Only if the goalpost is moved from cars to "all automobiles" a la the AC below. But I didn't say automobiles, I said cars.

Fair enough, although it is only about 1/4 higher in 2014 for cars.

2014 Production

Although if you would add in light trucks in the US, which often are bought instead of a car as a primary vehicle, the stats would change.

Considering my response to you was my first post I'm not sure what argument you are referring to that I made. All I did was point out the EP only freed slaves in territories in rebellion, I made no comment o weather or not they were citizens until you responded to me. I think we agree that they were citizens absent any laws to the contary, and I know of none that made them non-citizens.

I think we are in agreement on that point

I took your statement:

to mean the EP freed the slaves. If that was not what you meant then I misinterpreted your post.

Actually, Dred Scott said they did not become free by entering into a free state; thus the Constitution's Privileges and Immunities cause did not extend to the privilege of freedom to a slave form a slave state. In fact, Fugitive Slave clause prevented them from escaping and moving to a free state, so the right to move to another state was specifically denied them as a slaves and thus they didn't have all rights and privileges of a free citizen; until they were freed by Amendments.

Interestingly enough, despite all the "state's rights " arguments made as reasons for the South's secession, the slave states were all for the federal government forcing states to return slaves despite the free state's desire not to, to the point of passing The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

Good question; although i was responding to the statement that the EP freed the slaves, which people commonly think applied to all slaves when it didn't. Slaves in territories not under rebellion were still slaves. To your question, I would argue slaves became citizens upon the founding of America, as did all other people resident then or by virtue of birth afterward. I would also argue those brought here as slaves post founding became citizens, since there was no law giving them any other status, as any other immigrant where the law did not prevent them form becoming citizens. They did not have full rights as citizens, however, until the passage of the 13th and other Amendments, as decisions such as Dred Scott established.

Actually, Germany produces about half as many cars as the US. Even the German cars may not be made in Germany, BMW or example only makes half its cars there and Spartanburg SC is poised to overtake Dingolfing as the highest volume plant. If you buy an X3, X4 or X6, even in Germany, it's made in Spartanburg. Your 3 series, at least the E9x ones, could come from Germany or South Africa. BMW engines, which is what they made their name on, are still produced in Germany and its former wholly owned subsidiary, Austria.

I do agree, however, that H1B's are about getting cheap labor.

The dead hand is only bad when it stops you from doing what you want, not when it forces others to do what you want them to do. Just ask anyone who demands their "religious freedom" the first time someone else's religion lets them do something those demanding "religious freedom" don't like. Free for me but not for thee...

Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in territories still under rebellion. A slave held in Maryland, for example, was not freed by it. It covered about 3/4 of the slaves in the US, although since the areas it covered were still under control by the Confederates it had no enforcement until Union troops captured the territory. The 13th amendment made slavery and indentured servitude illegal except for those convicted of a crime.

No worries. yea, cable companies could learn a thing or two about abusive business practices from record companies.

However, for the libertarian payola is simply an economic transaction between two parties and thus good.

A very reasoned response. Internet access has no resemblance to a free market, at least not like Hayek, Friedman, Mille for any of the other great Chicago gang would define it. The incumbents want to use regulators to maintain their market dominance and eliminate real competition, something another Chicago guy wrote about as well. Open up the last mile to real competition and then you can argue that ISPs should be allowed to charge providers for faster service. However, as long a they maintain a monopoly or duopoly position then regulation is appropriate to ensure everyone gets the same treatment.

The problem underlying this fight is the big ISPs are realizing the connection will be the valuable piece in the future, and not merely a profitable Haddon to there cable business. As Apple, Amazon, Netflix et. al. chip away at the core cable business they (the cable companies / ISP) are looking for ways to protect revenue steams. Preventing others from entering the ISP space is critical to maintaining that revenue stream; and why they are willing to spend big dollars on lawyers, lobbyists and campaign contributions to do so.

That's always the story - this creates jobs; and the politicians love to tout that at every opportunity, especially when elections loom. The reality is, as one economist know, who worked in economic development, put it, "We don't create jobs, we pick winners and losers." Even without incentives, companies will still open plants, make films, etc. if they think they can make money, the incentives only decide where they will do it so there is no net gain; every job "created" means one was not "created" elsewhere. Some place is going to get the jobs, the question that remains is who is willing to pay the most to get them?

All true but the problem is countries like to offer tax loopholes because they consider the money that to be essentially free since the company would not be there absent the tax advantages.

Countries also give tax loopholes to companies within their boundaries to keep them there so some they don't pay their "fair" share either. Some give tax breaks to foreigners living there such as not taxing retirement income, so they can essentially pay zero taxes if their home country doesn't tax citizens living abroad. They don't pay their fair share either.

The bottom line is countries setup taxing systems and individuals and companies use the laws as best advantage them. If a high tax country wants companies to locate there they need to lower their taxes or accept companies will do whatever is legal to minimize their tax burden there.

Actually, there are winners and losers. Tax havens lose because they would cease to collect taxes if companies relocated, and thus have no incentive to change their laws. It also means they would not be able to give tax breaks to domestic companies who might be less competitive as a result and go out of business or cut back drastically. The challenge is most companies pay the game while decrying others that do the same.

Except that those countries don't play the same game as Switzerland so there was no net loss to them. Many do play the tax break game and thus have something to lose and so favor the status quo, except when a company minimizes taxes in their jurisdiction.

It's not just national governments, but local governments as well; who like to tout that they got company X to locate in their jurisdiction, so they grant all sorts of tax cuts to get them to move from place A to place B in the same country. They only get pissed when someone does it to them.

Yes Speel Cheekers are not always my friend. Thanks for the correction.