Why I really came here. Please help. Part 2

I started this second thread because the first one had gotten way off topic. It wasn't about how to create a Big Six U.S. automakers, it was about what the effect on history would have been if that had happened as I outlined.

There are 2 sayings about altering history. "The more things change the more they stay the same." and "Change one thing and you change everything."

If I could go back and do what I had said the way I outlined it, I think it would produce one of two possibilities.

I. The alternate timeline would have only the following changes: 1. We would have six major U.S. automakers as I outlined in the other thread and they would be strong, thriving, and highly competitive. 2. Automotive design and technology would have advanced further and faster than in OTL.
3. Japan would never have gotten a foothold in the American automobile market. Japan's automobile market would be largely limited to Japan, a number of other Asian countries, and perhaps parts of the Middle East.
4. This would have also kept Japan, China, and other Asian countries from getting the kind of foothold they did in other American markets such as textiles and sophisticated electronics. 5. We would not today be losing American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets.

In terms of automotive technology:
In the mid 1970's the American automobile industry begins moving to the gas turbine engine. By 1982 the gas turbine had replaced the conventional piston engine as the industry standard.

1994: Studebaker-Packard markets the world's first production gas/electric hybrid, It is a Studebaker. Its gasoline engine is a small efficient gas turbine. note, the very first Studebaker car in 1902 was an electric car. American Motors quickly follows with a gas/electric hybrid Rambler. Within the next 5 to 8 years the gas/electric hybrid becimes the industry standard.

As in OTL, all the car companies are experimenting with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. They are finding the same difficult technological problems as in OTL. If and when the production hydrogen fuel cell vehicle becomes a reality, it will do so sooner in the ATL than in OTL, but as in OTL, that is if it ever does become a reality.

Other than that, everything in the ATL remains exactly the same. The same list of U.S. Presidents, all the same events and history both domestic and worldwide. Same overall historic timeline.

The other posibility is that just about everything changes in the ATL.

In OTL, even though the companies remained in business, between 1955 and 1958 five makes of car went out of production. Kaiser, Willys, Hudson, Nash, and Packard. Over those three years it put some 10,000 to 15,000 Americans out of work. There was a mild to moderate recession in 1958 into 59 and this may have been one factor in that.

ALT: Over those three years the so called "independents," (Studebaker-Packard, American Motors, and Kaiser-Willys) become much stronger and very competitive. They are also increasing their workforce which spurs growth in many of the industries that support the automobile industry. As a result, the 1958 recession never comes, the economy continues strong and even grows during that time. This helps Richard Nixon in 1960. Nixon wins the 1960 Presidential Election.

For more on what it would have been like if Nixon had won in 1960, go to the thread "JFK v NIXON - NIXON WINS."

As I said in that thread, had Nixon won in 1960, I think the 60's would have been a quieter decade than they were under Kennedy/Johnson. Certainly I think the second half of the 60's would have been quieter under Nixon. I don't think Nixon would have handled Viet Nam the way Johnson did. I don't think there would have been direct military intervention in Viet Nam, or if there had been I don't think Nixon would have allowed it to become the kind of long drawn out protracted war Johnson got us into over there. Result: No Viet Nam war like that and thus no war protests and the turmoil that caused. I feel we would have turned our attention more to technology and invention, and also to humanitarian things like improving the human condition.

In other words, if the major U.S. independent automakers had survived as I outlined, I think it would have beefed up the American economy in the late 50's which might well have put Nixon in the White House in 1960, and that would have changed almost everything in the ATL. That's the kind of change we might have had if the major independents had survived.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
The Mists Of Time said:
I started this second thread because the first one had gotten way off topic. It wasn't about how to create a Big Six U.S. automakers, it was about what the effect on history would have been if that had happened as I outlined.

There are 2 sayings about altering history. "The more things change the more they stay the same." and "Change one thing and you change everything."

If I could go back and do what I had said the way I outlined it, I think it would produce one of two possibilities.

I. The alternate timeline would have only the following changes: 1. We would have six major U.S. automakers as I outlined in the other thread and they would be strong, thriving, and highly competitive. 2. Automotive design and technology would have advanced further and faster than in OTL.
3. Japan would never have gotten a foothold in the American automobile market. Japan's automobile market would be largely limited to Japan, a number of other Asian countries, and perhaps parts of the Middle East.
4. This would have also kept Japan, China, and other Asian countries from getting the kind of foothold they did in other American markets such as textiles and sophisticated electronics. 5. We would not today be losing American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets.

In terms of automotive technology:
In the mid 1970's the American automobile industry begins moving to the gas turbine engine. By 1982 the gas turbine had replaced the conventional piston engine as the industry standard.

1994: Studebaker-Packard markets the world's first production gas/electric hybrid, It is a Studebaker. Its gasoline engine is a small efficient gas turbine. note, the very first Studebaker car in 1902 was an electric car. American Motors quickly follows with a gas/electric hybrid Rambler. Within the next 5 to 8 years the gas/electric hybrid becimes the industry standard.

As in OTL, all the car companies are experimenting with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. They are finding the same difficult technological problems as in OTL. If and when the production hydrogen fuel cell vehicle becomes a reality, it will do so sooner in the ATL than in OTL, but as in OTL, that is if it ever does become a reality.

Other than that, everything in the ATL remains exactly the same. The same list of U.S. Presidents, all the same events and history both domestic and worldwide. Same overall historic timeline.

The other posibility is that just about everything changes in the ATL.

In OTL, even though the companies remained in business, between 1955 and 1958 five makes of car went out of production. Kaiser, Willys, Hudson, Nash, and Packard. Over those three years it put some 10,000 to 15,000 Americans out of work. There was a mild to moderate recession in 1958 into 59 and this may have been one factor in that.

ALT: Over those three years the so called "independents," (Studebaker-Packard, American Motors, and Kaiser-Willys) become much stronger and very competitive. They are also increasing their workforce which spurs growth in many of the industries that support the automobile industry. As a result, the 1958 recession never comes, the economy continues strong and even grows during that time. This helps Richard Nixon in 1960. Nixon wins the 1960 Presidential Election.

For more on what it would have been like if Nixon had won in 1960, go to the thread "JFK v NIXON - NIXON WINS."

As I said in that thread, had Nixon won in 1960, I think the 60's would have been a quieter decade than they were under Kennedy/Johnson. Certainly I think the second half of the 60's would have been quieter under Nixon. I don't think Nixon would have handled Viet Nam the way Johnson did. I don't think there would have been direct military intervention in Viet Nam, or if there had been I don't think Nixon would have allowed it to become the kind of long drawn out protracted war Johnson got us into over there. Result: No Viet Nam war like that and thus no war protests and the turmoil that caused. I feel we would have turned our attention more to technology and invention, and also to humanitarian things like improving the human condition.

In other words, if the major U.S. independent automakers had survived as I outlined, I think it would have beefed up the American economy in the late 50's which might well have put Nixon in the White House in 1960, and that would have changed almost everything in the ATL. That's the kind of change we might have had if the major independents had survived.

Very good, we need more industrial history here.

Some questions and an objection or two, if I may;

Why do the Japanese cars stay out? Thriving independents indicate greater tolerance to 'difference' by Americans in their cars, so this indicates to me they would be more likely to buy foreign cars, not less. True, the market penetration might be a good deal less, but it would be some.

Or maybe not, There is a crucial tipping point of sales that must be reached or a car remains a hard to service oddity. Also the increased competition might very well cause increased quality and even less demand for foreign products

Why does prosperity necessarily elect Nixon? The rich-poor division of Republican-Democrat we see today was far less pronounced, if it even existed at all, in 1960. Frex, blacks then were overwhelmingly Republican.

In OTL Chrysler was the main developer of the gas turbine. The First Oil Crisis of 1973 killed it, since the design they had was inherently less fuel efficient.

I can see how electronics might not establish such an easy foothold in our markets because of car radios, but even there I believe foreign tvs and radios were establishing themselves totally independent of car sales when they first came in. As for textiles etc I see a very peripheral relationship at best. Many people shop totally by price for many products, and don't even know what brand they are buying, let alone whether it is foreign or domestic
 

Keenir

Banned
The Mists Of Time said:
I. The alternate timeline would have only the following changes: 1. We would have six major U.S. automakers as I outlined in the other thread and they would be strong, thriving, and highly competitive.

but if the markets are adjusted enough to allow these independents to survive, that suggests that the economic stage is less competitive -- sky-high tariffs, perhaps?



The Mists Of Time said:
2. Automotive design and technology would have advanced further and faster than in OTL.

because there are independents? I don't follow that chain of logic (mostly because I can't see that chain of logic). sorry.

The Mists Of Time said:
3. Japan would never have gotten a foothold in the American automobile market.

why not?

The Mists Of Time said:
4. This would have also kept Japan, China, and other Asian countries from getting the kind of foothold they did in other American markets such as textiles and sophisticated electronics.

lack of access in one field does not preclude access in other fields.


The Mists Of Time said:
5. We would not today be losing American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets.

what does Wal-mart and clothing manufacturers have to do with cars? *curious*

*thinks*

ah, I think I get it...the sort of internal-interventionist policies that keep the independents afloat, also give massive subsidies to American manufacturers...and anyone doing business outside of the US is arrested as a Communist.


The Mists Of Time said:
Other than that, everything in the ATL remains exactly the same. The same list of U.S. Presidents, all the same events and history both domestic and worldwide. Same overall historic timeline.

unlikely.
 
I have been asked why in my ATL Japan would not have been able to get into the American automobile market. Mostly for two reasons.

In the 1970's and early 80's when the Japanese got in and began their rise in the American automobile market, they found little real competition from domestic automakers. We were effectively down to only 3 U.S. car companies who for several years had been able to sell just about all the cars they could without having to be competitive or innovative, and they had allowed quality to slip poorly.

But if there had been more U.S. automobile companies and they had been building high quality technologically innovative vehicles, it would have been a more competitive and difficult market for the Japanese to get into.

Also, trade with Japan wasn't and still really isn't a level playing field. In the early 1980's a Japanese car costing the equivilant of $18,000 in Japan cost about $20,000 in the U.S. An American car costing $18,000 in the U.S. cost the equivilant of about $30,000 in Japan.

Yes that means tarriffs and protectionist policies. But the fact is, we were stupid. If you want to know who is to blame for what happened to the American economy, American industry, and American jobs, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

We have the controversy over the country of Dubai running a number of our seaports. The question has been asked, "Why don't we run our seaports ourselves?" I recenty heard this explanation. We import lots of stuff, but by comparison we export very little. Over the years we allowed companies from the countries we imported things from run our seaports since they were shipping so much stuff in. As a result, there are no longer any American companies with the background and expertice to operate a major seaport.
Again, we have only ourselves to blame.

I just feel it would have been a different situation and a different overall attitude if the major U.S. independent automakers had survived intact.

As to the term "indipendent automakers." That is a term that has been used for decades to refer to any United States based automobile company other than General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. Any American automaker other than the so called "Big Three" was referred to as one of the "independents."

Because they often had to be innovative to get noticed, much of the innovation in the automobile industry came from the independents, and over the years there came to be a kind of expectation both by the car companies and by the car buying public, that the independents would be the real innovators in the industry, and often that was the case.

I said that if one could do what I have suggested, one possibility is that the only things that would change would be in the automobile industry and the economy, and that everything else in the historic timeline would remain the same. Others have posted here saying "I doubt it."

I would agree. I think it would change a lot of things.

About the 1960 election. Only about 120,000 votes seperated Kennedy and Nixon. I have read that the 1958 recession and how it slowed the economy some hurt Nixon some because he had been Vice-President at the time. But if there had been no 58 recession and the economy had continued to grow it might have helped Nixon enough to change the outcome of a very close election like that.

By the way, my reason for wanting to do this has nothing to do with wanting everything to change or because I don't like the way things are in our world today. Some people have suggested that if I could do what I have said, that I might not like the world or the year 2006 I came back to. Even though I would like some things to be different, I have a very different reason for wanting to do this.

I love Studebakers and Packards, and I just have never been able to accept the demise of the major U.S. independent automakers. I live in my own little automotive world where the independents survived as I outlined. That is why I want to do this.
 
The Mists Of Time said:
...We have the controversy over the country of Dubai running a number of our seaports. The question has been asked, "Why don't we run our seaports ourselves?" I recenty heard this explanation. We import lots of stuff, but by comparison we export very little. Over the years we allowed companies from the countries we imported things from run our seaports since they were shipping so much stuff in. As a result, there are no longer any American companies with the background and expertice to operate a major seaport. ...

The United Arab Emirates run some of the US' seaports?
Dubai is not a country , it's a city in the UAE , and the capital of that country is Abu-Dhabi.
Sorry for being off-topic.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Technically the owner of the company which is proposing to take control of North America's chief ports is the Emir of Dubai, one of the constituent emirates of the UAE. His company is named Dubai Ports World.

He has been on a buying streak lately; it's not so much that we can't maintain our ports ourselves, it's just that our companies are being purchased by wealthy foreigners (and foreign companies) like the Emir. He recently purchased Treasury Sec'y John Snow's own company for $1.15 billion. That's not to say that Americans are still not involved in the running of their own ports; the Emir's regional director for European and Latin American operations is an American citizen, and he was recently appointed by Bush to head the US Maritime Administration. You see, the Emir is very close to Bush and his circle.

He's also close to Osama bin Laden, who is his hunting buddy (well, falconing buddy, at any rate). But that's a different story.

The problem which TMOT raises is this: the state cannot place restrictions upon the sale and ownership of private companies without endangering the basis of a free market economy. Thus, when American companies perform well, it is likely that wealthy foreigners will invest in them, and may even acquire a majority share in them. If American companies aren't doing so well, they run the risk of being gobbled up by foreign companies. It's one of the risks of doing business on a global scale. America may have the world's biggest economy, but the wealth in America is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of people, and even so, Americans only account for 5% of the world's population.

The only way I see preventing this from happening is by steep protectionist tariffs, an abandonment of our committment to free market economics, or even the nationalization of these industries. This would have profound effects down the line, butterflying everything out of recognition.
 
Between a rock and a hard place

The global economy and things like this kind of puts us and other countries between the proverbial "rock and a hard place."

If you go too far with protectionist policies you shut yourself out of the world markets in a global economy.

If you don't protect yourself and what's yours at all or enough then others can and will take it from you.

In this kind of situation it's difficult to find a workable middle ground.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Mind you, many economists believe that protective tariffs such as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act exacerbated the conditions leading to the Great Depression, so if you impose protective tariffs at this point in time it may even make the 1958 recession worse.
 
Could we please get on topic here?

Again I feel we're getting off topic, part of that's my fault, sorry.

When I started the two threads "Why I really came here" I said I want to somehow go or reach back to the 1950's and do something that causes the major U.S. independent automakers to survive and still be with us today the way I described them in those posts.

I'm not looking for reasons why they couldn't have survived like that or ideas on how to create such a Big Six U.S. automakers.

Suppose the major indipendents had survived like that and were still with us today. Suppose the makeup of the American automobile industry was what I had described it as.

How would that have changed history from the mid-1950's, say around 1957 to today? Would it have changed who any of the Presidents were?
Would it have changed the Viet Nam war? Would it have changed Watergate? Would it have changed Iran-Contra? Would it have changed the war in Iraq or the war on terrorism? Or anything else in history from 1957 to the present in 2006?

What would America and the world be like today in light of the changes it would have cause if that had happened?

Those are the things I'm trying to find out.

If you are going to do something like go back or reach back and alter history, I think you need to get a good idea of what the results and effects of that will be on history and the historic timeline. Knowing the results and effects, you might still go or reach back and make that change, or at least try to. But at least you will have a better idea of its results and effects on history and a better idea of the America and the world in the year 2006 you return to, and that's what I'm looking for here.

Thanks for any help any of you can give me with this.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
It appears that you're responding to me, so I'll respond.

I think we've established that the only way to preserve the independent American automakers is by adopting heavy protective tariffs. I pointed out such tariffs quite possibly resulted in the Great Depression (or at the very least prolonged it), and therefore their adoption in the 1950s would probably prolong or otherwise exacerbate the 1958 recession, instead of eliminating it as you have proposed. The result would be that Nixon would most likely still be out on his ear in 1961. It may, in fact, spell an end to Dick Nixon's political career, in which case there would be no Watergate etc., but this is IMHO unlikely.

I fail to see how this speculation is off-topic, but if it doesn't fall within the spectrum of commentary that you're willing to tolerate within this thread, then I'll be happy to refrain from contributing any further.
 
It's alive!!:eek::eek:
I. The alternate timeline would have only the following changes: 1. We would have six major U.S. automakers as I outlined in the other thread and they would be strong, thriving, and highly competitive. 2. Automotive design and technology would have advanced further and faster than in OTL.
The "small 3" failed for inherent reasons of financing, dealer networks, competition. The "big 3" survived on economies of scale as much as anything. More companies means even more competition & maybe 5-6 marginal companies, not 3 strong ones (as OTL), never mind 6. If there's foreign competition--& unless you butterfly VW (for a start), there will be--you could kill them all.
3. Japan would never have gotten a foothold in the American automobile market. Japan's automobile market would be largely limited to Japan, a number of other Asian countries, and perhaps parts of the Middle East.
Why? Unless the U.S. kept out Japanese imports, the U.S. market (which was the biggest & most lucrative, absent ROC being a major capitalist country) would attract Japanese makers.
4. This would have also kept Japan, China, and other Asian countries from getting the kind of foothold they did in other American markets such as textiles and sophisticated electronics.
That's just ASB. USG actually enforcing fair trade laws might help, tho...
5. We would not today be losing American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets.
Why? U.S. corporations aren't answerable to shareholders or the stock market? They suddenly, mysteriously stop looking for profits next quarter, rather than next decade? They suddenly, mysteriously stop trying to drive down wages as if it's the Holy Grail of profitability? That's ASB, too, IMO.
In the mid 1970's the American automobile industry begins moving to the gas turbine engine. By 1982 the gas turbine had replaced the conventional piston engine as the industry standard.
That's sheer handwavium, I'm afraid. Turbines are no good as automotive engines. They don't like stop-go driving, which most auto use is; they much prefer steady, full power use, like in jets. Having 6 car companies won't change the thermodynamics. Want something different? How about Stirling or Brayton engines? Make diesels popular in U.S.? (Is that ASB?:p)
1994: Studebaker-Packard markets the world's first production gas/electric hybrid, It is a Studebaker. Its gasoline engine is a small efficient gas turbine. note, the very first Studebaker car in 1902 was an electric car. American Motors quickly follows with a gas/electric hybrid Rambler.
Actually, you could (maybe) develop something like it in the '10s-'40s, under rationing &/or with a view to use in submarines: fuel cells or diesel hybrids. If you could get somebody smart enough, or foresighted enough, you might be able to get the Stude wagon company (founded 1852) building hybrid or fuel cell "cars" in the 1870s (following Otto & the early fuel cell inventors).
ALT: Over those three years the so called "independents," (Studebaker-Packard, American Motors, and Kaiser-Willys) become much stronger and very competitive.
Facing even greater competition than OTL, I don't see how. Seeing some of the (frankly) bizarro products they produced OTL, IMO they wouldn't survive regardless. (Yeah, I think the '53 Stude Commander is a beaut, but in '53, it was too radical. As a '63...)
In other words, if the major U.S. independent automakers had survived as I outlined, I think it would have beefed up the American economy in the late 50's which might well have put Nixon in the White House in 1960, and that would have changed almost everything in the ATL. That's the kind of change we might have had if the major independents had survived.
Maybe. My question is, if these guys were so smart, howcum they couldn't survive even with the postwar seller's market? U.S. car companies could sell virtually any kind of crap they could produce into the early '50s, 'cause demand was so high, yet the "small 3" still went in the tank. Why?

BTW, survival of Stude & Willys earns sheer coolness points from me.:cool::cool: I'm just not convinced it's possible.
 
I would say they needed to produce a wider array of cars to survive. The smaller companies must find a way to produce niche cars. And if a company go for the small, fuel efficient cars, that would be interesting during the oil shock....
 
Why do you feel the need to constantly revive threads from 2006?
So, if somebody, anybody, has thoughts on old threads, we should a) not start new threads, since somebody will complain & b) not revive old ones?:confused: Which amounts to "shut the hell up about it", doesn't it?:confused:
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
So, if somebody, anybody, has thoughts on old threads, we should a) not start new threads, since somebody will complain & b) not revive old ones?:confused: Which amounts to "shut the hell up about it", doesn't it?:confused:

Of course, I already told him very explicitly, and at length, not to do this. Immediately doing the same thing after being kicked... banned.
 
Top