanted to protect the environment upon which we depend, etc. The consumers were in the only position to win. The debate became so muddled that no one really defended themselves anymore and merely slang mud at each other. It had plenty of substance; it just wasn't the focus of the argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In no other industry is the competition between foreign and domestic manufacturers so polarized. The global economic system is one of interdependence, with all connected national economies thriving or receding collectively. But just as the effects of nonpolarity have redefined the global political landscape, so too have they restructured the practices of the manufacturing arena. The consequent scenario is one that does not necessarily place foreign and domestic companies at odds with each other, as larger companies have acquired shares in other manufacturers. To put it differently, cars manufactured in country X may be owned by a company operating in country Y. Because of this, the definition of an “American” or “foreign” car is not as easy a distinction as it once was.
With the classification of auto makers now in question, regulations such as the debated domestic content regulations have economic and national identity related repercussions. For example, Chrysler is now partnered with Daimler Benz, thus forming Daimler Benz. This brand is in control of both Chrysler and Mercedes Benz. Ford motor company also falls in this category, encompassing Ford, Mazda, and Volvo.
Given these complications, the argument for any one side has many additional angles. Since foreign auto makers have invested in 69 plants in the United States, those cars, while developed by a company based in Japan, is manufactured in the U.S. Foreign auto makers are responsible for hundreds of thousands of American jobs. This disproves the notion that foreign auto makers increase domestic unemployment.
While I do agree that many of the arguments seemed disorganized, I still think that there were certain points that were more compelling than others. The American Auto Manufacturers stayed true to policy and argued points shared by consumers and even foreign auto manufacturers. Their case was one that took into account multiple perspectives and challenged the black and white views of the American auto industry that many people still hold. They were realistic in evaluating their practices; indeed the most patriotic course of action was not always the most efficient. Most importantly, they recognized the domestic regulation as a disadvantage, showing that their argument was one that had been carefully researched.
Economic issues, especially given the context in today’s volatile markets, is certainly one that can complicate any debate. But it is essential that we do not let that get in the way of evaluating the arguments of our peers. In my opinion, though each group did appear to downplay the role of economics in the practices of the auto industry, the arguments did not all match each other in conviction or even consistency. American auto manufacturers presented a case in which the majority of the perspectives were addressed, evaluated, and rebutted. For this reason I give them the win.
Post a Comment