Thread regarding Ford layoffs

@sr all of that is already happening.

@OP It is an interesting letter. When I first read it I thought it was about DOT not liking Ford’s partnering with a member of China’s military establishment. Rereading I think it is more about Ford needing to become technologically independent. Given the history of SYNC, argo.ai, Edison Institute and Ford e, I can understand why Sean Duffy believes Ford won’t learn from CATL and there will be one or more of several outcomes that the DOT might consider failure; CATL eventually operates the plant and the relationship terminates due to national security and Ford has no batteries, the plant gradually becomes obsolete and Ford can’t upgrade it, the plant never really gets off the ground - battery production is too low, Ford can’t implement new battery chemistries it develops, CATL takes the lead and uses the Ford plant as a proving ground.

In any case Ford becomes weaker and more dependent on CATL rather than jump starting a rebirth of EV technology.

Farley doubled down on being a mo--n, saying our relationship with China will be stronger than ever, and now DJT says he has no problem with the Chinese building vehicles in the USA. Ford is going to go down in flames if we don’t get a better CEO.

The world is decoupling from free trade because it doesn’t work when executives hollow out a country’s workforce. I also believe robots/AI and rising energy prices will give the urge for countries to decouple from countries that they use for low cost labor. Unless China can drastically increase their domestic consumption inevitably they may be in big trouble. Our biggest concern is rising global temperatures that are set to ki-l off about half the population within 40yrs, if AI doesn’t do it first.

@ej Yes, repeal of PNTR would have substantial consequences. When the Chinese Civil war led to a Communist takeover in 1949, US businesses were forced to leave. Some of the consequences were the Korean War, Vietnam War, the Second Red Scare, McCarthyism, Richard Nixon, etc. Car companies failed; Studebaker, Hudson, Rambler, AMC, lacking expanding markets to pull them through the transition back to civilian production.

The letter from DOT and the breakdown of trade talks with Canada warns of a process like this happening again.

After Bill appoints Alexandria CEO and she tanks the company, a Chinese company will buy the F-150 name.

@c9 You're apparently a die-hard rethuglican. You only chose to go back to the 90's and put all the blame on a democratic POTUS. You don't bother to provide anything more recent. In summary:

Economic Impact of Rescinding PNTR:

Revoking China's permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status would have several significant economic consequences for the United States.
Inflation and GDP Decline

Higher Inflation: The revocation is expected to lead to increased prices for consumers, contributing to inflation.

GDP Impact: The U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) would likely decline, with estimates suggesting a short-term drop that the economy may not fully recover from.

Job Losses

Affected Sectors: Job losses would be most pronounced in:
    Agriculture
    Durable manufacturing
    Mining

Retaliation from China

Potential Retaliatory Measures: If the U.S. revokes PNTR, China may respond with its own tariffs, which could worsen the economic situation for the U.S. and lead to further job losses.

China or "companies" from China will own fmc inside 30 years. I believe that's the plan from the BoD down through management. That's where the money is and they see it. New buildings, management shuffles, LCC employees, quiet and slow layoffs/replacements...the plan is being executed. Must have a certain look for them to want in. He-l, maybe they've been given the requirements already.

@ba When Clinton sold permanent normalized trade relations (PNTR) for China to the public many bold promises of economic growth and prosperity were made, and really none have been realized. This is a text of one of Clinton’s speeches on PNTR, you’ll see what I mean. https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/2000/03/2000-03-08-remarks-of-the-president-on-china.html

At first PNTR seemed to produce real economic growth by producing low cost goods and investment opportunities. But, economists had underestimated the costs associated with the economic adjustment in the United States, and in the long term PNTR was a loss.

By 2017–18 it was clear the Chinese government used pressure tactics to force technology transfer and intentionally disadvantaged U.S. companies with technology licensing; used acquisitions to obtain technology; and supported cyber intrusions targeting valuable commercial information. China continued to operate a state-directed, non-market economic system that conflicted with many WTO assumptions.

When Xi’s period began in 2012 the political winds changed. Government power became centralized, the Party's role within business and society expanded, information and capital flows were more tightly controlled, and industrial policy became explicitly tied to China nationalism. Where Clinton imagined economic modernization progressively removing government from Chinese economic life, the opposite was happening.

China developed a military-civil fusion strategy intended to reduce barriers between civilian science and industry and the defense establishment. With this shift battery knowhow developed in the CATL-Ford partnership would, of course advance American military technology, but also Chinese military capabilities. In the time of Clinton’s PNTR China’ economy was growing rapidly but was militarily vastly weaker than the United States. This is no longer the case, the Pentagon now describes China as the principal long-term military "pacing challenge" and tensions over Taiwan, the South China Sea and regional coercion have increased.

COVID brought the supply chain problems into focus. The efficient global supply chains developed under rapid globalization were very brittle. Supply chains for masks, medical supplies, and semiconductors made "supply chains resilience" politically a politically tangible problem. The efficient yet brittle supply chains were easily destabilized, posing the risk of strategic supply chain disruption.

When Trump hit China with shock tariffs, the resulting trade battle revealed several areas the US is vulnerable to Chinese strategic supply chain disruption.

• rare-earth processing
• battery materials
• pharmaceuticals and precursors
• semiconductors and electronics
• telecommunications equipment
• industrial machinery
• drones
• magnets
• solar

So, that brings us to the possible end of the Ford-CATL relationship, closing the plan in Marshal, Michigan and Louisville, Kentucky. Just another nail in the coffin of PNTR.

Ford going all in on China from Canada. Its coming.

@OP

The performative "pearl clutching" by Ford was rich. Of course Ford cannot stand on its own. Of course you have to do "something" with that excessive idle plant capacity that workers once occupied. Of course you have to use CAITL batteries because...well they reverse engineered the tech from the US. Now it's our turn right? Or...maybe not and just let it be Chinese tech that saves you. Playing politics? C'mon Ford. Your pearl clutching at the accusation couldn't have been more cringe.

Ford has been selling American workers out for some time designers, engineers, manufacturing...

H1B's, production/design/manufacturing in other countries.

Are people just waking up?