It is rare that a decision in the market place doesn’t come down to that. If we buy an American car, you may be supporting yourself, your family and your country. But, that makes other countries economically weaker. If you buy a foreign product, you are helping the world and your country (storage, shipping, dealerships are all in the states, sometimes the car is even built here) but may not be helping you or your family. That is a simplistic view, but it helps set up a solution.
The reality is each country tries to control every aspect of economics so that investment and business will come to their part of the world, to the determent of other countries. The products and services that are produced are actually secondary to the jobs that it provides. Every country knows that jobs and income create stability in a community. Illegal immigration, civil wars, terrorism and other ills are born directly from a lack of economic prosperity. If people do not feel like their future will get better for them or their children, they will look for ways to express their dissatisfaction.
To get the investment for jobs, third world countries have many tools that will make their countries interesting both formal and informal. Taxes can be reduced to start with. Environmental laws can be weaken. Less regulation of the production process and of human resources. Countries that haven’t dropped all regulation often ignore their own laws to keep a job providing company in the country. This degrades the environment and the human condition. It can be argued that it actually makes things worse because when the false promise of prosperity is found out, people will rebel.
Some of these countries are rogue states that do not deserve our support. Those countries that don’t allow the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy in America should not receive a favorable position in the market place. But, other than boycotts, there is no individual country mechanism that controls that other than legislation and taxes. No law will totally guarantee that some money will not get into the wrong hands, but it can be limited.
If we as a culture and a nation believe in the universality of human rights (as the Declaration of Independence states, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal”) why should the question be them or us? If we are to stop illegal immigration, civil wars, terrorism and so many other ills, we must find a way to support third world countries. It could be by just giving them money, a payoff for our own lack of direction and no united front by all successful nations.
But, the better way, to borrow from an old adage, is to teach them to fish. Instead of just giving aid, if we understand that economics and the market place do have a place in solving world problems, then maybe making a decision in the market place that supports everyone will help. Purchasing products and services from other countries spurs more investment in the host country.
When people earn money and instead of just taking it, they see a better future.
'Buy American' Doesn't Work with the Rich
Although some literati will debate the source, it is generally agreed that one of the most famous wisecracks in history was expressed by Sara Murphy, a gadfly outrider of the famous 1920s Lost Generation. Murphy, who, with her husband, Gerald, hung out in Paris and Antibes with such swells as Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Dos Passos, is said to have blithely uttered that "living well is the best revenge."
The small claque of unrepentant socialists, liberal bed-wetters, and graying refugees of the 1960s counterculture, all of whom perhaps by accident read this journal, quickly discover that we remain devoted to a sybaritic celebration of essentially useless, antisocial, high-speed, gas-guzzling, overpowered automobiles. For every story covering politically correct, earth-saving, fuel-sipping, four-wheeled Lilliputians,
War and Peace-size expositions are devoted to automobiles that, by every possible definition of responsible transportation, are too big, too fast, too powerful, and too expensive for normal motorists.
We are, therefore, with Sara Murphy 100 percent. Her "revenge" comment was recently confirmed in the pages of
Departures, a glossy bimonthly published exclusively for holders of American Express Platinum cards, a group of citizens whose mantra is "living well" regardless of the bill that arrives at the end of each month. In a survey of its readers, 51,000 rich folks responded to such critical questions as which was the best women's winter coat (Giorgio Armani, $3825) or the best men's watch (Tiffany & Co., 18-karat gold, $6500). Of course, motor vehicles were included in the survey, and the
Porsche 911—Carrera or Carrera S—was the clear winner, beating the
BMW M3, the
Jaguar XJ8, all Ferraris and Mercedes-Benzes, the
Aston Martin DB7,
Lexus SC430,
Chevy Corvette,
Mini Cooper, and
Audi TT.
This being a totally unacceptable survey to PC devotees, an SUV category was also included, putting the BMW X5 first over the Range Rover,
Lexus LX470, Lincoln Navigator, Porsche Cayenne, Cadillac Escalade, Mercedes-Benz M-class, Volvo XC90, Hummer H2, and Acura MDX.
While one puzzles over how trivial these conclusions are, coming as they do from an audience that also selected Ralph Lauren bed linens over Frette and Patresi, Dom Perignon over Cristal and Veuve Clicquot, and the Glenlivet as the best scotch over Glenfiddich, the fact remains that rich folks have a powerful trickle-down effect on tastes.
In that sense, the results of the
Departures poll bear watching by auto moguls. Note that of the 20 motor vehicles selected, 13 are manufactured in Europe, four are American-made (Corvette, Navigator, Escalade, and Hummer), and three—two from Lexus and an Acura—are Japanese. Obviously, U.S. automakers and their Japanese counterparts dominate the overall market in terms of volume, but at the top the Germans hold the high ground. The thrust of the data indicates a strong penchant among American social leaders for European machinery, with a surprising disdain for Japanese and American-branded iron.
This indicator of automotive tastes comes hard on the heels of new data from the
Kelley Blue Book—a publication that makes hard-edged, impartial evaluations of used cars. The
Kelley recently released a list of models that it expects to hold their value well above the industry average of 30 percent after five years. By that standard, if you purchase a car for 20 grand, it is probable that it will be worth $6000 in 2009. But some vehicles can be expected to retain 50 percent of their original value over the same time frame. Those include the BMW 5-series, the Mini Cooper, the
Acura TL, the
Infiniti G35 coupe, the
Mazda RX-8, the Mercedes-Benz CLK320, the Nissan 350Z, the
Volvo XC90, and the Porsche Cayenne. It should be noted that the
Kelley data do not include high-performance sports cars or vehicles priced over $60,000.
It is interesting that a number of brands cross over between the
Departures survey and the
Kelley list. Moreover, among the cars included in our own 10Best awards over the past few years, one will find an amazing confluence of taste. Like the
Kelley data, our choices are limited by price ($70,000 and under) although the
Departures crowd, which will happily unload $95,000 for a one-carat Harry Winston diamond, tends to favor automobiles and SUVs within roughly the same price range as well, excluding the Porsche 911, Ferraris, and Aston Martins.
There are several points to be made in all this garble. For one, upscale European makes—Porsche, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi—control the market in perceived status and performance. Second, Japanese makes—Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Infiniti, Lexus, and Mazda—score well on the long-term-value curve. Third, and most alarming, our beloved domestic brands tend to be bottom feeders by these measurements. With the exception of the Corvette and the Escalade, American market strength remains fixed in the categories of light trucks and mid-priced SUVs. To be sure, the Cadillac, the Hummer H2, and the Lincoln Navigator make the cut among the
Departures crowd, but that is hardly enough to elevate the overall imagery of Detroit's products into the same league with the Germans and Japanese.
We are doing better, thanks to such strong players as the Chrysler 300, the
Cadillac STS, the Ford Mustang, etc. But this industry cannot survive forever on F-150 pickups and flashy SUVs. The heart and soul of the automobile business will always be the four-place sedan, as exemplified by the best from BMW, Toyota, Honda, etc. While the boys in Detroit offer us such tepid dishes as the Ford Five Hundred and the Chevrolet Malibu Maxx, the Europeans and the Japanese continue to expand their lead in this core market.
If Murphy were correct, and I think she was, it seems imperative that General Motors get off its corporate butt and assault the top of the market with a $200,000 variation of its outrageous Cadillac Sixteen supersedan. So too for Ford, which, rather than relying on the Ford GT as its "halo" car, ought to be building a fiendishly luxurious world-class, zillion-dollar Lincoln to face down the Maybach.
Until such strategic shifts are made in the Motor City, the late Sara Murphy's ilk will be sticking with the imports.
Think creatively. Check those labels! I admit it. I’ve always been a flag-waver, a patriot, proud to be an American. But while I’ve seen the bumper stickers I’ve never been a rah, rah, rah “Buy American” kind of a guy… but I am now. I get it. It’s time to get serious… and make Buy American! a battle cry. No longer is it if we can. We have to!