Does it even matter?

[skuttduck]

Originally Posted by scrming

But you're going to get an AUTOMATIC? I thought those were for girls too?

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...6&postcount=12

V8 automatic. Lets see here, again reasons not to get that.

400<426 (If people rag the V6 for 300+ hp, clearly this is the lesser choice)
Costs more
Weighs more
AFM. What was that about 8 Cylinders being better than 6? The V8 turns into a 4 banger thanks to AFM.

There will always be this debate. I actually think most of it is because people are set in their ways based on the older cars, and don't believe that the new V6 could possibly be as good if not better than previous generation v8 engines.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

That's not at all what I implied. Just because I disagree with something does not mean I believe the complete opposite.

Well, apparently you misunderstood my last post. I didn't state the complete opposite of your position, but I simply deduced your chain of reasoning from what you posted earlier.

What I am implying is that no publicly traded transnational corporation is JUST American or JUST ______ and if you want to speak in terms of economic benefit the line because much more hazy.

I'm not quite sure where the disagreement is coming from; I simply broke down your reasoning as to when a company may be labeled "just American" or just whatever.

From what you implied, it would have to be that the permanent place of residency of all shareholders are the same. E.g., for one to be simply an "American" or "German" firm would require all shareholders to be permanent residents of the United States or Germany, respectively.

Perhaps I need to restate this in another way. To be classified as a purely American firm, all shareholders must be of an American nationality. Once the company starts allowing stock to be sold without regard for a potential buyer's nationality and said buyer does become (partial) owner, then the company is now trasnational or multinational. That does not conflict with your view that multiple owners with different nationalities classify the corporation as transnational. In fact, it was merely a restatement of your view. Regardless, part of your post, specifically the bolded, was tautological; of course transnational companies aren't "just American" by definition.

That's why I said it's not that simple. I do not mean to imply that any one company is more or less American than any other based on geographic location of the majority owner(s), in fact that idea conflicts with my point.

According to your exchange with Number 3 and your statement of the geographic location not being a factor in determining nationality, then you would see economic benefit as determining the nationality of a firm. I see economic benefit as irrelevant, considering trade happens because it benefits both parties.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Well, apparently you misunderstood my last post. I didn't state the complete opposite of your position, but I simply deduced your chain of reasoning from what you posted earlier.

You did not deduce my chain of reasoning because there was no chain of reasoning leading to your conclusion. My counterpoints do not profile an American company, but oppose the implications of Number 3's reasoning. The only comments I made before your previous post were questions regarding Number 3's idea of an "American company" followed by suggestions that domestic ownership does not imply economic benefit is greater than that of a foreign owned entity.

What is the motive behind buying a product that is produced by an, "American company" over another? Is it to profit the few individuals that hold ownership in the company or to inspire growth of an entity that creates jobs for Americans and inspires economic growth in this country?

Company A is held in majority by an American investor. Nationalities of other investors are mixed, some American, some not. The company is headquartered in India. It manufactures in India and sells it's product in India. It employs nobody in the United States, but 25 in India.

Company B is majority owned by a family in Brazil. Nationalities of other investors are mixed, some American, some not. The company is headquartered in Ohio. It sells products only in the US market, manufactures in Ohio and employs 25 Ohio residents.

Which one is more "American" than the other? Which one would you prefer to buy a product from based on resulting economic benefit to your neighbors? Are your answers to the two preceding questions the same? Why or why not?

Again, I am not arguing what it means to be an American company because I think calling a transnational, publicly traded corporation American or any other nationality is oversimplification and can be viewed from many perspectives. I am however arguing against the implications of drawing nationality from individual ownership and inferring economic benefit from those implications.

I'm not quite sure where the disagreement is coming from; I simply broke down your reasoning as to when a company may be labeled "just American" or just whatever.

Where did I profile an American company?

I see economic benefit as irrelevant, considering trade happens because it benefits both parties

Trade benefits both parties yes, but do individual trades benefit both parties equally? Further, when a product is built in the United States in American factories by American workers, from American materials, by a company that is headquartered in the United States, would you consider an American consumer purchasing this product international trade?

[archtaan]

In the grand scheme of things, we are all enthusiasts regardless of whether we have 4 doors, 2 doors, 4's, 6's, v8's and each community has its rabid following. Respect a fast car for what it is and have fun, be safe and just sit back and relax. Have a thick skin on the net because every community will talk trash about the other. I love em all.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by bill2129

Yes it matters depends on the car though. Honda's all that can have there 4cyl. The 350z and many others can have there v6. But if you get a camaro it best be a v8! Or should of got a hyundai. Same with the mustangs. I think a v6 camaro is okay for a girl. But if your a guy and buy a v6 camaro your no better then the guys who buy the pony package mustang. (The v6)

A V6 is no more a 'girls car' than a V8 is for men who are 'compensating'

If a V8 is the only Camaro you'll ever buy, fine. I feel the same way. But remarks like that are just make the Camaro community look bad.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

You did not deduce my chain of reasoning because there was no chain of reasoning leading to your conclusion. My counterpoints do not profile an American company, but oppose the implications of Number 3's reasoning. The only comments I made before your previous post were questions regarding Number 3's idea of an "American company" followed by suggestions that domestic ownership does not imply economic benefit is greater than that of a foreign owned entity.

What? There were no counterpoints. It has become apparent that the two discussions here are being conflated. I worked with what I had; you did not make your position explicit, that is you didn't say economic benefit is what determined the nationality of the company, but only responded (before your previous two replies) in the context of ownership. In other words, you never adequately implied (at the time) your position for one to understand.

What is the motive behind buying a product that is produced by an, "American company" over another? Is it to profit the few individuals that hold ownership in the company or to inspire growth of an entity that creates jobs for Americans and inspires economic growth in this country?

Allow me to make myself more clear given I now have the opportunity. My deduction of your position was due to our exchange being in the context of ownership; you never mentioned or adequately alluded to the fact that you see economic benefit as the determinant of the nationality of a firm. However, as made your position explicit in post #38, I realized my mistake and acknowledged your position in my previous post to you. Hence, "you would see economic benefit determining nationality of a firm."

My motive to buy anything is to see if it benefits me in some way; I do not buy into the fallacy of nationalist economics or delusions of national self-sufficiency. In fact, "I understand the law of comparative advantage," and "I advocate Free Trade;" quoting Paul Krugman on the idea of an economist's creed.

Company A is held in majority by an American investor. Nationalities of other investors are mixed, some American, some not. The company is headquartered in India. It manufactures in India and sells it's product in India. It employs nobody in the United States, but 25 in India.

Company B is majority owned by a family in Brazil. Nationalities of other investors are mixed, some American, some not. The company is headquartered in Ohio. It sells products only in the US market, manufactures in Ohio and employs 25 Ohio residents.

I'm noticing that both of your examples seem to want an answer that confirms the assumption of benefit only arising through the employment of local workers that leads to increased national income. To the contrary, both companies benefit the American due to the company's success in finding the best way to "deliver the goods."

Which one is more "American" than the other? Which one would you prefer to buy a product from based on resulting economic benefit to your neighbors? Are your answers to the two preceding questions the same? Why or why not?

Prefer? My personal preference would be the one employing Americans, yet this is indeed a personal preference that does not rely on measuring benefits that are inherently subjective and therefore can only be accurately "measured" by the ones participating in the exchange.

Again, I am not arguing what it means to be an American company because I think calling a transnational, publicly traded corporation American or any other nationality is oversimplification and can be viewed from many perspectives. I am however arguing against the implications of drawing nationality from individual ownership and inferring economic benefit from those implications.

It wouldn't be an oversimplification to call an multinational corporation any singular nationality, but it would be downright wrong by definition. Saying this, I believe number 3 was only pointing out the tendency for owners of a company to invest in a way that corresponds with their nationality. It is in this connection, I believe, that one could say it is an "American" firm.

Where did I profile an American company?

As I said above, you never did explicitly until only a few posts ago (#38). The implications of that statement dictate that benefits are a major part in determining nationality.

Trade benefits both parties yes, but do individual trades benefit both parties equally? Further, when a product is built in the United States in American factories by American workers, from American materials, by a company that is headquartered in the United States, would you consider an American consumer purchasing this product international trade?

Trade benefiting both parties equally is an Aristotelian fallacy that was further abused by Marx. In reality, trade implies a double inequality. During any exchange, person A will regard persons B good as more valuable; person B will regard person A's product as more valuable. It becomes obvious that each person values each product unequally; it is precisely this inequality that provokes exchange. In regards to the hypothetical final product in your scenario, it would be a domestic trade considering the seller of the final good has rights to that good and his selling of that good to me merely transfers ownership. Obviously, this transfer takes place from citizens of the same country and is a domestic trade by definition. However, you never did state if this company had any connection to international trade "going up the totem pole."