Look at Detroit.

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Baltimore won't become Detroit because its port industry will always exist. What's more, lots of white democrats are pricing the blacks out of town and the city is going through a renaissance. They call it gentrification. When non-white democrats do that it's called racism.

so it will end up like Nework

a shitty little town with shitty little jobs that no one wants to visit.

No, more like DC. A thriving, mostly white cosmopolitan city with all of the latest and best retailers including several Whole Foods and gourmet coffee shops.

negro crime rates in dc are ridiculous...you can take chimps out of the jungle but you can't take...etc...etc...

No, DC is changing. Th blacks still commit a disproportionate number of crimes but their numbers are dwindling as the white lefty gentrifiers take over the city.

 

[Rotagilla]

Baltimore won't become Detroit because its port industry will always exist. What's more, lots of white democrats are pricing the blacks out of town and the city is going through a renaissance. They call it gentrification. When non-white democrats do that it's called racism.

so it will end up like Nework

a shitty little town with shitty little jobs that no one wants to visit.

No, more like DC. A thriving, mostly white cosmopolitan city with all of the latest and best retailers including several Whole Foods and gourmet coffee shops.

negro crime rates in dc are ridiculous...you can take chimps out of the jungle but you can't take...etc...etc...

No, DC is changing. Th blacks still commit a disproportionate number of crimes but their numbers are dwindling as the white lefty gentrifiers take over the city.

I just looked at crime rates for D.C. compared with the national average..D.C. "wins"...by far.
In some crime categories, D.C. DOUBLES the national average....and we KNOW who is committing the vast majority of crime..Might as well live in zimbabwe or nigeria

 

[Marxist]

Detroit was destroyed by capitalists, mainly.

No.

It was built up by capitalist and destroyed by leftist.

any honest person can see that.

Capitalism as a system ought to be judged by its failures as well as its successes.

The automobile-driven economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s made Detroit a globally recognized symbol of successful capitalist renewal after the great depression and the war (1929-1945). High-wage auto industry jobs with real security and exemplary benefits were said to prove capitalism's ability to generate and sustain a large "middle class", one that could include African Americans, too. Auto-industry jobs became inspirations and models for what workers across America might seek and acquire – those middle-class components of a modern "American Dream".

True, quality jobs in Detroit were forced from the automobile capitalists by long and hard union struggles, especially across the 1930s. Once defeated in those struggles, auto capitalists quickly arranged to rewrite the history so that good wages and working conditions became something they "gave" to their workers. In any case, Detroit became a vibrant, world-class city in the 1950s and 1960s; its distinctive culture and sound shaped the world's music much as its cars shaped the world's industries.

Over the past 40 years, capitalism turned that success into the abject failure culminating now in the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history.

What kind of a society gives a relatively tiny number of people the position and power to make corporate decisions impacting millions in and around Detroit while it excludes those millions from participating in those decisions?

The key decision-makers – major shareholders inGeneral Motors, Ford, Chrysler, etc, and the boards of directors they selected – made many disastrous decisions. They failed in competition with European and Japanese automobile capitalists and so lost market share to them. They responded too slowly and inadequately to the need to develop new fuel-saving technologies. And, perhaps most tellingly, they responded to their own failures by deciding to move production out of Detroit so they could pay other workers lower wages.

The automobile companies' competitive failures, and then their moves, had two key economic consequences. First, they effectively undermined the economic foundation of Detroit's economy. Second, they thereby dealt a major blow to any chances for an enduring US middle class. The past 40 years have displayed those consequences and the capitalist system's inability or unwillingness to stop, let alone reverse, them.

Real wages in the US stopped growing in the 1970s, and have not grown since, even as workers' rising productivity generated even more profits for employers. Rising consumer debt and overwork postponed for a few years the impacts of stagnant real wages on consumption. But by 2007, with wages stagnant and further consumer borrowing capacity exhausted, a long and deep crisis arrived. Employers used the resulting unemployment to attack job security and benefits and the public sector built up in the 1950s and 1960s to support the middle class (for example, by low-cost public higher education).

Auto industry capitalists took the lead and Detroit exemplified the economic decline that resulted. In the deep crisis since 2007, General Motors and Chrysler got federal bailouts, but Detroit did not. The auto companies got wage reductions (via the tiered wage system) that assured Detroit's wage-based economy could not recover, even as auto company production and profits did. The failures of private capitalism thus drew in the complicity of the federal government.

Despite what the heroic sit-down strikes and other actions of the United Auto Workers had earlier won for their members, the auto companies' decision-making powers remained in the hands of major shareholders and their boards of directors. They used that power to evade, weaken and eventually undo what union struggles had won. The unions proved incapable of stopping that process. Detroit's capitalists thus undermined the middle-class conditions workers had extracted from them – and thus destroyed the "capitalist success" city built on those conditions.

Detroit's decline, like the parallel decline of the United Auto Workers, teaches an inescapable lesson. The very contracts that militant unions win with employers give those employers great incentives to find ways around those contracts. They usually do.

The top-down structure of capitalist enterprises provides major shareholders and boards of directors with the resources (corporate profits) to cut or remove the good conditions unions can sometimes win. That's how this system works. Detroit has "been there and done that". The solution is not more contracts.

If the autoworkers had transformed the auto companies into worker co-operatives, Detroit would have evolved very differently. Worker co-operatives would not have moved production, thereby undermining their jobs, families and communities, including especially Detroit. Workers would not have destroyed themselves and their communities that way. Moving production, a distinctly capitalist strategy, was key to Detroit's population dropping from 1.8m in 1950 to 700,000 today.

Workers co-operatives would also have searched and likely found alternatives to moving that might have saved Detroit. Workers co-operatives, for example, would likely have paid less in dividends to owners and salaries to managers than was typical at Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. Those savings, if passed on in lower automobile prices, would have enabled better completion with European and Japanese car makers than Detroit's Big Threemanaged.

We cannot know how much more Detroit's auto industry might have benefited from technical progress had it been organized as a workers' co-operative. We can guess that workers have greater incentives to improve technology in co-operatives they own and operate than as employees in capitalist enterprises. Finally, worker co-operatives would likely have switched to producing (and helped to promote) mass-transit vehicles or other alternatives to the automobile to retain jobs and well-being once they saw that continued automobile production could not secure those priorities for worker co-operatives.

What kind of a society gives a relatively tiny number of people the position and power to make corporate decisions impacting millions in and around Detroit while it excludes those millions from participating in those decisions?

When those capitalists' decisions condemn Detroit to 40 years of disastrous decline, what kind of society relieves those capitalists of any responsibility to help rebuild that city?

The simple answer to these questions: no genuinely democratic economy could or would work that way.

Detroit s Decline Is a Distinctively Capitalist Failure Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

proving me right?

Thanks!

or did you not know that Progressive is another word for lying fucking leftist?

I didn't prove you right, facts scare you.

you linked a leftist site that gave their leftist opinion and no facts.

leftist hate the free market, you have made that clear, therefore leftist destroyed the free market in Detroit and therefore YOU destroyed Detroit and want to do that to America.

That is the FACT

What isn't factual honey?

 

[Marxist]

Detroit s Decline Is a Distinctively Capitalist Failure Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Nonsense. Detroit was "lost," as it were, because the auto companies could not keep up with the cheap cars that Toyota and other foreign auto makers produced. It was a decade's long series of federal regulations, recession, high wages, and pension plans combined with longer age span that did them in. They were forced to make SUV's because of the cost of production in the US. In 2004 the EPA tightened emissions on SUV's, and essentially drove them over the fiscal cliff by forcing them to make more non-profitable smaller cars than they could stay afloat with. Following a massive loss in 2005 the stock market saw the writing on the wall for them and declared them a dead end investment - aka their stocks plummeted, their ability to get float loans required to stay open evaporated. In 2006 I believe it was they did a huge bail out through their employees and thanks to massive employee participation were able to stay afloat, but the recession in 2008 was the last straw for them. A combined a market drive for cheaper cars they couldn't make a profit on and sharp decline in SUV sales due to high gas prices (again one could attribute to the Federal Government's refusal to open US oil fields.)

Also, for the record, Ford wasn't failing financially; they only took the bailout because they didn't want to be in an unfair disadvantage against Federal government funded auto-makers.


Really if anything is to blame for Detroit's failing's it would be the higher standard of living and the overall "general welfare" arguments for invasive regulations in the USA: aka cheap labor is quite simply unavailable, Federal government regulations on oil production and retrieval as well as the clean air movement of the "global warming" scare, and the original attempt by these companies to treat their employees right (aka pension plans, expensive health care benefit programs, etc. that were designed for a different day and age and could not be sustained)

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Baltimore won't become Detroit because its port industry will always exist. What's more, lots of white democrats are pricing the blacks out of town and the city is going through a renaissance. They call it gentrification. When non-white democrats do that it's called racism.

so it will end up like Nework

a shitty little town with shitty little jobs that no one wants to visit.

No, more like DC. A thriving, mostly white cosmopolitan city with all of the latest and best retailers including several Whole Foods and gourmet coffee shops.

negro crime rates in dc are ridiculous...you can take chimps out of the jungle but you can't take...etc...etc...

No, DC is changing. Th blacks still commit a disproportionate number of crimes but their numbers are dwindling as the white lefty gentrifiers take over the city.

I just looked at crime rates for D.C. compared with the national average..D.C. "wins"...by far.
In some crime categories, D.C. DOUBLES the national average....and we KNOW who is committing the vast majority of crime..Might as well live in zimbabwe or nigeria

You need to update your info. I live here. I see many neighborhoods cleaned up and dominated by young white people. Don't expect any change in Anacostia or Southern Av or Benning Rd. But Mount Pleasant and many other parts of NE are gentrified. Capitol Hill used to be like falling off the edge of the earth once you passed 11th St but it is cleared out all the way up to RFK Stadium now.

 

[Rotagilla]

Detroit s Decline Is a Distinctively Capitalist Failure Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Nonsense. Detroit was "lost," as it were, because the auto companies could not keep up with the cheap cars that Toyota and other foreign auto makers produced. It was a decade's long series of federal regulations, recession, high wages, and pension plans combined with longer age span that did them in. They were forced to make SUV's because of the cost of production in the US. In 2004 the EPA tightened emissions on SUV's, and essentially drove them over the fiscal cliff by forcing them to make more non-profitable smaller cars than they could stay afloat with. Following a massive loss in 2005 the stock market saw the writing on the wall for them and declared them a dead end investment - aka their stocks plummeted, their ability to get float loans required to stay open evaporated. In 2006 I believe it was they did a huge bail out through their employees and thanks to massive employee participation were able to stay afloat, but the recession in 2008 was the last straw for them. A combined a market drive for cheaper cars they couldn't make a profit on and sharp decline in SUV sales due to high gas prices (again one could attribute to the Federal Government's refusal to open US oil fields.)

Also, for the record, Ford wasn't failing financially; they only took the bailout because they didn't want to be in an unfair disadvantage against Federal government funded auto-makers.


Really if anything is to blame for Detroit's failing's it would be the higher standard of living and the overall "general welfare" arguments for invasive regulations in the USA: aka cheap labor is quite simply unavailable, Federal government regulations on oil production and retrieval as well as the clean air movement of the "global warming" scare, and the original attempt by these companies to treat their employees right (aka pension plans, expensive health care benefit programs, etc. that were designed for a different day and age and could not be sustained)

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article

so it will end up like Nework

a shitty little town with shitty little jobs that no one wants to visit.

No, more like DC. A thriving, mostly white cosmopolitan city with all of the latest and best retailers including several Whole Foods and gourmet coffee shops.

negro crime rates in dc are ridiculous...you can take chimps out of the jungle but you can't take...etc...etc...

No, DC is changing. Th blacks still commit a disproportionate number of crimes but their numbers are dwindling as the white lefty gentrifiers take over the city.

I just looked at crime rates for D.C. compared with the national average..D.C. "wins"...by far.
In some crime categories, D.C. DOUBLES the national average....and we KNOW who is committing the vast majority of crime..Might as well live in zimbabwe or nigeria

You need to update your info. I live here. I see many neighborhoods cleaned up and dominated by young white people. Don't expect any change in Anacostia or Southern Av or Benning Rd. But Mount Pleasant and many other parts of NE are gentrified. Capitol Hill used to be like falling off the edge of the earth once you passed 11th St but it is cleared out all the way up to RFK Stadium now.

My info?..anyone can do a search for crime demographics. The fact is that d.c.crime rates exceed the national average.

All due respect but just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Detroit s Decline Is a Distinctively Capitalist Failure Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Nonsense. Detroit was "lost," as it were, because the auto companies could not keep up with the cheap cars that Toyota and other foreign auto makers produced. It was a decade's long series of federal regulations, recession, high wages, and pension plans combined with longer age span that did them in. They were forced to make SUV's because of the cost of production in the US. In 2004 the EPA tightened emissions on SUV's, and essentially drove them over the fiscal cliff by forcing them to make more non-profitable smaller cars than they could stay afloat with. Following a massive loss in 2005 the stock market saw the writing on the wall for them and declared them a dead end investment - aka their stocks plummeted, their ability to get float loans required to stay open evaporated. In 2006 I believe it was they did a huge bail out through their employees and thanks to massive employee participation were able to stay afloat, but the recession in 2008 was the last straw for them. A combined a market drive for cheaper cars they couldn't make a profit on and sharp decline in SUV sales due to high gas prices (again one could attribute to the Federal Government's refusal to open US oil fields.)

Also, for the record, Ford wasn't failing financially; they only took the bailout because they didn't want to be in an unfair disadvantage against Federal government funded auto-makers.


Really if anything is to blame for Detroit's failing's it would be the higher standard of living and the overall "general welfare" arguments for invasive regulations in the USA: aka cheap labor is quite simply unavailable, Federal government regulations on oil production and retrieval as well as the clean air movement of the "global warming" scare, and the original attempt by these companies to treat their employees right (aka pension plans, expensive health care benefit programs, etc. that were designed for a different day and age and could not be sustained)

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article

No, more like DC. A thriving, mostly white cosmopolitan city with all of the latest and best retailers including several Whole Foods and gourmet coffee shops.

negro crime rates in dc are ridiculous...you can take chimps out of the jungle but you can't take...etc...etc...

No, DC is changing. Th blacks still commit a disproportionate number of crimes but their numbers are dwindling as the white lefty gentrifiers take over the city.

I just looked at crime rates for D.C. compared with the national average..D.C. "wins"...by far.
In some crime categories, D.C. DOUBLES the national average....and we KNOW who is committing the vast majority of crime..Might as well live in zimbabwe or nigeria

You need to update your info. I live here. I see many neighborhoods cleaned up and dominated by young white people. Don't expect any change in Anacostia or Southern Av or Benning Rd. But Mount Pleasant and many other parts of NE are gentrified. Capitol Hill used to be like falling off the edge of the earth once you passed 11th St but it is cleared out all the way up to RFK Stadium now.

My info?..anyone can do a search for crime demographics. The fact is that d.c.crime rates exceed the national average.

All due respect but just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

How Washington D.C. Got Off The Most Dangerous Cities List - Forbes

 

[Rotagilla]

Detroit s Decline Is a Distinctively Capitalist Failure Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Nonsense. Detroit was "lost," as it were, because the auto companies could not keep up with the cheap cars that Toyota and other foreign auto makers produced. It was a decade's long series of federal regulations, recession, high wages, and pension plans combined with longer age span that did them in. They were forced to make SUV's because of the cost of production in the US. In 2004 the EPA tightened emissions on SUV's, and essentially drove them over the fiscal cliff by forcing them to make more non-profitable smaller cars than they could stay afloat with. Following a massive loss in 2005 the stock market saw the writing on the wall for them and declared them a dead end investment - aka their stocks plummeted, their ability to get float loans required to stay open evaporated. In 2006 I believe it was they did a huge bail out through their employees and thanks to massive employee participation were able to stay afloat, but the recession in 2008 was the last straw for them. A combined a market drive for cheaper cars they couldn't make a profit on and sharp decline in SUV sales due to high gas prices (again one could attribute to the Federal Government's refusal to open US oil fields.)

Also, for the record, Ford wasn't failing financially; they only took the bailout because they didn't want to be in an unfair disadvantage against Federal government funded auto-makers.


Really if anything is to blame for Detroit's failing's it would be the higher standard of living and the overall "general welfare" arguments for invasive regulations in the USA: aka cheap labor is quite simply unavailable, Federal government regulations on oil production and retrieval as well as the clean air movement of the "global warming" scare, and the original attempt by these companies to treat their employees right (aka pension plans, expensive health care benefit programs, etc. that were designed for a different day and age and could not be sustained)

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article

negro crime rates in dc are ridiculous...you can take chimps out of the jungle but you can't take...etc...etc...

No, DC is changing. Th blacks still commit a disproportionate number of crimes but their numbers are dwindling as the white lefty gentrifiers take over the city.

I just looked at crime rates for D.C. compared with the national average..D.C. "wins"...by far.
In some crime categories, D.C. DOUBLES the national average....and we KNOW who is committing the vast majority of crime..Might as well live in zimbabwe or nigeria

You need to update your info. I live here. I see many neighborhoods cleaned up and dominated by young white people. Don't expect any change in Anacostia or Southern Av or Benning Rd. But Mount Pleasant and many other parts of NE are gentrified. Capitol Hill used to be like falling off the edge of the earth once you passed 11th St but it is cleared out all the way up to RFK Stadium now.

My info?..anyone can do a search for crime demographics. The fact is that d.c.crime rates exceed the national average.

All due respect but just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

How Washington D.C. Got Off The Most Dangerous Cities List - Forbes

Hey..that's great!
but the fact remains...dc has a higher crime rate than the national average.

 

[EverCurious]

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article

How ironic, I read your article and it's full of "spin" for sure...
I've already briefly touched on why the auto companies needed a bailout - aka the /only/ actual capitalism aspect of the argument.

However, even if you wish to argue that the automakers pulling out of Detroit itself is "the cause" of Detroit's decline then you're looking back some 65 years because auto makers have been pulling out of Detroit since the 1950's - and a big part of that reason was merely physical space limitations. Detroit failed itself.

Some for articles for you to consider as well:
Motor City The Story of Detroit The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Who Killed Detroit
U.S. Automakers Thrive as Detroit Goes Bankrupt - Bloomberg Business
Why did Detroit go bankrupt - National Globalnews.ca

 

[Marxist]

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article View attachment 40515

How ironic, I read your article and it's full of "spin" for sure...
I've already briefly touched on why the auto companies needed a bailout - aka the /only/ actual capitalism aspect of the argument.

However, even if you wish to argue that the automakers pulling out of Detroit itself is "the cause" of Detroit's decline then you're looking back some 65 years because auto makers have been pulling out of Detroit since the 1950's - and a big part of that reason was merely physical space limitations. Detroit failed itself.

Some for articles for you to consider as well:
Motor City The Story of Detroit The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Who Killed Detroit
U.S. Automakers Thrive as Detroit Goes Bankrupt - Bloomberg Business
Why did Detroit go bankrupt - National Globalnews.ca

The point of the article is that the companies could have stayed, made a profit, and let the workers have a greater say in what happened.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

That is Baltimore's future.

Look at the riots. I've never seen so many in my lifetime. Not since the 60's and 70's have things been like this.
What's different? The progressives are in charge, ....

So the riots in the 1960s happened when the conservatives were in charge?

Love your loopy logic, Lucy.

 

[EverCurious]

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article View attachment 40515

How ironic, I read your article and it's full of "spin" for sure...
I've already briefly touched on why the auto companies needed a bailout - aka the /only/ actual capitalism aspect of the argument.

However, even if you wish to argue that the automakers pulling out of Detroit itself is "the cause" of Detroit's decline then you're looking back some 65 years because auto makers have been pulling out of Detroit since the 1950's - and a big part of that reason was merely physical space limitations. Detroit failed itself.

Some for articles for you to consider as well:
Motor City The Story of Detroit The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Who Killed Detroit
U.S. Automakers Thrive as Detroit Goes Bankrupt - Bloomberg Business
Why did Detroit go bankrupt - National Globalnews.ca

The point of the article is that the companies could have stayed, made a profit, and let the workers have a greater say in what happened.

And the point of the articles I posted is that big auto started leaving Detroit in the 50's because there wasn't enough land for them to build new factories.

If you argue that the city of Detroit was reliant solely upon those factories that produced automobiles and those factories started leaving Detroit in the 50s', then Detroit has had 65 years to come up with a new plan for their economic future - they failed to do so, that is not the fault of the auto companies, nor capitalism.

 

[Marxist]

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article View attachment 40515

How ironic, I read your article and it's full of "spin" for sure...
I've already briefly touched on why the auto companies needed a bailout - aka the /only/ actual capitalism aspect of the argument.

However, even if you wish to argue that the automakers pulling out of Detroit itself is "the cause" of Detroit's decline then you're looking back some 65 years because auto makers have been pulling out of Detroit since the 1950's - and a big part of that reason was merely physical space limitations. Detroit failed itself.

Some for articles for you to consider as well:
Motor City The Story of Detroit The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Who Killed Detroit
U.S. Automakers Thrive as Detroit Goes Bankrupt - Bloomberg Business
Why did Detroit go bankrupt - National Globalnews.ca

The point of the article is that the companies could have stayed, made a profit, and let the workers have a greater say in what happened.

And the point of the articles I posted is that big auto started leaving Detroit in the 50's because there wasn't enough land for them to build new factories.

If you argue that the city of Detroit was reliant solely upon those factories that produced automobiles and those factories started leaving Detroit in the 50s', then Detroit has had 65 years to come up with a new plan for their economic future - they failed to do so, that is not the fault of the auto companies, nor capitalism.

They were heavily reliant on the factories.

 

[EverCurious]

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article View attachment 40515

How ironic, I read your article and it's full of "spin" for sure...
I've already briefly touched on why the auto companies needed a bailout - aka the /only/ actual capitalism aspect of the argument.

However, even if you wish to argue that the automakers pulling out of Detroit itself is "the cause" of Detroit's decline then you're looking back some 65 years because auto makers have been pulling out of Detroit since the 1950's - and a big part of that reason was merely physical space limitations. Detroit failed itself.

Some for articles for you to consider as well:
Motor City The Story of Detroit The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Who Killed Detroit
U.S. Automakers Thrive as Detroit Goes Bankrupt - Bloomberg Business
Why did Detroit go bankrupt - National Globalnews.ca

The point of the article is that the companies could have stayed, made a profit, and let the workers have a greater say in what happened.

And the point of the articles I posted is that big auto started leaving Detroit in the 50's because there wasn't enough land for them to build new factories.

If you argue that the city of Detroit was reliant solely upon those factories that produced automobiles and those factories started leaving Detroit in the 50s', then Detroit has had 65 years to come up with a new plan for their economic future - they failed to do so, that is not the fault of the auto companies, nor capitalism.

They were heavily reliant on the factories.

Feel free to blame mother earth for not giving Detroit more room for big factories.

 

[Marxist]

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article View attachment 40515

How ironic, I read your article and it's full of "spin" for sure...
I've already briefly touched on why the auto companies needed a bailout - aka the /only/ actual capitalism aspect of the argument.

However, even if you wish to argue that the automakers pulling out of Detroit itself is "the cause" of Detroit's decline then you're looking back some 65 years because auto makers have been pulling out of Detroit since the 1950's - and a big part of that reason was merely physical space limitations. Detroit failed itself.

Some for articles for you to consider as well:
Motor City The Story of Detroit The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Who Killed Detroit
U.S. Automakers Thrive as Detroit Goes Bankrupt - Bloomberg Business
Why did Detroit go bankrupt - National Globalnews.ca

The point of the article is that the companies could have stayed, made a profit, and let the workers have a greater say in what happened.

And the point of the articles I posted is that big auto started leaving Detroit in the 50's because there wasn't enough land for them to build new factories.

If you argue that the city of Detroit was reliant solely upon those factories that produced automobiles and those factories started leaving Detroit in the 50s', then Detroit has had 65 years to come up with a new plan for their economic future - they failed to do so, that is not the fault of the auto companies, nor capitalism.

They were heavily reliant on the factories.

Feel free to blame mother earth for not giving Detroit more room for big factories.

You know that's not what the real issue is

 

[Rotagilla]

Spin it however you want, but you should read the article View attachment 40515

How ironic, I read your article and it's full of "spin" for sure...
I've already briefly touched on why the auto companies needed a bailout - aka the /only/ actual capitalism aspect of the argument.

However, even if you wish to argue that the automakers pulling out of Detroit itself is "the cause" of Detroit's decline then you're looking back some 65 years because auto makers have been pulling out of Detroit since the 1950's - and a big part of that reason was merely physical space limitations. Detroit failed itself.

Some for articles for you to consider as well:
Motor City The Story of Detroit The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Who Killed Detroit
U.S. Automakers Thrive as Detroit Goes Bankrupt - Bloomberg Business
Why did Detroit go bankrupt - National Globalnews.ca

The point of the article is that the companies could have stayed, made a profit, and let the workers have a greater say in what happened.

And the point of the articles I posted is that big auto started leaving Detroit in the 50's because there wasn't enough land for them to build new factories.

If you argue that the city of Detroit was reliant solely upon those factories that produced automobiles and those factories started leaving Detroit in the 50s', then Detroit has had 65 years to come up with a new plan for their economic future - they failed to do so, that is not the fault of the auto companies, nor capitalism.

They were heavily reliant on the factories.

So?
in the real world whoever can build a better product at a better price will thrive...

 

[Shotgun_Sammy]

Baltimore won't become Detroit because its port industry will always exist. What's more, lots of white democrats are pricing the blacks out of town and the city is going through a renaissance. They call it gentrification. When non-white democrats do that it's called racism.

so it will end up like Nework

a shitty little town with shitty little jobs that no one wants to visit.

No, more like DC. A thriving, mostly white cosmopolitan city with all of the latest and best retailers including several Whole Foods and gourmet coffee shops.

I live in Anne Arundel county md, in Arnold,about 25 minutes south of Baltimore and I grew up in glen burnie, about 15 minutes south of b-more. Baltimore is a terd-hole and pretty much always has been. Over the last 10-15 years a lot of the poor folks have migrated out of the city proper into glen burnie, ferndale, linthicum, arbutus and many more small surrounding towns due to cost of living , low rent, better jobs etc etc

The downtown area and little Italy, along Broadway ( anyone who lives in b-more knows what I'm talking about) experienced a renaissance. The rest of the city is trashed. The once white areas of the city, Dundalk, Lansdowne, Essex, Brooklyn have been over run with city refugees who got out of east b-more and now it's pretty much the whole city. Federal hill is a shining example of the middle class Baltimore.

The ones left are not going anywhere and I doubt any Marylanders are wanting to move back into the city

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Baltimore won't become Detroit because its port industry will always exist. What's more, lots of white democrats are pricing the blacks out of town and the city is going through a renaissance. They call it gentrification. When non-white democrats do that it's called racism.

so it will end up like Nework

a shitty little town with shitty little jobs that no one wants to visit.

No, more like DC. A thriving, mostly white cosmopolitan city with all of the latest and best retailers including several Whole Foods and gourmet coffee shops.

I live in Anne Arundel county md, in Arnold,about 25 minutes south of Baltimore and I grew up in glen burnie, about 15 minutes south of b-more. Baltimore is a terd-hole and pretty much always has been. Over the last 10-15 years a lot of the poor folks have migrated out of the city proper into glen burnie, ferndale, linthicum, arbutus and many more small surrounding towns due to cost of living , low rent, better jobs etc etc

The downtown area and little Italy, along Broadway ( anyone who lives in b-more knows what I'm talking about) experienced a renaissance. The rest of the city is trashed. The once white areas of the city, Dundalk, Lansdowne, Essex, Brooklyn have been over run with city refugees who got out of east b-more and now it's pretty much the whole city. Federal hill is a shining example of the middle class Baltimore.

The ones left are not going anywhere and I doubt any Marylanders are wanting to move back into the city

Hampden is gentrifying, too. Don't go to Reisterstown. It's a dump now, too. I was stuck at a McDonalds drive thru when a gun was pulled inside the store and a riot ensued.
I live in PG. Only Baltimore city has higher crime.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I bet Hitler could rebuild Detroit...He rebuilt Germany into the most powerful country on gods earth in half a decade! All because of infrastructure, science, r&d and education!!! Best rockets, computers, planes, tanks, etc.

 

[Two Thumbs]

No.

It was built up by capitalist and destroyed by leftist.

any honest person can see that.

Capitalism as a system ought to be judged by its failures as well as its successes.

The automobile-driven economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s made Detroit a globally recognized symbol of successful capitalist renewal after the great depression and the war (1929-1945). High-wage auto industry jobs with real security and exemplary benefits were said to prove capitalism's ability to generate and sustain a large "middle class", one that could include African Americans, too. Auto-industry jobs became inspirations and models for what workers across America might seek and acquire – those middle-class components of a modern "American Dream".

True, quality jobs in Detroit were forced from the automobile capitalists by long and hard union struggles, especially across the 1930s. Once defeated in those struggles, auto capitalists quickly arranged to rewrite the history so that good wages and working conditions became something they "gave" to their workers. In any case, Detroit became a vibrant, world-class city in the 1950s and 1960s; its distinctive culture and sound shaped the world's music much as its cars shaped the world's industries.

Over the past 40 years, capitalism turned that success into the abject failure culminating now in the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history.

What kind of a society gives a relatively tiny number of people the position and power to make corporate decisions impacting millions in and around Detroit while it excludes those millions from participating in those decisions?

The key decision-makers – major shareholders inGeneral Motors, Ford, Chrysler, etc, and the boards of directors they selected – made many disastrous decisions. They failed in competition with European and Japanese automobile capitalists and so lost market share to them. They responded too slowly and inadequately to the need to develop new fuel-saving technologies. And, perhaps most tellingly, they responded to their own failures by deciding to move production out of Detroit so they could pay other workers lower wages.

The automobile companies' competitive failures, and then their moves, had two key economic consequences. First, they effectively undermined the economic foundation of Detroit's economy. Second, they thereby dealt a major blow to any chances for an enduring US middle class. The past 40 years have displayed those consequences and the capitalist system's inability or unwillingness to stop, let alone reverse, them.

Real wages in the US stopped growing in the 1970s, and have not grown since, even as workers' rising productivity generated even more profits for employers. Rising consumer debt and overwork postponed for a few years the impacts of stagnant real wages on consumption. But by 2007, with wages stagnant and further consumer borrowing capacity exhausted, a long and deep crisis arrived. Employers used the resulting unemployment to attack job security and benefits and the public sector built up in the 1950s and 1960s to support the middle class (for example, by low-cost public higher education).

Auto industry capitalists took the lead and Detroit exemplified the economic decline that resulted. In the deep crisis since 2007, General Motors and Chrysler got federal bailouts, but Detroit did not. The auto companies got wage reductions (via the tiered wage system) that assured Detroit's wage-based economy could not recover, even as auto company production and profits did. The failures of private capitalism thus drew in the complicity of the federal government.

Despite what the heroic sit-down strikes and other actions of the United Auto Workers had earlier won for their members, the auto companies' decision-making powers remained in the hands of major shareholders and their boards of directors. They used that power to evade, weaken and eventually undo what union struggles had won. The unions proved incapable of stopping that process. Detroit's capitalists thus undermined the middle-class conditions workers had extracted from them – and thus destroyed the "capitalist success" city built on those conditions.

Detroit's decline, like the parallel decline of the United Auto Workers, teaches an inescapable lesson. The very contracts that militant unions win with employers give those employers great incentives to find ways around those contracts. They usually do.

The top-down structure of capitalist enterprises provides major shareholders and boards of directors with the resources (corporate profits) to cut or remove the good conditions unions can sometimes win. That's how this system works. Detroit has "been there and done that". The solution is not more contracts.

If the autoworkers had transformed the auto companies into worker co-operatives, Detroit would have evolved very differently. Worker co-operatives would not have moved production, thereby undermining their jobs, families and communities, including especially Detroit. Workers would not have destroyed themselves and their communities that way. Moving production, a distinctly capitalist strategy, was key to Detroit's population dropping from 1.8m in 1950 to 700,000 today.

Workers co-operatives would also have searched and likely found alternatives to moving that might have saved Detroit. Workers co-operatives, for example, would likely have paid less in dividends to owners and salaries to managers than was typical at Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. Those savings, if passed on in lower automobile prices, would have enabled better completion with European and Japanese car makers than Detroit's Big Threemanaged.

We cannot know how much more Detroit's auto industry might have benefited from technical progress had it been organized as a workers' co-operative. We can guess that workers have greater incentives to improve technology in co-operatives they own and operate than as employees in capitalist enterprises. Finally, worker co-operatives would likely have switched to producing (and helped to promote) mass-transit vehicles or other alternatives to the automobile to retain jobs and well-being once they saw that continued automobile production could not secure those priorities for worker co-operatives.

What kind of a society gives a relatively tiny number of people the position and power to make corporate decisions impacting millions in and around Detroit while it excludes those millions from participating in those decisions?

When those capitalists' decisions condemn Detroit to 40 years of disastrous decline, what kind of society relieves those capitalists of any responsibility to help rebuild that city?

The simple answer to these questions: no genuinely democratic economy could or would work that way.

Detroit s Decline Is a Distinctively Capitalist Failure Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

proving me right?

Thanks!

or did you not know that Progressive is another word for lying fucking leftist?

I didn't prove you right, facts scare you.

you linked a leftist site that gave their leftist opinion and no facts.

leftist hate the free market, you have made that clear, therefore leftist destroyed the free market in Detroit and therefore YOU destroyed Detroit and want to do that to America.

That is the FACT

What isn't factual honey?

The blame that it's capitalism fault you ignorant fool