Detroit

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Both Want to Restore Detroit's Glory Days with Failed Economic Policies

The Motor City of today shouldn't yearn for a horse-and-buggy of tomorrow.

|

With both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton selecting Detroit, Michigan, for their 'big' campaign economic speeches, the Motor City is receiving a lot of attention this election cycle. But a fixation on Detroit's revival is evidence of a backward-looking vision and a gross misunderstanding of economic development and prosperity.

Glory days
ellemclin/Pixabay/Public Domain

During his recent speech, Trump highlighted the terrible performance of the city that "was once the economic envy of the world" and helped "power America to its position of global dominance in the 20th century." Indeed, the city went from being the 4th largest city in the country with a population of about 2 million to being a distressed city with a little under 700,000 people today.

Detroit's unemployment rate is 11.6 percent (twice the national average), half of the city's residents don't work, and it's one of the most dangerous cities in the country. As a result, Detroit's per capita income is about half of the national average, and it has become the poorest city in America, with 40 percent of residents living in poverty.

But we know what went wrong with Detroit. It put all of its eggs in one basket: the automotive industry. As Edward Glaeser explains in his book, "The Triumph of the City," Detroit was a one-industry town, dominated by three huge companies, which employed hundreds of thousands of workers with too few transferrable skills. When the industrial juggernaut withered away, there was very little left for its low-skilled population.

The federal government failed Detroit, too. In 2011, Glaeser wrote in The New York Times: "Federal support has been almost entirely focused on physical capital, like housing and transportation infrastructure…Detroit's never needed more housing or transportation. Declining cities are practically defined by having too much infrastructure relative to people."

Other cities have had the same industrial experience as Detroit, but have managed to come back. The explanation for those cities' revivals, Glaeser insists, is the human capital, the quality of schools and the average level of education, in particular.

Making things worse was the state and local government's pattern of overspending, overtaxing, and overregulating. Some of that was done with the hope of attracting new residents with stadiums, museums, and a transit system. That approach failed — as it always does — and resulted in the city filling Chapter 9 bankruptcy in July 2013.

As Trump noted: "In short, the city of Detroit is the living, breathing example of my opponent's failed economic agenda. Every policy that has failed this city and so many others is a policy supported by Hillary Clinton."

He may have a point when he says, "She is the candidate of the past." Democrats — and Clinton in particular — haven't had many new ideas since the New Deal of the 1930s. Their narrative is the same: promise to create good-paying jobs where there are none, invest in infrastructure, pay for it by raising taxes on the rich, and tell companies how they must run their business. These policies have never been successful, but that's all they have, and they're sticking to it.

That being said, the Trump campaign isn't exactly the "campaign of the future," either. He promises, "Detroit — the Motor City — will come roaring back." But the truth is, there's no chance of making Detroit the prosperous manufacturing metropolis it once was with the kind of policies he supports: less trade and more spending on infrastructure.

Moreover, if there is hope for a Detroit revival, it won't be in the form of the Motor City, nor should it be. For Detroit to hearken back to the days of automotive glory would have been like the Motor City in its prime trying to progress by shifting its focus toward propping up an obsolete horse-and-buggy industry.

Instead of trying to recreate the failed experiments of the past, candidates need to focus on allowing entrepreneurs more freedom to innovate and move beyond the moribund industrial mindset. Policymakers should focus on educating and training the population with skill sets that embrace the technological changes on the horizon. Over the years, with new talents ready to compete worldwide, there's no telling what Detroit could become.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Rep. Thomas Massie Is Voting for Trump

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  2. “Policymakers should focus on educating and training the population with skill sets”

    I think de Rugy meant that policymakers should let the People choose what education to receive.

    Because in practice, I do not know even ONE policymaker who actually knows what skill sets a population “needs”. They only know what skill sets a population “needed”.

    1. I remember Stossel writing an article a while back about the sheer inefficacy of govt jobs training programs. They mostly just tell people how to navigate getting unemployment benefits.

      1. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for 25470 dollar this 7-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least 97 dollar per hour. I work through this website. Go here… http://bit.do/OpL0a

    2. ‘ do not know even ONE policymaker who actually knows what skill sets a population “needs”. They only know what skill sets a population “needed”.’

      Well said, I am stealing that verbiage for future use.

    3. That sentence also set off my “that’s not pure libertarian” alarm bells, because I think most libertarians would prefer to get government out of education entirely, and if not, then they’d at least support reducing government’s control toward freer markets (e.g., school choice, vouchers, charter schools, etc.).

      Can it be wrong to suggest the government teach “needed skill sets” even given the problem of government figuring out what they are? It’s not unlike prisoners asking for better jail food.

      However, it’s not the best thing politicians could do to revive Detroit or the US. I agree with de Rugy that neither of Clinton’s or Trump’s defined policies will do the job. What will do the job is a lot less government, and much freer markets rather than the politically controlled markets we have now where politicians pick the winners in commerce. Nothing is more correlated to prosperity than freedom. Ask yourself, does Trump know this? I’ve never heard anything like this from him, and I’ll bet Trumpettes will be very disappointed with his results if he wins. I like Trump’s tax plan, but where are the spending cuts or reductions in government? I bet people will vote for him Hoping for Change in a repeat of politicians lying to get elected. At least we have divided government to stop them.

  3. “old” topic but fresh comment thread Given her own past statements, methinks the lady doth protest too much about Trump’s comment to second amendment supporters:

    March, 2008 interview with Time magazine: “Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A.”

    May, 2008: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

  4. Detroit’s unemployment rate is 11.6 percent (twice the national average), half of the city’s residents don’t work

    I wonder whether lefties even blink when reading a sentence like this. How can UE only be within punching distance of 12% if labor force participation is sitting at a shocking 61%? And if and additional ten thousand Detroitis (Detroitigans? Detrout?) go on the dole, is the city going to be a shining beacon to progressives because they manage to cut their UE by almost 4%?

    1. There you go again judging progs by results. Everyone knows the only fair metric is intentions, though a good case can be made that the cause-and-effect pattern indicates that current state of Detroit IS the intention, but that’s a different argument.

      1. I’m not judging them by their results but by their very comprehension of the enormity of their problems. Results are always going to be tediously disappointing when it comes to progressive policy, but I don’t think they understand that UE over twice the national average is only the very tip of the assberg.

        1. This was actually the very first thing in the article that made me choke. This method of counting unemployment is such utter and complete bullshit that if you ever hear anyone using it you know instantly that either that person is stupid or that person is trying to obfuscate the truth. The only reason it’s ever used is to understate the enormity of a problem. The fact that last time I checked it was the defacto government measurement that they continually cite is telling.

    2. Of course it will be a shining beacon to progressives! After all, money spent on welfare programs has a super-duper multiplier effect!

      1. Like CO2 in the atmosphere!

    3. Detritus

  5. I vote we disincorporate the city of Detroit.

    1. Democracy: Two wolves and an utterly failed Democrat stronghold deciding what to do with taxpayer money.

      1. Well clearly, the wolf vote is disqualified, and there is 280% turnout in the stronghold.

  6. “My Gosplan is better than my opponent’s Gosplan!”

  7. Give them spoons.

  8. where’s my fucking bulldozer? I’ll fix it…

  9. I basically profit close to $6k-$9k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earn valuaable paycheck while doing it… Then this work opportunity is.

    See Here>>>>>>>>>> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  10. I suspect we will continue to hearken back to the “golden age” of US manufacturing, during the post war era when Europe and Japan were in a bombed out shambles and living off the Marshall Plan. Those were the days, when you could drop out of high school and mosey on down to your local union hall and get a job at the equivalent of 90K a year in today’s dollars.

    I actually knew a guy who worked for Chrysler, was literally [as opposed to functionally] illiterate, and with overtime made about $90,000 a year. This was the American Dream, and no one is handing that out any more.

    Of course the US got content, let quality slide into the sewer, and everyone else kicked our asses.

  11. Maybe future SC Justice Jennifer Granholm can bring back her shitty “Cool Cities” initiative or throwing another couple hundred million to Michael Bay to film Transformer movies. Progs keep insisting how smart she is, but as far as I can tell they just think she’s smart because she wears glasses.

    1. Some people are pretty much the moral equivalent of cancer.

  12. The cultural biases of journalists are just infuriating. DeRugy calls the automobile industry “obsolete horse-and-buggy industry.” Only a journalist could say something that dumb and only in a group of journalists could such a statement go unchallenged.

    Currently 1.5 million people are directly employed in the manufacture of automobiles in this country. These people create five hundred billion dollars in added value to the economy.

    http://www.autoalliance.org/au…..obs-report

    There is nothing obsolete about the automobile industry. How could DeRugy think that? She apparently thinks the only people working in the future are going to be free lance graphic designers living in trendy neighborhoods and Indian coders in the country on an HB1 Visa.

    The American auto industry is still world class. In 2014, 11.6 million cars were manufactured in the US. Detroit has an enormous tradition in manufacturing cars. It is not crazy to think “hey maybe we should do that again”.

    Change the laws and do something about the UAW and the car industry might very well come back to Detroit. DeRugy doesn’t realize that because she lives in a bubble and her cultural biases cause her to believe stupid things like “icky dirty work like making cars is obsolete. Don’t these people know everyone is going to live in an apartment and use an electric community owned Uber for transportation in the future?”

    1. I don’t think anyone is saying the automobile industry is dead [well, maybe the author of this opinion piece] but no matter how “vibrant” it may be that is in today’s standards. CAM, automation, and robotics have and continue to eliminate many of the traditional UAW “dirty” jobs, and foreign competition means leaner manufacturing going forward. It will not be the creator of jobs for the masses as it once was for about three decades. There is Detroit and many “little Detroits” all over the Midwest [like Anderson, IN] where plants are shuttered and are not ever coming back. The biggest single employer in 1950 was GM, with average compensation around 90K in today’s dollars; today the biggest employer today is WalMart, and I believe the comp is just above minimum wage. Which is way there is the clamor for $15 an hours in fast food, as that has become a lifelong career track, apparently.

      Creative destruction happens.

      1. Creative destruction happens.

        So does good ol’ fashioned destructive destruction. It’s not simply competition that’s driving foreign manufacturing competition. It’s our uniquely unsuitable legal and regulatory environment that continues to drive manufacturing off US shores. On top of the fact that minimum wage and welfare programs cut the rungs off the bottom of the income ladder that people are willing to work for.

      2. Every industry gets automated and changes. That doesn’t make it obsolete or not worth having. What industry does DeRugy think is not obsolete? My guess is that it is any industry she likes and thinks is fashionable.

    2. You meant government motors or Italian motors? ? Ive driven Nissians for years ,great truck and built in Tenn. Then there’s Honda and Toyota and others that build great cars and trucks .The BIG 3 do not exist anymore. Get over it.

      1. Those Nissans and BMWs and such are often built in America. Just because the American auto industry is now to a large degree foreign owned doesn’t mean it is not still the American auto industry. And the reason why Nissans are built in Tennessee and not Detroit is because of the UAW and Michigan’s laws protecting it.

        You completely missed my point Smith. Get over it.

        1. No I didn’t,Detroit and company towns are not coming back. It’s a world market now. G.M and Ford now build world wide and those jobs are not coming here. You may not like trade,well,until you go to the store.

          1. The jobs are all over the place. They most certainly did come here. They came to Tennessee. You just said that. You seem to think trade only involves buying shit from overseas.

            You do understand that most things used in the US are still built in the US? You understand that no everyone is a free lance graphic designer. You seem to love trade and manufacturing but at the same time see it as something only foreigners can do.

            1. The jobs went to Tennessee because it is a right to work state. They are not coming back to Detroit unless there is a complete cultural and regulatory change there, and I don’t think that is going to happen.

              1. You are right. There must be a complete regulatory change there. And i think they would come back. There is one thing Detroit has now thanks to the madness it has been through; its cheap. labor is cheap, land is cheap, everything is cheap, provided you change the regulatory culture. If you changed the regulatory culture there, the competitive advantages that come with starting from scratch would cause jobs and industry to return. It would take a while but they would return.

    3. You make excellent points John!

    4. John,

      I don’t think DeRugy meant that the automobile industry is a goner. Obviously there are still around 255 million cars/trucks in the US and we purchase around 17 million new cars a year (that’s a very cyclical number though).

      DeRugy probably meant that Detroit’s automobile industry in its past form is gone. And it is.
      As Tandem already talked about how there was effectively a re-definition of high vs. low skilled workers.

      It must be frustrating for an author when s/he cannot clarify the actual meaning of her/his article.

      1. Maybe. If she did, she used a poor choice of words.

  13. The facts show that WW2 was reason for much of the U.S dominance in industry. All of Europe and much of Asia was in ruins. It took decades for them to rebound. Then,the fall of the U.S.S.R freed more countries to compete in the world market. Even South and Central America has been selling goods world wide, This has lead to more choices and lower prices. It’s never going to be the 1950’s again.

    1. Try telling a politician that.

    2. The facts don’t show that at all. Exports were less than 4% of the economy in the 1940s and 50s. If the US rate of manufacture had been because of lack of foreign competition, exports would have been much larger than that.

      The US had an enormous domestic economy and industrial base. It is existed pretty much independent from the rest of the world and while the rest of the world losing theirs didn’t hurt, it hardly caused its creation.

      The truth is that the US economy was built from the ground up on its own. The US has never been a big exporting nation. Its industrial base arose in tandem with and to supply its domestic market. Free traders and internationalists hate that fact and constantly ignore it or distort it. But it is the truth.

      1. You have no clue do you? The facts after ww2 show otherwise, And your a fool to ignore them.

        1. I have a lot of clue. Go look it up. You know how to use google. It is called the census bureau.

          http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/s…..index.html

          You have to do some math and look up the GDP statistucs but after you do, you will find that exports were under 5% of the GNP all the way through the 1960s.

          The idea that US manufacturing got some special boost because the rest of the world was destroyed is absurd on its face. Yes, the rest of the world’s manufacturing base was largely destroyed. You know what else was destroyed? Most of its demand. What do you think the Germans and Japanese were buying Chevrolets in the late because the VW and Toyota plants hadn’t been rebuilt? No, they were not buying much of anything.

          In fact, the destruction of the foreign manufacturing base actually harmed US manufacturing in the long run because it allowed foreign competitors to start from scratch and adopt the latest technology without the cost associated of changing from legacy technology.

          Of all the dumb myths about history, “the us built its manufacturing base after world war II because the rest of the world got bombed” is next to “FDR saved us from the depression” likely the dumbest one.

      2. BTY,we’re not talking about the 1800’s when the country was growing and expanding and opening new markets in the west. [Then again,the south depended of cotton exports up to the civil war and some northern states were against the war of 1812 due to it’s effect on trade]. Your also ignoring the horrible effect trade restrictions had in the great depression. Smoot-Hawley ring a bell?

        1. The US industrial base was largely built under a restrictive trade regime. The US did not become a major exporting nation until the turn of the 20th Century. Even then it still maintained a heavily protected economy until the 1920s, but even then it was still not a very large share of the over all economy. . Two facts are undeniable; the us manufacturing sector was largely built to feed domestic demand and it was built under a largely protectionist regime. Was it built in spite of the protectionism rather than because of it? Possibly and certainly to some degree yes. Regardless, the protectionism certainly didn’t prevent it.

          And yes Smoote Hawley triggered the initial downturn in the economy in 1929. It was a huge shock. Here is what is never mentioned. It is of course pretty well established that FDR and the New Deal made the depression worse and kept the economy from recovering. The economy wasn’t ready to recover because FDR found the religion of getting rid of Smoot Hawley. It was ready to recover because it had adjusted to the initial shock of Smoote Hawley and was going to come back on its own Smoote Hawley or no.

          Tariffs are taxes and economies adjust to them just like they do to taxes.

          1. We probably shouldn’t leave out the ways that the US economy has evolved since the 70s when the Rust Belt started its decline. Some of those industries moved to the South, for reasons we’ve discussed here, but technology has also allowed those industries to create more product with far fewer workers. A lot of those unskilled workers have migrated to construction or the service industry, which have also been a magnet for Central American immigrant labor for several decades (creating further economic displacement), or various government bureaucracies. The skilled ones are filling the increasingly growing tech sector, or the medical field. Our schools and American society in general denigrates skilled blue-collar trades at a time when a lot of the boomer craftsmen who filled those jobs are looking to retire, so there’s no pool of milennials who aren’t book-smart ready to move in and revitalize those industries–they’ve all been pushed to attend college, where a lot of them, to be blunt, don’t have what it takes to succeed without a lot of hand-holding.

            And then people wonder why a bunch of burger flippers are suddenly demanding $15 an hour for minimum wage–it’s because these people are this century’s version of the low-skilled factory drone, which unionized and extracted a ton of labor concessions from the late 1890s through the 1940s.

            1. And then people wonder why a bunch of burger flippers are suddenly demanding $15 an hour for minimum wage–it’s because these people are this century’s version of the low-skilled factory drone, which unionized and extracted a ton of labor concessions from the late 1890s through the 1940s.

              … which set up the problem identified in the first sentence.

              I’m not “wondering” why the burger flippers want more money (who doesn’t?). I’m “wondering” why so many people think it’s better to indulge them than to point out the consequences.

              1. I’m “wondering” why so many people think it’s better to indulge them than to point out the consequences.

                The consequences aren’t necessarily the fault of unionization, per se, though. Unionization’s failure in the Rust Belt is more attributable to the changes in the global economy, which would have hammered those areas whether they were unionized or not.

                The point is that unskilled labor isn’t going to be content in settling long-term for wages, working conditions, and quality of life that is below subpar relative to the perceived “middle class”. It’s one thing when the service industry is dominated by teenagers who are just looking for gas and movie money; it’s quite another when the workforce has been working in that job for 10 or 15 years, and doesn’t have the skillset or ability to rise any farther than that. One set isn’t going to create much labor agitation because they’re only there for shits and giggles ; the other most certainly will because they rely on that job to keep a roof over their head and food on the table, and glib pronouncements that “those jobs aren’t meant to be permanent anyway” won’t accomplish anything other than further radicalize them. There’s consequences to telling a horde of unskilled labor to go fuck off, too.

      3. Those nations could not compete with American companies in selling stuff to Americans in America because their industrial base was destroyed by the war. That is the import side of the equation – not exports.

        The US auto industry got complacent and sloppy thinking that they would have a captive market forever.

        The other nations recovered and starting building better quality cars than the US companies and took market share away from them.

        1. That sounds nice but it isn’t true. They were not competing in America before the war. The US was largely protectionist until the 20s and was again in the 1930s. Even when it wasn’t, imports were not that big of a portion of the economy.

          1. Like I said,no clue.

          2. Exactly what part of what I posted isn’t true?

            It is true that the foreign companies could not build cars until their industrial base was rebuilt.

            It is also true that the domestic car companies thought they would continue to have a captive market and started turning cars that were increasingly junk.

            And it is true that the foreign companies started producing cars that were better built than the domestics and took market share away from them by exporting them to the U.S. They started building production plants in the US later – after they had already gains significant market share here.

            Every bit of that is true.

            1. It is true that the foreign companies could not build cars until their industrial base was rebuilt.

              Yes that is true. But they were not selling cars in the US before World War II and did not start selling them once they started building them again. Foreign cars were not serious competition to the big three until the 1970s, long past the war. So the war didn’t give us an advantage in the 1950s.

            2. It is also true that the domestic car companies thought they would continue to have a captive market and started turning cars that were increasingly junk.

              That is not true. The domestic car companies responded to the market and gave people what they wanted. People wanted a new car every few years and gas was very cheap. So the domestic car market gave them that. Foreign cars didn’t sell because they catered to a different demand.

              Two things happened that changed that. The first was the oil crisis, that no one saw coming made small cars in demand where they hadn’t been before. No one saw the oil crisis coming. And there was no demand for small cars. So, you can’t blame Detroit for not making cars they couldn’t sell.

              Second, the government slapped emissions regulations on cars. The small foreign cars burned so little gas they didn’t need much emissions controls. So their engines staid reliable. Detroit made big cars with big engines and the emission controls played hell with them and turned good cars into junk. Pre 1970 American cars were for their time quite good. post 1973 America cars were a disaster because they couldn’t cope with the emissions equipment.

              1. I going out on a limb here, but you never owned a US made car in the 70s, did you?

                Yes, they were JUNK. Edward Demming tried to sell his ideas about quality improvement here and the US companies laughed at him. So he set up shop in Japan and the rest, as they say, is history.

                1. I going out on a limb here, but you never owned a US made car in the 70s, did you?

                  I am going to go out on a limb here and say you have very poor reading comprehension. I never said US cars in the 70s were well made. I said the opposite. My entire point was that emission controls made the engines utterly unreliable.

                  You seem to have a problem posting comments that are germane to the points being made.

              2. Yes it is true that the domestics turned out cars that were increasingly junk and there were a lot more things messed up with them than emission control induced problems.

            3. And it is true that the foreign companies started producing cars that were better built than the domestics and took market share away from them by exporting them to the U.S. They started building production plants in the US later – after they had already gains significant market share here.

              No they were not. In the 1960s Japanese cars were terrible. They got better but they were terrible in the 1960s. Before 1966 cars were not regulated at all. So there was tremendous variety in design. Today, cars are so heavily regulated they all are about the same. Back then they were not. So the cars demanded by Europe or Japan were totally different than the cars demanded in America. So there wasn’t a lot of exporting going on. The industry made cars to meet the local demand.

              It wasn’t until the oil crises and regulation hit in the 1970s that cars from Europe and Japan became marketable in the US. And it caught the US industry flatfooted. The story is more complex than the “big dumb Americans made bad cars until the smart Japanese showed them better” fairy tale that everyone seems to want to believe.

              1. It wasn’t until the oil crises and regulation hit in the 1970s that cars from Europe and Japan became marketable in the US. And it caught the US industry flatfooted. The story is more complex than the “big dumb Americans made bad cars until the smart Japanese showed them better” fairy tale that everyone seems to want to believe.

                Don’t forget the UAW’s role in all of this. They continued to make demands and extract concessions of the automakers long after it was blatantly obvious that they money wasn’t going to be there any more. The story is also one of union greed.

                1. Kbolino,

                  Absolutely, The UAW and the Big Three’s fecklessness before it played a huge role. Part of the reason the UAW got so powerful and the Big Three rolled over to them is because the market conditions before 1973 dictated it. Before 1973 the Big Three existed in a market where everyone wanted a new car every five years and the market expected a new design every year. If you didn’t change your design every year, you didn’t sell cars. It was all about design and luxury. No one planned to keep their cars long, so the marginal benefit of making a high quality car was very low. Consumers preferred a new and up to date car that didn’t last that long over an old and less up to date one that did.

                  It costs a lot of money to change your design every year. You have to retrain the workers how to build the beast,you have to get new tools and dyes and so forth. By the time Detroit spent the money doing all that, they didn’t have a lot left over for quality control. And since there was constant pressure to produce new cars every year, they really couldn’t afford a shut down. It was cheaper to just give the unions what they wanted. And since build quality wasn’t a money making factor, the work rules really didn’t make much difference.

                  Also, the big three rolled over to the UAW and in return the UAW refused to compromise when smaller car companies like Packard and Hudson were hurting. The UAW got big pay increases and in return squeezed out the Big Three’s competition.

              2. btw, just to point out that the politicians had a very big hand in the oil crisis with price control and import/export restrictions.

      4. The US car companies are not dead and gone and do in fact still exist, though we may like to engage in hyperbolic keyboard warfare and say they metaphorically don’t.

        But to think that we can simply build walls [figuratively or literally] and completely insulate ourselves from the rest of the world…well, that would just take a paid troll for the Trump campaign to do that. Or may the Clinton campaign, there really isn’t that much difference.

        1. That is nice because no one here is saying we could build walls and keep the world out.

          Did you make a mistake and mean to post that on another thread? I ask because it has absolutely no relevance to what anyone is saying here.

  14. Over the years, with new talents ready to compete worldwide, there’s no telling what Detroit could become.

    A ruin.

  15. “Detroit’s unemployment rate is 11.6 percent…”

    Oh my god, does anyone actually even slightly believe that figure?

  16. “” Democrats ? and Clinton in particular ? haven’t had many new ideas since the New Deal of the 1930s. Their narrative is the same: promise to create good-paying jobs where there are none, invest in infrastructure, pay for it by raising taxes on the rich, and tell companies how they must run their business. These policies have never been successful, but that’s all they have, and they’re sticking to it.

    Those policies have never been successful in doing what they CLAIMED they would do but they have been successful in doing what they actually INTENDED for them to do – increase their own power to redistribute wealth to targeted constituency groups to buy their votes and exert more control over every aspect of the private sector to exact bribes for favorable treatment.

    So of course they are sticking to it.

  17. I enjoy de Rugy’s willingness to call bad policy by either party bad policy without having to throw in hedges and qualifiers.

    Detroit note: my company is employing 500+ people in Detroit but because we’re an evil bad company instead of a goodthink-approved company, the citizenry of Detroit is more than willing to try to kill those jobs.

    1. The problem with Detroit is its bad laws. DeRugy comes very close to repeating the leftist lie that Detroit was the victim of the fortunes of capitalism and that the auto industry is dead in America because the God, I mean the MARKET, willed it.

      The American Auto industry is fine. It is just more foreign owned now and not in Detroit. That is entire the fault of the government there.

      1. I get what you’re saying; though I don’t know that it counts as a leftist lie when just stating the first part of the leftist argument without finishing it or applying progressive value judgments.

        Detroit is poor in part because the Detroit labor market had its jobs wrapped up in one industry and weren’t able to keep up with market forces in that industry. I think that’s a fact, I think you’d agree.

        You and I would take that fact and use it to argue in favor of deregulation. Some Bernie Bro would take the same fact and use it to argue in favor of more regulation using a different set of values, facts, and yeah, maybe lies.

        You’re right that the auto industry is fine.

        1. Detroit is poor in part because the Detroit labor market had its jobs wrapped up in one industry and weren’t able to keep up with market forces in that industry. I think that’s a fact, I think you’d agree.

          I would not agree with that. Every city in America at one point in time relied predominantly on one particular industry that gave it its excuse for existing. And every other city is just fine despite long since losing its original industry. Not many people in Cincinnati are employed in the tool and dey making business anymore. The closed the stockyards and packing houses in Kansas City and Chicago decades ago. They don’t pump much oil in the piney woods around Houston anymore and so forth.

          The auto industry in this country did not die. Detroit died. When BMW and Toyota started building plants in the US why didn’t they build them in Detroit? Detroit had all that skilled labor and available infrastructure. Why didn’t they? Because no one sited a business of any kind in Detroit.

  18. I like Detroit. All the trees are the right height.

  19. Let Detroit contract back to a size it can support rather than falsly incentivizing people to stay, thus prolonging their suffering. If jobs ever return, so will the people.

  20. Today, you hear Muslim calls to worship over the city like a new American Baghdad with hundreds of Islamic mosques in Michigan, paid for by Saudi Arabia oil money. High school flunk out rates reached 76 percent last June according to NBC’s Brian Williams. Classrooms resemble more foreign countries than America. English? Few speak it! The city features a 50 percent illiteracy rate and growing. Unemployment hit 28.9 percent in 2009 as the auto industry vacated the city.
    http://www.newswithviews.com/W…..sty506.htm

  21. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Reportmax90.com

  22. Anna . I agree that James `s storry is really great… last thursday I got a top of the range Mitsubishi Evo after bringing in $4828 this last 5 weeks and just over ten grand last-munth . no-doubt about it, this really is the best work I’ve ever had . I began this four months/ago and straight away started to bring in at least $87, per-hour
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.