TODAY’S "AMERICAN" AUTO INDUSTRY
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

One issue that receives a lot of attention throughout the nation is the alleged death of the US automotive industry. Thanks to a misdirected but probably well-intentioned news media and plenty of spin created by the Big Three, the vast majority of Americans believe that the auto manufacturing sector’s future in our country is bleak.

This is not totally correct. If anything, the manufacture of vehicles is doing rather well; it’s just not being done by the usual suspects. While segments of the traditional Big Three (Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors) have faltered in recent years due to an accumulation of poor decisions from decades of sometimes-bad management, another group of manufacturers is succeeding. Toyota, Nissan, Honda and other international manufacturers are experiencing great prosperity with making vehicles on American soil.

The numbers don’t lie. Over the past decade, imports fell from 4.2 million to 3.4 million vehicles per year. This coincided with phenomenal growth in domestic production of "foreign cars". Collectively, production by these firms on American soil has increased from just under a quarter million vehicles per year to over six million vehicles per year.

There is a reckless assumption believed by many that this success is a not a good thing because they believe all the money is going straight to Asia. They are grossly incorrect, as the monies are flowing right here in the United States. These firms have ever-growing properties showcasing grand investments in new facilities, equipment, and capital improvements, all of which rely on American hands and ingenuity. So, far they have invested $33 billion in 47 US plants and there are more in the works. It doesn’t end there, either, for American companies are providing material, resources and components to the Asian firms to the tune of $52 billion per year. Of greatest importance to the whole equation, thousands of hardworking Americans are building the vehicles, getting paid decent wages and achieving a comfortable way of life. These foreign firms employ almost 100,000 Americans who earn $7 billion in wages and benefits.

Unfortunately, as much as buying a foreign-branded vehicle benefits America there are many consumers who don’t want to hear about it and will continue to buy only from the Fords and GMs of the world. This is somewhat a result of the Big Three’s art of marketing their tradition, but it is more so the result of the subtly ethnocentric effect of Anglo-branding. Buying by name alone, well-meaning patriotic people think they are doing good for America by buying indiscriminately from the American Big Three, dedicating themselves to never purchasing a "foreign car".

With some vehicles such an approach is warranted. With others, it is completely misguided.

GM has stayed true to its American roots with 33 of approximately 40 models having American content in excess of 50%. DaimlerChrysler has waned in its focus, manufacturing less and less in America, but it remains solid for the time being with an American-made majority on half of its models.

In the case of Ford, though, the buyer should beware. The beloved American car has itself become a foreign car. Of nearly 60 car, truck and SUV models in 2006 and 2007, Ford manufactured only 20 of them with US content in excess of 50%.

Comparatively, two popular foreigners, Honda and Nissan, both proved to be more American than Ford and just as American as DaimlerChrysler. These companies offered predominantly US-made content on more than half of their 16 models each.

As you can see, supporting American auto manufacturing can make for a difficult buying decision because brands are proving to be nothing more than a name. An "American" car may be a "foreign" car and vice versa. Patriotic consumers need to develop a new mindset, looking at "American" production not by name, but rather by content. If you are focused on buying patriotically with your next car purchase study your choices well: in some cases a manufacturer with an American name may be supporting only a very few American families while a foreign-branded vehicle shows significant importance to our economy and our fellow Americans

From the 18 June 2007 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE MYSTERIOUS HYDROGEN FUEL CELL

By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

Over the past few years the issue of alternative fuels has become the one of the most popular socioeconomic topics not only in the United States but around the world as well. It’s not going away anytime soon for we need answers now (if not yesterday) for quelling our incredible addiction to oil, one that seems to defy logic.

Even with gasoline prices rapidly ascending to unprecedented levels, per capita consumption of gasoline has continued at its recent levels and even shows signs of upward movement, trends completely in defiance of the “laws” of economics. Add to this mess the inability in - or even indignation towards - adjusting vehicular technologies and the world is setting itself up for environmental problems (harming the air and sucking the planet dry of oil before the century closes out) and potentially-devastating international conflict (the quest for oil is starting to mirror the quest for gold of centuries gone by).

Alternative fuels are necessary for the rectification of these situations and progress has been made in the development thereof. But, the approach being most focused-on (ethanol) is truly not the best method for our future. The use of corn, grasses, and sugars is anything but an alternative because the voluminous majority of the fuel mix to which they are added is still fossil fuels.

Despite this glaring weakness, ethanol has become in the eyes of many the only answer to our problems. This is caused by a combination of government policy and intense media coverage. The more appropriate method of alternative fueling – hydrogen fuel cells – is hardly discussed in political circles and rarely gets worthwhile mention in the news.

The Hydrogen alternative has even taken a backseat in the past month when it should have been big news on at least two occasions. For starters, we learned that the Chevy Sequel became the first fuel cell vehicle to reach the magical 300-mile mark on one fuel-up. Then, GM announced its intent to launch hydrogen vehicles in 3 years.

Not only should these have been big new stories internationally, they should have been even more so locally. The Sequel’s trip took it across New York State and the hydrogen used was produced in Niagara Falls. And, GM’s future in hydrogen vehicles will have the Honeoye Falls plant as its epicenter. Those are some major victories for the Empire State and major stepping-stones in the future of global transportation.

This complete indifference to hydrogen fuel cells and the lack of adequate promotion has made it a complete mystery. Most people know of it only by name and don’t understand its science and impressive benefits.

To the layperson, a hydrogen fuel cell can best be compared to a battery. It basically brings together hydrogen and oxygen to create water, waste heat, and, most importantly, electricity. In essence, these vehicles of the future would run on self-produced electricity.

The benefits of such energy are without peer, especially in regard to environmental impact. Hydrogen is anywhere and everywhere, the most abundant element in the universe, not some non-renewable fossil fuel destined for extinction. And, since a hydrogen fuel cell creates power through chemical reaction rather than combustion, there is no pollution.

Another benefit of hydrogen fuel cells is vast economic impact in the positive. By using abundant elements and not pricy gasoline to drive cars, were this to become the vehicle of the choice the monies that were once spent on gasoline would instantly become great amounts of disposable income. Just think about your annual “investment” in gasoline turning into spending money and everyone the world over experiencing the same. That’s trillions of dollars of expenditures on real products and real services (not fuel), sending the world economy into unfathomable prosperity.

Despite all of the good that they represent, hydrogen fuel cells get minimal respect. This may be a result of special interests looking out only for themselves. Legislation and thought seem to be controlled by the all-powerful oil magnates and auto industry. The former would prefer to keep its lifeline viable while the latter is frightened by the expense of investing in new technologies. It’s time that the tables were turned and a more important special interest group – the consumers of this world – stood up against them and, in the spirit of free and open markets, demanded from those who manufacture and sell our vehicles an alternative that is truly an alternative, one that will end our dangerous addiction to oil.

Introduction: The Republicans and Democrats have been staging quite a few presidential debates amongst their candidates this Spring. It appears that the Republicans are just going through the motions, following the lead of the Democrats who seem to be using these debates for something else

From the 11 June 2007 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THESE ARE NOT PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

With the Democratic Party now possessing a significant amount of power at the national level an issue very near and dear to their Big Government hearts - universal healthcare - has come front and center. If not for the debate over our continued police action in Iraq this would be the predominant political hot button topic. Not only does it permeate political discourse and day-to-day conversation, but it also receives rather phenomenal media coverage as well, highlighted daily by the print, broadcast and internet media.

The constant coverage and the discussions that follow are facilitated by the Democrats’ presidential debates, which, after closer analysis don’t appear to be presidential debates at all. Instead, these debates seem to be a sly method employed by the left’s congressional leadership to expose the masses to their train of thought which could control the flow and direction of public opinion and therefore public policy. This can be surmised from an observation that these get-togethers are too soon, too often, and too left to be an appropriate paring down of the candidates.

The early and constant scheduling of these debates lends credence to this conspiracy theory. Yes, many of the candidates have had it in their minds for quite some time (if not their whole lives) that they want the presidential throne, so, they’ve probably been pressing the flesh for a while. But never have we seen so many candidates take their battle to the podium for direct conflict so soon in an electoral term. The first of the debates occurred over a year and a half before the actual election which just so happens to be quite soon after the Democrats took control at the start of this year. There have been more debates since and there are many more scheduled in the coming months. By doing this the Democrats have and are saturating civic discussion and media coverage by getting their message out early and often.

Were it at this time to be an actual presidential drive the earliness and frequency of such events would prove to be a monumental waste of a candidate’s money and time. Human beings don’t have memories like figurative elephants. A voter, no matter how good of a voter he or she may be, would be unable to recall in September or November of 2008 what occurred in a presidential debate in the Spring of 2007. But, with these debates instead being a means to subconsciously influence public thought and force policy the true-blue Democrats look at it as a worthwhile investment.

This is emphasized by how left-specific the topics du jour are in these debates. Rather than having the “candidates” talk about issues pitting left versus right or factors that are appropriate to the executive requirements of the presidency the moderators chose to have them expound upon – and essentially educate the masses about - topics that dominate the Democratic platform: limited warfare (the broken promise of their win in this past November’s election), universal healthcare (an issue that has had relatively limited exposure until now), immigration (“this isn’t amnesty”), abortion (and their pro-choice stand) and any of a variety of anti-capitalistic attitudes.

We see this directed team approach in the debates’ lack of fireworks. These debates are so atypically civil as compared to standard presidential debates that they seem forced if not contrived. The teeth and nails aren’t shown because the Democratic Party is using these debates to discuss and iron out its master plan in public rather than behind closed doors in Washington.

This in itself has the potential to be a great concept. It could almost be identified as a form of open government by which a party’s principle players could talk openly about its side to the people. But, nonetheless, it is flawed in its presentation. By calling these meetings something else - presidential debates no less - the Democrats are lying to the populace about their intent and, therefore, are secretly and subliminally indoctrinating people to their brand of politics.

IRELAND’S TEMPLATE FOR SUCCESS
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

In today’s global economy one would expect significant economic growth and societal improvement to occur in developing nations because, after all, they’re developing. When a nation’s economy starts from nothing the sky is the limit for the immediate future. We see this in all of the countries that are finally participating in capitalistic ventures at the international level. They are on sound paths leading them out of second-and-third world status, perfectly exemplified by China’s growth in Gross Domestic Product which is forecasted to exceed 10% in 2007 for the fourth year in a row.

One would not expect similar success amongst the developed nations of the world for a variety of reasons. Among them is confusion over globalization. Many developed nations have not realized that international trade goes both ways; as much as they possess markets for goods and services being produced or provided abroad they fail to see that they, too, have goods and services that those new economies want. This unknown influences the overall outlook that a nation’s leaders - public and private sectors both – have concerning their role in international trade. They ultimately believe that the developing nations are robbing them of future growth not only abroad but at home as well.

Much more so than this confusion, the greatest cause of limited economic growth in industrialized nations may be a somewhat deliberate maintenance of the status quo. Being that these nations had long ago achieved first-world status and what their citizens and leaders believe to be the pinnacle of civility, their hunger for betterment is tamed because the “same old same old” feels so good. From this, public policy becomes fraught with high taxation and very few private enterprises think outside the box (or their country’s borders). In the case of some European nations where this is normal behavior it has not only limited their growth but it has also created stagnancy or, worse yet, dying economies.

One nation has surprisingly bucked this trend and is moving forward while the other modernized societies stand still. In only 15 years Ireland has transformed itself from a land of poor farmers and tired industry into the second wealthiest nation in the European Union.

As the 1980’s closed out Ireland was a laughingstock in international circles. Its unemployment and inflation were both a frightening 20%, causing young people to leave due to the lack of opportunity. The only thing keeping Ireland’s putrid economy afloat was trade with what was pretty much its only trading partner, Great Britain.

Fast-forward to the present where things are vastly different. Their economy is now growing at a solid 5% annualized rate after nearly a decade of implausible growth that exceeded 6% per annum and even broke the magical 10% mark. This has resulted in unemployment being a very low 4% and people moving-in in droves. Ireland now exports and imports in volume and is home to over 1,000 multinational corporations. Ireland’s GDP per capita is now $43,600 which actually surpasses by $100 that of the world’s preeminent economy, the United States of America.

This turnaround has been dubbed the “Irish Miracle.” This moniker does not tell the true story. It was more than a miracle for it did not come from happenstance or good luck. It came to be out of intelligent governance atypical to that of other industrialized nations. Ireland’s leaders had it in their minds that they wanted to rid their nation of poverty. Rather than using the band-aid approach that so many other nations – including ours – do of using government funds to give income or assistance to those in poverty, which then ultimately maintains national poverty, Ireland instead created an environment conducive to prosperity, which, in the end, destroys poverty.

Their most important tool in this reinvention was the act of decreasing taxes. The corporate tax rate in Ireland stands at 12.5%, one-third of the average of the rest of the European Union. This beckoned foreign business to their land, setting-off a domino effect where all other businesses fed off the new opportunities. During that same period the personal tax rate in Ireland dropped from 65% to 42% and the people prospered more than the businesses did.

The successes of Ireland’s recent history should be a template for all other modernized nations. Rather than just skating-by as so many of those nations do, Ireland focused on the future by basically eliminating the monetary hurdles associated with Big Government. Because of that, Ireland, its economy, and - most importantly - its people have flourished.

Let’s hope our leaders have been paying attention. Maybe they can pull off our own miracle.