text:
Expertise On Demand
23 Sep 2009, 11:59PM PT
16 Sep 2009, 3:23PM PT
Closed: 23 Sep 2009, 11:59PM PT
Earn up to $100 for Insights on this case.
We all know that the economy is in tough shape these days, and (as always happens in such situations) there's often a misguided push to put up trade barriers to try to force people to "Buy American." Of course, time and time again, such trade barriers have proven to actually do tremendous harm to Americans, rather than help them. We're already seeing this with friendly trading partners like Canada threatening to retaliate. That retaliation harms American jobs much more than any jobs "gained" from such protectionist barriers (as pointed out by the non-partisan and highly respected Peterson Institute). On top of that, by adding barriers on goods that Americans want, the end result is only that Americans end up paying *more* for their goods -- not exactly an outcome consumers are likely to appreciate during an economic downturn.
Granted, it's quite easy to understand the patriotic feeling behind a "Buy American" clause -- and we all want to support our country. But the problem is that in not paying attention to the actual impact, and pretending that there are no "unintended consequences," a Buy American clause can be detrimental to America in the long run. That doesn't seem particularly patriotic.
The Innovation Movement is an effort by the Consumer Electronics Association to make more people aware of important policy issues, and to make sure that Congress actually takes relevant data into account, rather than just focusing on the patriotic headline while ignoring the unpatriotic results.
In this Insight Community Conversation, we're looking for thoughtful and well-written discussions on the pros and cons of a "Buy American" clause for US policies. The best results will be used as posts on the Innovation Movement website.
12 Insights
Buy American is Absurd. by Aaron Martin-Colby
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009 @ 6:11PM
Buy American is an absurd idea. There are no positives.
I think that this is the case because of the highly focused nature of the legislation. It concerns itself with the end result of the economic chain of events: the American consumer. The American consumer will do exactly what any economic model would predict the consumer to do, acquire what they want or need for the lowest possible price. Protectionist policies are, even though they are rarely worded as such, specifically against that. They are designed to keep prices high so American firms can compete. Instead of government meddling to make alternatives to American goods less attractive, it makes much more sense to work towards better American goods.
Instead of concentrating on the final part of the system, government actions should be concerned with the beginning. Policies should be enacted that encourage business development and the acquisition of talented people from other countries. By simply making America more attractive to foreign talent, we rely on, instead of fight against, the drivers of individual economic agents. We can be the recipient of brain drains from other countries, increasing our competetiveness and decreasing theirs. Policies for education and for investment in business and manufacturing can all help this cause.
That isn't to say that Buy American is a bad advertising campaign, it's not. Heck, it's a great advertising campaign. But even there, it should be recognized as a supplement to, and not a replacement for, otherwise competetive prices and products. If Americo makes a T-shirt, and Chinaco makes a comparable shirt, the Americo shirt must still be comparable in price and quality if it hopes to compete. The "Buy American" sticker will only push people over when they're already standing there, trying to make a decision.
For example, the debate over the usage of US-only steel for stimulus spending; this is only an issue because it would be ideal for some people to use non-US steel. Why is that the case? Why are American companies not the most highly-desired steel in the market? It is that question with which legislators should be concerning themselves.
But lawmakers should be cautioned to not go too far in the opposite direction. Instituting subsidies or tax breaks can have the opposite effect, whereby allowing American firms to compete and still be lazy, simply because they're either getting taxed less or are receiving actual revenue from the government. Then, when foreign firms figure out how to compete around this, the effect is devastating and fast-acting.
Key points
Matt Reingold
Wed Sep 16 7:52pm
|I have to agree. The fact that business is global nowadays reflects on the fact that "buying american" is directly exploiting the patriotic nature of society, especially in low IQ individuals or those lacking common sense.
Nothing is exclusively American in any sense anymore, as an easy example being cars.
Cars, since their inception, were never exclusively and in whole made in a single location. Yet people think buying certain brands of cars are "domestic", even if some percentage of the car is being built elsewhere. Likewise people protest overseas companies creating manufacturing facilities in the united states and try to request a boycott, stating that said companies are stealing our jobs. Yet they are employing people domestically.
Thus, buy american is a concept that needs to be outright banned. "Buy Earth" is a concept that would be more accurate.
Really, "buying american" is purely exploitive and an insult to both the american community and everyone else who is victimized by it.
Ben Fuller
Mon Dec 6 7:58am
|Some really good points made here. It is actually quite a simple debate. The problem is that true free trade requires an economic correction, i.e. a loss of jobs in certain industries where the US can't compete (mainly low-skilled industries) and growth in jobs in skilled industries. The problem is that jobs can be shed very quickly but take time to build. This causes short-term pain for long-term gain, which requires a very brave White House!
Equalization by Unreal Blue
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009 @ 11:42PM
This is a difficult subject. I buy local. Not nationalist. Nationalism (which I don't generally like) is being exploited by Globalism (which I don't generally dislike). Most of the people who beat the drums of nationalism are being paid to do so by the money behind global companies. The only thing new about this is the scale.
It seems to me that one of the points of "protectionist" legislation is to normalise the goods coming across your boundaries to alleviate unfair advantages that imported goods may have. You have to balance that by not allowing *more* than that adjustment or you punish good foreign companies for more efficient manufacturing and reward weak local companies for inefficient manufacturing.The proper starting point would be to normalise the labor rate in the cost of the good.
Example: a thing costs $10 to make in China but $20 in America. The labor component is $2 in China which translates to 1 hour at their cost of labor. The US thing has a labor component of $10 which translates to 30 minutes at the US cost of labor. In this comparison, the US company is actually using *less* labor. But their version costs more.
The "tax" I'd set would be this: adjust the labor rate and multiply by the labor content. In this case, they'd be taxed $18. That is the difference in labor rate times the amount of labor. (20$/hr US - $2/hr CN) * 1hr labor content.
That would make the china import cost $28, which is higher. Why should this be? Because the main reason the chinese thing is a lot cheaper is not because they are using a better manufacturing process. It's because they are using a cheap labor pool.
If they dropped the labor component down to the same 30 minutes as the Americans, their tax would be half that $18; it'd be $9. So theirs would cost $19 to the American's $20. You can see now that they have a better process, but only by a small bit. Add the cost of shipping and you see that the locally produced thing is as cheap, based on it's labor rate-independent cost.
The companies can still compete on features and quality. Maybe the Chinese thing is better quality. Once the Chinese have their labor component just as efficient as the American's, their superior quality should make their product more attractive, even at the same cost. So quality will still be important. Even without making their labor more efficient, maybe people will pay that higher price for the better quality.
So where should that "tax" money go? Since the purpose of it is to equalise the labor market. It should go to the critical basic societal consumables of your national labourers: Social Security (retirement), healthcare (labour pool quality), unemployment (labor market adjustment cushion), education (labor pool quality).
Why focus on the labor part? As long as nationalist boundaries prevent a free movement of labor while manufacturers can easily move the jobs, the system can't reach equilibrium on its own.
Bottom line:
A company should not be able to exploit workers inability to move to where jobs are. Labor *rates* need to be removed as a tactical advantage in corporate competition. This also keeps consumers from short term foreign worker exploitation that will eventually lead to long term local worker disadvantage.
The basic underlying principle is tuning the feedback loop. With nationalist borders restricting movement of labor while globalised companies are unrestricted in their movement of jobs, you end up with a feedback loop that reacts too slowly and poorly, when it does. Eventually, the system has to fail and when it does, the over-reaction sets up for another failure. Classic control systems design.
Anyway, just some thoughts. Probably very hard to actually do, and subject to all the cheating that this species is so good at.
Greg Fenton
Thu Sep 17 7:34am
|In this taxation scheme, you appear to focus on "improving" the efficiency of the foreign labor force's processes. But where is the emphasis on improving the local processes. As long as the foreign entities don't improve, or only improve 50% (a HUGE increase), the local labor force has no incentive whatsoever to improve.
So now the consumer base suffers and the local labor force is stagnant.
I'd also be VERY wary of such a system as it involves government officials making analysis and judgement calls on the manufacturing processes of local and foreign components. There would be major pressure to never fully award progress in foreign processes (which would lower tariffs and government incomes).
Unreal Blue
Fri Sep 18 4:13pm
|It's the not the government's job to force companies to improve their efficiencies. That's what market forces are for. The company can improve their margins by being more efficient. Why would the government need to force that?
Two of the major costs of the goods that are not global in nature are labor and regulatory costs.
Leveling those will allow market forces to force improved efficiencies and quality on both sides of the tax.
In fact, right now this type of cost leveling already happens. Companies are forced to stay competitive so they have to move to where they can get the same (or lower) labor rates.
May the best valued product win by Devin Moore
Thursday, September 17th, 2009 @ 4:20AM
The purpose of this movement is to encourage a consumer spending focus on where their dollars are going. If I buy a Chinese product, my money goes more or less to China. If I and my fellow Americans buy American, then our money collectively should stay in America longer, thus helping America to prosper economically (in theory).
There are several concerns with the "buy American" slogan as an approach. First, there's a big difference between buying "American" and buying a product made in America.
For example, there is a big Honda plant local to me. They make a few specific models there, and if I buy from a local Honda dealer, I can be assured that with certain vehicles, I am buying a product made in America. However, Honda is not an American brand, and while my purchase does support local workers, at least some of the profits are going overseas.
Conversely, many Americans may consider buying a GM car, but GM cars may have a lot of foreign-sourced parts. Again, as some of those dollars stay in America, there are definitely dollars from a GM car purchase going overseas as well.
However, "Made in the USA" equates to US-based jobs no matter where the money goes, so I conclude as part 1, we are really trying to buy "made in the USA" more than we are trying to "buy American". This means laws exposing where products are actually made vs. where the company's brand is headquartered.
Furthermore, factories that straddle the border should be exposed, because this allows for a grey area where workers are probably getting underpaid and quality is sacrificed for making a product that as of now can legally be stamped "Made in USA".
Paying more for locally-made products also may seem like the ideal 'buy made in the USA' option, but as large corporations drive down the prices on certain staples, the overhead of some locally-made products is exposed. When you get what you pay for, the more expensive local product is the better option. However, for identically-valued or unmeasurable-valued products, it will be hard to convince consumers to spend more on a local version.
As part 2, I conclude we need more measurable value from corporate farms and other products. As an independently verifiable measure of value emerges, consumers can make the right purchase, regardless of where the product comes from. Even buying "made in the USA" is not the best option if these products are of low value. High value products last longer and thus reduce waste, and since most waste in the USA goes to US-based landfills, we are doing ourselves a disservice to make cheap stuff to buy & sell here (expecting no consequences).
Finally, I think that product labelling is to blame for a lot of consumer confusion when any of these laws come up. Foreign countries try to sneak in products that are mis-labeled as having benefits that they don't have, and the unregulated food supplement market is causing an unknown number of national health issues. Labelling should be embarassingly simple and obvious, and an increased effort should be made to publish and expose all the different common measures and labels that appear on today's products. Exposing the government-mandated meanings of these labels will allow consumers more visibility into the value assertions that companies are or aren't allowed to make. For instance, the difference between "light" and "low fat" may be negligible to consumers until it is spelled out that "light" is very ambiguous vs. "low fat" which sets a specific allowable fat content percentage.
In conclusion, the Innovation Movement has its heart in the right place, but there are common-sense regulations that can allow consumers to make the best purchasing decisions.
1. expose where products are really made, and expose whether these locations are bound by us-style consumer and manufacturing protections that we all assume are present when "buying made in the USA".
2. produce independently-verifiable measures of value on groups of products. Make these measures of value obvious. For example, how long do certain light bulbs last, what is the exact unit price of each one in the package, and therefore what is the value per cost-hour of light from each package. I need to be able to tell without the brand-marketing jargon (i.e. "our brighest, longest lasting bulbs ever!") which is really the better value.
3. specify clearly the meaning of different food and other product labels in a conspicuous location. For example, a kid going into a convenience store should be able to make an informed decision about what snack food in that convenience store might be the healthiest without having to read the labels on every product in the store, without having to understand food chemistry, and without having to do a bunch of math in their head.
Unintended consquences by Timothy Geigner
Thursday, September 17th, 2009 @ 6:53AM
As with all legislation, but perhaps even moreso when discussing planned government intervention on our economy, one must always bare in mind the dreaded unintended consequence.
The "buy American" policy idea isn't new. In fact, the 2nd statuette ever instituted by the United States government was a tariff, the Hamilton Tariff. One must note that the original impetus for this tariff was revenue for the state first, and the protection of domestic production second, not the other way around. Also, as shall be discussed in a moment, this tariff began a longstanding tradition of tariffs enacted by Washington DC that harmed the Southern economy and led directly to the civil war. It is a practice for those that fear competition, change and progress. More importantly it is a practice steeped in protectionism and nationalism, those xenophobic progress-hinderers.
After 1850, the southern states were in a losing political battle with the North. There were several reasons for this, notably the disparity in population coupled with the ability to control production in manufacturing rather than a reliance on traditional farming methods and the ecosystem in the South. Despite this loss of power, Southern policiticans managed to get the Walker Tariff passed, basically a repeal of the much higher tariff on imported goods relied upon by the Southern economy and passed by northern Whig Party politicians. This angered the North, which, with the help of the robber barons and international bankers, had been pushing for federal funding of the railroad system and expansion. The next elections introduced more stuanch supporters of the North, in particular the election of Abraham Lincoln, a man who though not particuarly concerned for the freedom of African slaves, certainly was concerned and committed to the preservation of the Union. These Northern politicians immediately unleashed a plethora of tariffs against the South, even moreso after the representatives of several seceeding states walked out of Washington DC in protest.
Thus we have our unintended consequence. When you hand the reins of power over the economy, or portions of it, to polticians as opposed to consumers, you practically beg for that power to be used as a weapon. Whether that weapon is used against fellow states, as in the pre-Civil War, or other countries, or is simply used as a threat against either, the potential for misuse abounds. Better that the government return to its original role within the economy: a referee. Referees do not interfere in the game. They do not give one side points because they're weaker, nor do they play favorites. They simply make certain that the game is fair and well-played.
"Buy American" isn't possible in a global market. by Robert Miles
Thursday, September 17th, 2009 @ 7:14AM
When I read a recent news article online, I was perplexed when I saw the statement to "Buy American". I asked myself, "Why?"
As a consumer who has options, I will generally pay for a product having a less cost and equal, if not better, quality than the local product. I'm confident I am not alone in my purchase habits.
Additionally, it seems this message is specifically targeted at consumers, but the more important question is why it's not targeted to American manufacturers.
It's not going to surprise anyone to know many American businesses buy their supplies from foriegn companies. It's the primary way these businesses can save money. If forced to buy locally, this will increase operating costs, and worse, these costs will be passed to consumers.
If this should happen, this will make it more difficult for consumers to buy American.
Patriotism shouldn't dictate how consumers spend. It's playing on the heartstrings in order to "restart" the economy and help American businesses. However, these businesses can not survive if they were to adapt the same patriotic principles. The salaries of workers in the United States simply won't allow it, and not too many employees will take it well should their salaries be cut to compensate for the increased local supply purchase costs.
It's a double-edged sword to "Buy American". On the face, it just seems like a good idea, but the damaging effects down the road are just too costly to support the idea.
We need the global market in order to remain competitive. We need the global market in order to sustain investments in which millions of 401k plans adapt. If we, as a nation, suddenly cut out foreign suppliers, this would have a devestating affect on the stock market.
This chain of events would come back and affect American businesses who invest in foreign markets, and would force this country back into another recession. This country has a significant impact in the global market and it would be foolish for anyone to think buying American wouldn't have an affect to these investments.
There's also another element to which American businesses need to focus, and that's changing the viewpoints of consumers. Many consumers find the import product to be better in quality, even if it's an inaccurate perception. This comes with the fact many foreign products cost less and offer more for the consumer.
As an example, I am not fond of our U.S. automotive industry. This comes from being told our cars are purposely built to be disposable, forcing consumers to buy a new vehicle every 3-5 years as maintenance gets too costly to maintain it.
True or not, this notion is supported when family and friends begin to experience issues at this time, even while maintaining scheduled maintenance. If I'm to buy American, I expect this notion to be removed, and that's difficult to achieve. This will not occur until the American public agrees our vehicles are on par with foreign, competitive products.
Consumers are not to be treated as ignorant. If the recession is truly ending, it shouldn't be a suprise to see consumers' spending habits change. We've seen this in action when the price of oil increased and despite its drop, consumers aren't out rushing to repurchase SUVs (yet the industry still produces them).
I'll gladly buy American if my money buys me a great quality, low cost product when compared to its foreign counterpart.
Patriotism will have nothing to do with this purchase as much as "more bang for the buck" will.
Buy American is isolationist and self-defeating by Gene Cavanaugh
Thursday, September 17th, 2009 @ 6:00PM
Buy American is not really an option. We owe so much money to other countries that causing them to insist on repayment would throw the whole world into a deep depression. Even as a gimmick to get votes, it is really bad. Let's face it, today politicians, and more specifically Republicans, are totally dependent on the wealthy (that is why we see so little individual thinking; they are organized behind the people that "own" them). Telling their owners that we will start cutting off other countries would be financial and political suicide; they aren't going to do it.
Taken To The Limit by Derek Kerton
Monday, September 21st, 2009 @ 5:19PM
Let's play the "Extrapolation Game" where I take the concept of Buy American to its limits, and examine the results.
1) Imbalance Of Trade
If we buy NOTHING BUT American products, then we have no imports. Other countries will, naturally, retaliate. With few imports, the balance of trade will shift a great deal, the value of the currency will go up. That sounds good, but there's no point to a strong currency if you're not importing. Meanwhile, the price of our exports will be astronomical, so we won't sell any. There go all the export-based jobs! We will be a closed economy. Anyone see any great examples of wealthy closed economies? USSR? China pre-90s? Cuba? Anyone? Closed economies experience shortages of products that can only be produced elsewhere, like oil or bananas. Less choice is bad. Closed economies limit career opportunities - wanna be a banana executive in the USSR? Closed economies seal themselves off from the bounty of the earth, and limit themselves to what resources and skills exist locally. The net social wealth is diminished.
2) Dig Your Own Grave...And Save!
Do you do all your own plumbing? Your own taxes? Your own car repairs, lawn mowing, food growing, etc? No, you pay a specialist who can do it better or cheaper than you. If that makes sense for you, then it could also make sense as a nation.
Extrapolating the notion of nationalism, let's take it further. Why not just "Buy your state? Buy your town? Buy your neighborhood? Buy from yourself?" Each step you take just makes the net economic outcome worse. But it gets quite obvious when you get down to the neighborhood level. You are losing the big-market benefits of "comparative advantage" and "specialization". Now, to get a banana, I will need to pay my neighbor to plant a tree, water it and put a greenhouse around it. To build a car, he will need to pay me for the five years it takes me to do the job, since I'm just not very good at it. The car, by the way, will be of terrible design and quality. The amount of products...of wealth...that can be produced by our uber-protectionism diminishes at every step we take to reduce our market. By "protecting", we are choosing to introduce economic inefficiencies in every sector. We are choosing regulation over free markets, and we'll be punished for our fear-based choices.
Now, some people may discard this argument, and say "It's ridiculous to propose that I buy a car made by my next-door neighbor. That's a bad analogy, so you can't be serious." But it isn't a bad analogy. Yes, it's ridiculous, but it's an excellent illustration of how ridiculous it is to buy an inferior product from anyone when a better option is available at a fair price. Your neighbor probably can't build a good car at all. Well, newsflash, neither can Chrysler. How different is it buying a car from your neighbor versus buying a Chrysler Sebring, the worst-rated car of 2009 by Consumer Reports, simply because Detroit is closer than Tokyo.
The market is designed to work when consumers make good, informed, self-interested decisions. Philanthropy should be done through charity, not via commerce and the free market. Patriotism should be done through leadership, effort, a willingness to self-evaluate and criticize, and a tolerance of criticism. Patriotism is most certainly not encouraging "good enough" production in the marketplace. If you're satisfied when your country is "good enough" you're not my kind of patriot.
3) Comparative Advantages (CA)
The completely accepted economic concept of Comparative Advantage (CA) occurs where some resource, skill, or input is relatively cheaper in one region than another. If so, that region has a CA, and will focus on selling that resource. This focus may harm another region's ability to sell high volumes of that resource. But while this may hurt some less efficient suppliers of that resource, it is a boon to the overall good. If India has comparative advantage in labor, the world SHOULD be sending labor-intensive production to India to lower "total global costs" of production. The price of labor will increase in that region to a new equilibrium, as we have seen with low-level IT in India. If the US has comparative advantage in technology innovation, people SHOULD be buying their technology from the US...as they do now. In so doing, the world increases productivity, progresses technology, lowers costs of production, and as a world, we can produce more for less. The world then has more to share among the people living on it. Net social gain.
4) More To Share
More for less, or greater global production is really a worthwhile goal. Humanity is wealthier, we have more to share, we will be more productive, which means less wasteful even as it means more output.
When foreigners are wealthier, they are able to enter the global markets as buyers. Thus in being willing to share a little of the earth's bounty, we can radically raise the wealth level of those living at the bottom of the pyramid. In fact, the positive of a little bit of well-placed capital with a poor, but enterprising person can pay far greater dividends to global production than the same capital employed by the average American. The success of Grameen Bank and micro capital illustrate this point convincingly. Then, those successful entrepreneurs abroad will be able to afford the next iPhone from a US company. The global economy is NOT a zero-sum game, where one man's growth represents another man's loss. History has shown that we can all steadily grow together, and that the larger the economic and information community is, the faster it can grow.
5) Peace Dividend
Also, people engaged in gainful commerce seldom try and bomb you or kill you. There is a comfort benefit to this, but also a real economic benefit to having fewer enemies. People with nothing to lose might suicide bomb you. The best antidote for inklings to be a suicide bomber is a job. Let's try to reduce the number of people in the world with nothing to lose, and see if the peace dividend doesn't jump up a notch or two. I'm not saying charity...I'm just saying that if the resource they have to offer is cheap labor, that we should let them sell it to us.
6) What is The Patriotic Thing To Do?
I'll tell you what is patriotic. It's not blindly buying American. It's not how you SHOP at all. It's how you work! It's PRODUCING something that foreigners will buy. Driving exports, that's patriotic. It offers better products to Americans AND foreigners...to all people. It brings dollars INTO America. From there, economic multiplier effects let that trade revenue ripple through the economy with an almost 10x factor on Gross National Product. That creates jobs, creates tax revenues, and funds schools for the next generation of winners. Damn, that's powerful patriotism in action!
Get training in an area that is productive and useful. Get good. Work hard, produce lots of output, make that output high quality, strive for continuous improvement in that product AND in your skills. Be willing to change to adapt to new eras, upgrade your skills. Maybe YOU could be the one to drive the change to a new era, and not just react. Now you're firing on all cylinders. Now you're producing well for yourself, AND for America, AND for all humans. That's patriotic - without taking anything away from people abroad!
Ironically, the very industries that are campaigning for "Buy American" are usually the same ones who don't do the above, and probably aren't interested in starting. If you're a carmaker, get started. Make a car that not only is good enough for Americans to buy instead of a Honda, but that JAPANESE PEOPLE WILL BUY instead of a Honda.
How Protectionism hurts US industry by Bruce Albrecht
Monday, September 21st, 2009 @ 6:15PM
Even though my industry is a bit unusual and only represents a tiny blip on the US economic radar, I think it has some traits that illustrate why American protectionism is not necessarily good for business. The industry of which I speak is Fireworks, particularly Outdoor Fireworks Displays.
For the first two-thirds of the 20th century, this industry of manufacturing and producing the products to entertain audiences around the country was limited mainly to a small group of family businesses. These individuals worked throughout the winter months building all the spectacular effects, and then spent their summers producing fantastic shows throughout the country. Given the nature of the work—mixing chemical components together to make explosive compositions—mass production has never quite worked and displays remained rather expensive endeavors, accessible only to municipalities and the ultra-rich.
That all started to change in the early 70's as the US relationship with China softened. As the trade barriers were removed, and modern shipping technology took hold, inexpensive Chinese-made fireworks began to flood the market en masse. Now at the time the small family outfits cried foul as they saw their manufacturing businesses dry up. But (not) surprisingly, as the dust settled, a series of amazing events took place. First, the fireworks companies that produced superior products continued to flourish as their skills could not be matched by the cheaply made imported products (the inferior US companies quickly withered away and died). Second, the cost of producing a fireworks display reduced to a point where it became attainable by a whole new market. As this occurred, of course, a plethora of new companies sprouted up to take advantage of the market opportunities. And with them they brought innovation, new technology and increased competition that revolutionized the industry.
Now of course this is an oversimplification of the industry's history, but the basic facts speak volumes about the benefits of free trade. Sure, some of the profits make their way back to China. Sure, workers were displaced as the industry transformed. But, the makers of high quality products quickly established their niche and found their market had expanded exponentially. And the size of the newly created market created far greater economic opportunity than what existed before. And almost all of it was based upon the lifting of trade restrictions.
In closing, a couple of quick footnotes: The industry has indeed benefited (read exploited) largely from access to the cheap labor pool. However, as the Chinese manufacturers (and their workers) have gained access to foreign markets, they have utilized their newfound wealth to improve their social class and there is actually now a shortage of skilled labor in the industry. Also, new regulations due to safety, security and trade imbalances are all applying upward pressure to the cost of production. In the short term, this is going to benefit the small boutique US manufacturers as we "Buy American", but in the long run it willhurt the industry on both sides of the Pacific.
Buy American is isolationist and self-defeating by Gene Cavanaugh
Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009 @ 10:12AM
Immediately after world war twice, Dr. W. Edwards Deming (who made significant contributions to the US war effort) developed a methodology that became known as "just in time" manufacturing.
While there has been considerable "rewriting of history" by embarrassed American leaders, but the truth is that his methodology was ignored in America due to the arrogance that followed victory (and the resistance to change in the industries).
The Japanese embraced it enthusiastically, eventually awarding Dr. Deming their highest civilian medal, and creating a "Deming medal" for excellence.
Now all American industry (especially automotive) has "bought in", with significant improvements in both quality and cost resulting (it was the main reason the Japanese dominated the automotive industry for so many years).
None of this would have happened if the "Buy American" foolishness (which started then, by the way) had prevailed - it would have been a case of "who killed the low-cost, high-quality car?"
Trade Spats Don't Help Anyone by Mike Masnick
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 3:19AM
Since I'm employed by Floor64, I'm participating because this is an interesting topic, not as a part of the contest.
Protectionism vs. free trade is a debate that's gone on for centuries. And while logic should win the day, emotion often takes over. A recent episode of the Planet Money podcast reported that an astounding 97% of economists believe that tariffs are bad. They tend to harm the country employing them just as much, if not more than, the countries they are targeted against. There is no real academic debate here. The consensus and the data are both clear and strong: tariffs do more harm than good. By a lot. So why do politicians still push for them?
The answer is that it's pure politics and pure emotion. It's much easier to talk about the jobs that are going to be lost due to foreign competition, rather than imagining the newer, better jobs that are gained from from mroe efficient global trade. It's easier to fret a "foreign threat" than to look at how specialization and comparative advantage help to drive prices of goods down for consumers across the board, leading to much greater benefit and buying power.
In short: it's an informational problem, not a problem of ideas. From a politician's perspective, there's a clear and immediate payoff in pushing for a protectionist "Buy American" type policy. It gets them press coverage and shows them as being "patriotic" and "protecting jobs." The reverse is a lot harder to turn into a quick soundbite and a front-page photo.
To get around this informational problem, the best thing is to spend more time highlighting the downsides of protectionism, and how it unfairly and pointlessly decreases competition and increases prices of everything around you.
It doesn't require looking very far to discover the problems with protectionist policies. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw recently highlighted an example of the net societal loss from such trade barrier bickering, that's last well beyond a reasonable time frame. It talks about how a trade dispute in the early 1960s makes Ford vans more expensive to Americans. Apparently, the Europeans put a tariff on American chickens. So the US retaliated by taxing the import of commercial vans and trucks. And over 40 years later, these same tariffs are still in place -- and they still apply even to American companies. Ford makes vans in Turkey, and then ships them to the US. But since it doesn't want to pay a huge 25% tariff, it pretends that the vans are passenger vans, rather than commercial vans. It installs extra rows of seating and back side windows.
This gets the vans classified differently, with a significantly lower tariff -- about 2.5%. This saves Ford thousands of dollars. However, it also spends a lot extra putting in those needless seats and windows, which simply get ripped out and destroyed or recycled once safely through customs. This is a massive and totally unnecessary waste. A trade dispute that made no sense half a century ago is still in place, and rather than help Americans, it's just made things more wasteful and expensive, even for American companies.
Only through repeating such stories will people finally begin to recognize that protectionist "Buy American" policies don't help Americans, but lead them down a similar path: less competitive industries, more expensive goods and significantly more waste. This is good for no one -- not even the politicians looking for the quick headline and cover photo.
Buying American isn't "bad", it just lacks value. by Ben Matthews
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 11:25AM
The discussion so far on the topic has been great, but I think it's clear that certain ideas around the problem are more pervasive than others. I think it's most interesting in the title of the question, "Mandates" to buy American as opposed to encouraging, and we all jump to the thought of tariffs. These are obvious things that come into our head though, and as mentioned in other insights, specifically Michael Masnick's post, it's largely an ideological decision rather than a sound business one, but sometimes it seems that so is the reason why buying American is bad. That sounds odd, redundant, or even confusing, but allow me to explain...
It is all a question of value for the consumer. Robert Miles, whose insight is above, said it best in the beginning of his post, which in a nutshell states that people are going to buy what provides the most value for them. In the case of cars, someone may consider a Kia better value due to the money savings despite the potential loss of reliability and features; others would find more value in a Lexus which will cost more, but the reliability and luxury are more important to them than the cost savings. Sometimes this value is affected by false perceptions, personal bias, or any number of factors, but the same motivation is in place. Every consumer will try to maximize their value as they see fit, and the government should be trying to allow the consumer to maximize that value the best they can.
The Argument for Being a Protectionist.
The argument for certain protectionist policies, specifically the ones that try to lower the value of foreign goods by increasing cost, such as tariffs, are simple in their goal: By making the value of competing products lower, the domestic option will be a more attractive choice. Though many believe it is shortsighted, including myself, the argument's premise and conclusion are correct; if you lower one product's value, the other option will inherently be more attractive than it was before. Those supporting these policies are actually trying to increase personal wealth in the nation (a form of value); they believe that this will get more money to Americans, create more American jobs, and overall create a better standard of living for the American people.
There has actually been evidence that this has worked before in specific situations. I tried for hours to find a certain case I studied, but I suppose I have lost it, so here is the quick version. In summary, a country was trying to build its IT infrastructure and services to a scale which would compete with the services in other countries. By increasing the tax on using foreign IT services by 100%, the domestic services had the chance to get the ball rolling on their developing infrastructure, which they would not have been able to do without the increase in work due to the tax. But the big difference here from most other American situations is that for the nation in the case, the IT services industry was in its infancy and needed that boost to get off the ground; once it did, the tax was either greatly reduced or removed. In America, we are still putting up tariffs on industries that are very mature.
Why the Protectionist Argument is Short Sighted.
Though the argument is technically sound, if you lower the value of a foreign product the domestic option is inherently more attractive, it ignores a range of other factors and, frankly, is looking short term and ignoring the big picture. Without inundating you, and this insight, with numbers and countless examples, the bottom line is that it has been shown that the saving and value increase from removing the tariff on a superior, competing, product that provides more value would allow the consumer to spend more on other things. In most examples personal wealth goes up, options increase and therefore value obtained is also higher. Decreasing the value of other options will not benefit the consumers as a whole (domestic and foreign) in almost every scenario. There is debate about the effect on the workforce; some say it will reduce the number of jobs despite personal wealth going up, others think it will create more jobs overall in other industries where domestic products are providing more value. In both scenarios though, the American people will be better without the Protectionist policies.
So What Should We Do?
Buying domestic isn't bad. Naturally if a product is bought by an American, built by an American, and be taxes go to the American government, it is better for America in general than the same product being bought by an American, built by (for example) a German, and the taxes go to Germany. Is that the case if the German product provides more value? No, in that case it is better for the American consumer to buy the German product. The protectionist response to this was to decrease the value of, for this example, the German products. Wouldn't it be great if instead of a Protectionist policy, we had an "Incentivist" (best term I could think of) policy? Instead of decreasing the value of foreign products through legislation, we should be thinking of ways to increase the value of domestic ones. Sadly it's not as simple as giving money to build a better product; there are too many factors to that which money can't fix. But perhaps some sort of tax break for buying domestic, or incentives on complimentary products, such as a government rebate when you buy American made tires for an American made car. This will increase sales in the tire and car industries, increasing jobs, tax revenue, and the American people will have a higher level of value available to them. Though that was just an example off the top of my head, and it will obviously take finesse to find the right "incentives" to "value increase" ratio to make this profitable, but the potential gains would be enormous.
The bottom line is that we should be thinking of ways to create value for the American people. Reducing the value offered on foreign options is not the answer. I would really like to see our government institute an Incentivist policy where people are encouraged to buy American because of the new, creative, methods in which it provides value, not reduce the value of the other options enough to make the American option attractive.
Derek Kerton
Wed Sep 23 12:23pm
No! That's wrong.
You spend most of your piece arguing against tariffs and blocking imports, and that was sound economics. You note that altering the relative value of domestic and foreign goods is an interference in the market that limits choice and increases costs. But then you suggested that the government should, instead, offer incentives to shop American. That is basically the same thing, the same market distortion as a tariff, but with the added negative of government spending.
Where does that incentive money come from? Taxes. So your plan requires a higher level of taxation of all Americans, thus spent on incentivizing people to make inferior product choices because of the distorted relative value. This has much the same effect as a tariff, in that it socializes the costs of "buy American" policies on everyone. We end up with inferior products.
One of the reasons "buy American" can resonate so well for politicians is that it DOES specifically benefit some workers (say auto workers), while the very real costs are transferred to the entire population. Thus dissolved, the population doesn't feel as much pain as the auto worker feels benefit. But it's like a pyramid scheme of joy.
So what you are proposing is essentially subsidies, which are out of the scope of this comment, but if I sum them up as "they basically suck", then I won't be far from the mark.
The bottom line is our support of American industry should not about subsidy or tariff market interference on the consumer side. As consumers, our JOB is to buy the best products and services we can, which offer us the most value (as you wrote). In so doing, we send the correct signals to the producers to enable (to force if under competition) them to make appropriate production decisions, and globally competitive products. The patiotic consumer is expected to act in their own interest, nothing more.
"Buy American" should forever be trashed, and replaced with "Produce, America!". Americans need to stop "thinking" they are the best, and start working incessantly to be the best. It's never-ending work, though, so it might be a harder sell.
Ben Matthews
Wed Sep 23 1:15pm
|Thank you for the feedback, Derek, I appreciate all I can get! Unfortunately, I think some things got poorly explained or misunderstood though.
I want to reiterate that I think it boils down to value. You seem to be arguing about the perception of quality in a product being distorted, when I am focusing more on the value of a product.
You stated, and I think it sums up you concerns with my approach:
"So your plan requires a higher level of taxation of all Americans, thus spent on incentivizing people to make inferior product choices because of the distorted relative value"
First, in my idea of how it would be implemented, taxes would not increase. I will speak on that in a bit. Secondly, when you say "inferior" I assume you are again talking about the quality of the product, and not the value. As stated, the quality could potentially be higher in the American product, but in some cases the disproportionately high cost could cause it to have lower value. We must focus on value, not quality! And last, you mention the "distorted relative value." I am not sure what you mean by distorted, you would potentially be saving money on a product of unchanged quality. The relative value to the competing product would be a real change in that case, not distorted; Joe Schmoe would see a tangible benefit.
To use the car example again, lets say we have an American car and a Japanese one. To make the numbers simple, lets say the American car costs $500, while the Japanese one would cost $450 on the open market, tariff free. All other factors about the car are even. With the current system, lets say the Japanese car has to raise it's cost to $525 to stay profitable with tariffs in place. Joe Schmoe comes along, and buys the American car because it is cheaper, and therefore provides more value with the same level of quality. Without the tariff system in place, the Japanese car would have provided more value since he would have had a similar car for less money.
Now with my idea of an incentivist approach, we would remove tariffs, which I believe we both agree is a good thing, and to continue with my example in the original insight, lets say that you get half off tires in the form of a rebate from the government if you buy the American car. Joe does some math and figures that the net present value of the American car is now $425 since he will save on tires for the life of the car, as will anyone who buys it from him later increasing resale value. Now the market hasn't been distorted, the associated value of a product has gone up, while the perceived quality of the product (it's ability to do the tasks assigned to it) has not changed. From this, American car makers and tire shops would see increased sales, which in turn potentially create more jobs, and thats more revenue and wage taxes the government would collect on. Thats what I would see funding the project, not a sustained increase in taxes due to subsidization. This would ideally create more business domestically and increase wealth all around without removing value from foreign options, only increase the value of domestic ones.
Some companies would be too far gone that such an incentivist approach wouldn't matter, and the revenues gained would not compensate for the cost. In those cases, an incentivist approach would not be the way to go and we would let the free market kill off those companies all by themselves.
Once again I appreciate the feedback, please let me know if you have any more thoughts!
Ben Matthews
Wed Sep 23 10:13pm
|To critique my own thought...
I had my semi-yearly meeting with my old business professor just to catch up. I mentioned this case and he brought up an interesting downside which we both agreed may or may not outweigh the benefits, but it gave a good bit for both of us to think about. He thinks the idea of incentives as opposed to deterrents (or protectionism) when trying to encourage buying is definitely the way to go, but what if it works too well?
The example we used was Ford and Toyota. Lets say tariffs are dropped and Ford goes to the government with numbers and says
"Listen, Toyota is beating us by a only few hundred bucks per similiar car in price. If we use this newfangled incentivism with say Firestone, we will make a whole lot more money, and what you pay out in incentives will be earned via taxes on increased revenues 3 times over! Everybody wins!"
The government likes the idea and goes forward with the incentivism program for Ford. And it works, people start buying more Fords, more tires, more jobs are created, more money is to be had by all, and the tax revenue even puts under privileged kids through college; it's practically a miracle. But...
Lets say Ford starts doing so well that Toyota sales drop off completely, hell they are hurting now. Sure their sales in other countries are okay, but the loss of revenue puts them in a hard spot. Their profit falls, they have to do cutbacks, their product actually begins to decline in quality. Would this be considered stifling innovation? A product, which has superior quality, but less value due to excellent cooperation via government sponsored programs, could fail.
Normally, especially on Techdirt, when we think of stifling innovation, it's from preventing a product coming to market via legal means or collusion. But what if we are raising the value of one product to a degree that it overshadows another of superior quality? Now technically this does happen all the time everyday, someone may have built the best mousetrap in the world but it wasn't cost effective, marketed correctly, timed wrong, or any other hundred reasons why a product fails and one that isn't as good but has more value succeeds. Whats different in this idea is that it will be a factor for any company wanting to come into the American market in an industry that has the incentivism program running. In my car/tire example, it would be government sponsored cooperation. Sure a foreign company could work out some sort of rebate program with a domestic tire company, but the transition would probably be more difficult.
Just some food for thought. I usually hate when the government gets involved with the free market, but I still think the spirit of the idea will be beneficial to the American people as a whole.
Derek Kerton
Mon Apr 5 10:45am
|"lets say that you get half off tires in the form of a rebate from the government if you buy the American car. Joe does some math and figures that the net present value of the American car is now $425 since he will save on tires for the life of the car, as will anyone who buys it from him later increasing resale value. Now the market hasn't been distorted, the associated value of a product has gone up"
"The relative value to the competing product would be a real change in that case, not distorted;"
But that's a dictionary definition of 'distorting the market'. A party that shouldn't be involved in the transaction (the gov), steps in and lowers the price of a specific product. Lower price means higher demand, with the result that consumers act differently. Market = distorted.
When you distort the market, there may be some upside. But surely there will be unintended consequences:
- Toyota workers in Kentucky might be laid off.
- We will have more tires sent to landfill earlier.
- Tire makers and tire shops will raise their prices so as to benefit from greater subsidy. The free market has a lesser effect on their actions, since half of their money comes from the gov't.
- Non Ford drivers will pay more for tires at these shops.
- People will figure out how to 'game' the subsidy, swapping tires in some weird, nonsensical fashion. They will figure a way to get at the subsidy money without earning it. They always do (see Mike Masnick's case of Ford installing, then removing seats in Vans just to game the rules.)
- But the biggest, and most important distortion you've introduced into the market, is that the US carmaker doesn't get the correct signal from the market, i.e. "Your cars suck." They continue to produce crap, and the GLOBAL marketplace, unaffected by US government interference, buys fewer and fewer US cars.
My alternative suggestion would be simple NOT to do what you say. Ford sells fewer cars. Their shareholders get angry, they fire the CEO, they get some better designs, and they finally compete with the Japanese on equal footing...kinda like what has happened in the real world with Ford...notsomuch with Chrysler. In the case of Ford, we have a US car company whose quality has risen to compete well with the best in the world. As a result, Ford not only sells to the US market, but can compete in any country. Now, Americans really benefit.
You gotta look past our borders, and realize it's a global market. Subsidies that protect US carmakers in America just ensure that US car makers sell less and less abroad. And the global market is bigger than domestic.
Mandates To Buy American Should Be More Carefully Considered by David Cassel
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 11:58PM
Let's ask Barack Obama. Three years ago he criticized the "Buy American" philosophy in his
2006 book "The Audacity of Hope" -- and he provided the perfect example. "It's tough to 'buy American' when a video
game sold by a U.S. company has been developed by Japanese software engineers and packaged in Mexico."
In fact, American companies have already been hurt by policies which were supposed to favor them.
Technology companies often need specific technical components that can only be procured using non-American parts or labor.
In the ultimate irony, the "Buy American" movement has blocked American companies from bidding on jobs offered under
American's own stimulus plan. In a chapter called "Opportunity," Obama's book proposes instead a better idea. "We should be guided by what works."
So what's his long-term solution? Better long-term education programs to beef up the American workforce.
(Think of it as an "America First" plan for our schools.) Lowering tuition costs could get more students
into higher education -- and at the next level, there's also tremendous potential in government funding for more scientific research.
"If we want an innovation economy, one that generates more Googles each year, then we have to invest in our future innovators..."
Obama writes, noting that of the fastest growing jobs this decade, eight out of nine require scientific or technological knowledge.
"[J]ust as our government instituted free and mandatory public high schools at the dawn fo the twentieth century to provide
workers the skills needed for the industrial age, our government has to help today's workforace adjust to 21st-century realities."
David Cassel
Thu Sep 24 12:15am
|[Sorry about the formatting. Here's what I was trying to post...]
Let's ask Barack Obama. Three years ago he criticized the "Buy American" philosophy in his 2006 book "The Audacity of Hope" -- and he provided the perfect example. "It's tough to 'buy American' when a video game sold by a U.S. company has been developed by Japanese software engineers and packaged in Mexico."
In fact, American companies have already been HURT by policies which were supposed to favor them. Technology companies often need specific technical components that can only be procured using non-American parts or labor. In the ultimate irony, the "Buy American" movement has blocked American companies from bidding on jobs offered under American's own stimulus plan. In a chapter called "Opportunity," Obama's book proposes instead a better idea. "We should be guided by what works."
And historically, America has competed by building cutting-edge technology and world-class innovations. (A better strategy might be called: "Sell American".) For example, the Apple Computer and products like the iPhone have created huge worldwide demand, but they've also spawned entire new industries along the way. Technology always advances, and as it does it creates new markets -- and new jobs. As the world's economies recover from a global recession, they'll welcome new green technologies which can lower energy costs, and there will always be a demand for new breakthroughs in medicine and biotechnology.
So which policy leads us in that direction? How about better long-term education programs improving the American workforce. (Think of it as an "America First" plan for our schools.) Lowering tuition costs could get more students into higher education, Barack Obama suggests -- and at the next level, there's also tremendous potential in government funding for more scientific research. "If we want an innovation economy, one that generates more Googles each year, then we have to invest in our future innovators...just as our government instituted free and mandatory public high schools at the dawn of the twentieth century to provide workers the skills needed for the industrial age, our government has to help today's workforce adjust to 21st-century realities."
And he also notes that of the fastest growing jobs this decade, eight out of nine require scientific or technological knowledge...
The "Buy American" campaign is politics, pure and simple. A narrower argument might be more persuasive -- maybe "Hire American". (Obama also proposes eliminating tax breaks for companies who shift operations overseas.) But he also acknowledges a pesky financial reality. Global trade actually helps fight inflation, by spreading out demand for a country's dollars to multiple countries. And there's another positive outcome: global trade reduces poverty in countries like India and China, which over the long-term, this makes the world a more stable place.
"For those like Larry Page and Sergey Brin...the potential rewards of a global marketplace have never been greater," Obama writes. "What's preventing us from shaping that future isn't the absence of good ideas.. It's the absence of a national commitment to take the tough steps necessary to make America more competitive..."
And he concludes that America can't compete by erecting trade barriers, "Unless we're willing to confiscate all the world's computers."


text:
What do you get when you combine the aura of old Hollywood glamour and the aesthetics of mid-century modernism set against the backdrop of a palm-lined desert oasis with 350 days of sunshine? Okay, I guess that question was a bit too easy. But answer this, why in all of my unmentionable years in Los Angeles County have I not ventured beyond the Riverside County border to experience in the delight that is Palm Springs? Utter non-sense! I am on day one of my Palm Springs Media Fam tour, which happens to be taking place smack dab in the middle of the yearly Modernism Week ( February 12-21, 2010) and I already do not want to leave. During my four day stay, I will be lodging at the Hyatt Regency Suites Palm Springs which has completed a $15 million renovation as a part of the 2010 marketing campaign "Better, Bolder, Beautiful" hotel and convention center collection. Part of this strategy will aid in the ability to showcase the best of the best in this desert city and make you think, just as I thought, why haven't I been or why haven't I made Palm Springs my top get-away spot!
Upon arrival at the Hyatt, I was greeted by friendly staff who informed me that the hotels renovations included a new lobby area, pool deck, restaurant and lounge, and fitness center that I could partake in during my stay. My suite at the hotel, sleek, sophisticated, and dare I say modern, adorned dark and neutral tones that were punched with bright pops of orange in the sitting area and separate bedroom. The streamlines of the furniture would be reminiscent of the décor I would be treated to see during my tour of the desert's historical inns. To guide our group of 8 writers that hailed from places as far as Sidney, Australia, was Hillary Angel, Public Relations Manager for the Palm Springs Bureau of Tourism, Roxy the tour guide from Palm Springs Carriages, and Rosie the bodacious Belgian horse that lugged our carriage through the downtown area.
Our first stop was the Del Marcos Hotel that sat nestled against the San Jacinto Mountains. Designed in 1947 by William F. Cody, this classic mid-century modern hotel with its slanted flat rooftops and manicured green lawns will make you feel as though you stepped back into an era when everything was just groovy. 17 rooms make this the ideal hotel to rent out to full capacity for events such as weddings, retirement parties, or family reunions. We were treated for a tour of two of the rooms – one being a poolside suite boasting a full kitchen, living room, and bedroom for an affordable $149 per night. But it isn't just affordability and nostalgia that you are getting when lodging at Del Marcos. You are treated to a host of complimentary services (i.e., bicycles, parking, Internet), an uber friendly staff, and a sense of family.
As we toured, children played blissfully by the pool as their parents relaxed on the green and white striped chaise lounges. The manager of the Del Marco states that about 9 years ago,
Eric Mellem and
Lars Viklund, took over the property and brought it back to its 1947 style and design, "The property went through a transition where it looked like a retreat in Carmel," states current manager Janice. "Years later, Eric decided to relinquish the property and after deciding he couldn't let it go, Lars became the solo and current owner."
Next, it was back on the carriage to have Rosie trot us down quaint streets where we were able to view properties occupied by some of Hollywood's most noted actor and actresses and designed by the world's most notable architects. Designers such as
Albert Frye, whom made his architectural mark on the springs in 1934,
William Krisel,
Donald Wexler, and
E. Stewart Williams. Historical Inns of Palm Springs can't be built over 35 feet in height and most of the buildings incorporate natural rocks and slates to blend with the desert landscape and make it aesthetically pleasing.
Another one of these "under 35 feet" historical inns is the
Orbit In and the
Orbit In's Hideaway. Built by
Herb Burns, the first designer/builder to introduce Palm Springs to the "ultra modern motor court inn," which featured large studio style rooms with sitting areas and kitchenettes, surrounding the pool; Orbit In lures guest and passer-bys to its poolside with penetrating beats of a live band, array of complimentary cocktails, and a bevy of snacks. Mingle, listen to the music, or marvel at the prominently displayed art work sprinkled throughout the property; regardless of what you choose to do at the Orbit, you are sure to have a great time. Young and hip or old and zany, you will love your stay at either of Orbit's properties.
One of the draws to some of the inns is the fine dining experiences. Two that are managing to please the palates of tourists and locals are
Melvyn's at the Ingleside Inn, and
The Purple Palm at Colony Palms Hotel. Our group stopped by both to savor some of the noted house specialties.
When you step into Melvyn's, you are stepping into a classic "Hollywood" martini lounge with a menu that is as decadent as the day is long. Pictures of Marilyn Monroe, Sammy Davis Jr., Elvis Presley, and Frank Sinatra are proudly displayed opposite the bar, which is dimly lit and mirrored from floor to ceiling. The venue plays live music every night and houses an ambience of timeless glamour that can't be duplicated even if you tried. You could almost feel spirits of the rat pack looming through the establishment, not to make you feel eerie, but rather to make you feel like you belong…like you are part of a secret society. Beyond Melvyn's Restaurant, Ingleside Inn has 30 Suites, Mini-Suites, and Villas that go from $125 to $600 per night. With a well seasoned staff, most being with the establishment for over 20 years, the inn has hosted some of the most recognizable names in entertainment, business, and politics. Although our group didn't gain the opportunity to meet Melvyn Haber, who has owned the establishment since 1975, he is said to be a regular fixture around the restaurant and inn. In one article, Haber is quoted as saying, "But I truly think Palm Springs is the greatest place in the world." I think he might be right.
Before heading in for the night, we made a final and oh so necessary stop at
The Purple Palm Restaurant at the Spanish-style
Colony Palms Hotel.
Lydia Kremer, Public Relations Guru for Modernism Week, met us at the restaurant which oozed major sex-appeal and romance. Sitting poolside, the restaurant features a fare of Mediterranean-inspired cuisine that will leave you somewhere in between satisfaction and longing. Okay, think cabanas, plush lounges, twinkling lights, and hypnotic melodies. Are you there? Now, add the aroma of perfectly seared Tandori Lamb, decadent Crab & Truffle Macaroni and Cheese, and massive roasted Dates stuffed with Machego Cheese and wrapped in crisp bacon. You have arrived to a place that is culinary and sensory heaven.
The hotel itself was originally built in 1936 by Purple Gang mobster Al Wertheimer. By 1951, the property sold to Robert Howard, grandson of the owner of champion thoroughbred Sea Biscuit, and renamed Howard Manor. During the late 1970's the property under went new ownership and became what we know today, Colony Palms. The 56-room hotel includes: 8 casitas with private patios and outdoor bathtubs, 41 rooms, 5 junior suites with private entrances, and 2 Presidential suites. Guest rooms start at $209 and go up to $299 per night, while casitas and suites range from $359 to $1099 per night. But that is a small price to pay to marvel at the designs of Martyn Lawrence-Bullard, a renowned Los Angeles-based designer. Lawrence-Bullard has taken the Spanish-style hotel to new heights with rich influences of exotic locals and 1940's glamour. Critically acclaimed by the likes of Conde Nast Traveler, Los Angeles Magazine, and Architectural Digest, Colony Palms Hotel and its Purple Palm Restaurant are a must see!
Well, that is the end of day one. For information related to any of the above destination hot spots, please check the following Websites:
The Hyatt Regency Suites – http://palmsprings.hyatt.com
Del Marcos Hotel – www.delmarcoshotel.com
Orbit In Hotel and Hideaway – www.orbitin.com
Colony Palms Hotel – www.colonypalmshotel.com
Palm Springs Carriages – www.palmspringscarriages.com
Palm Springs Bureau of Tourism – www.visitpalmsprings.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Technical Support
Here are some helpful guides to keep your Canyon in top shape! Just pick the relevant category to find the solution to your issue.
Special Features of Bicycles with Reverb Stealth
Bikes which are fitted with the Reverb Stealth may sometimes be delivered in the Bike Guard with the right-hand brake lever and remote lever removed.
This is how you fit these parts:
1. Apply friction paste inside the seat tube. Place the seat post in the frame and close the quick release. Picture1 The seat post must be inserted inside the frame at least as far down as the lower edge of the top tube. The quick release must not be over tightened, but you should also not be able to turn it in the frame.
2. Put the Torx-Bit onto the Canyon Torque Wrench as shown. Picture2
3. Bikes fitted with a simple bracket: Position the bracket around the handlebar and tighten the fixing bolt/screw to 4Nm as shown. Picture 3 Picture 4
4. Matchmaker brackets have two bolts/screws. Assemble the Reverb remote lever and the brake lever. First tighten the front bolt/screw to 4Nm as shown in image 5 and then the rear bolt/screw also to 4Nm. Picture 5
5. The line for the right-hand brake lever runs ahead of all the other cables in front of the handlebar and into the frame on the left side of the down tube. The line for the remote lever runs closest to the head tube before it enters the down tube.
If your Reverb seat post no longer delivers optimum function, check that the seat clamp is fitted correctly. The seat clamp should be tightened so that you can't turn the seat post inside the frame.
Apply friction paste inside the seat tube before assembling the Reverb. Never use grease when assembling the Reverb seatpost.
Never bleed the Reverb or Reverb Stealth seat post yourself. This work should be carried out exclusively by a competent mechanic. This also applies to any required air pressure adjustments.


text:
|Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ. News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines Twitter
Steam News announces the release of two pieces of DLC for Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the Explosive Mission Pack for $2.99 USD and the Tactical Enhancement Pack for $1.99 USD, which are both also available in a Tactical Enhancement + Explosive Mission Bundle for $3.99 USD (thanks nin). Here's word on what these add to the action/RPG prequel from Eidos Montreal:
Copyright © 1996-2019 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2019 James "furn" Furness &
Blue's News.
All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.4.0/blue++: Page generated 26 March 2019, 03:56.
Chatbear Announcements.


text:
|1161: Church of the Transfiguration ("Little Church Around the Corner"), New York
|Other reports | Comment on this report
|Mystery Worshipper: The Geezer.
The church: Church of the Transfiguration ("Little Church Around the Corner"), New York.
Denomination: Anglo-Catholic (Episcopal Church in the USA).
The building: The Transfiguration parish was founded in 1849 and the church itself was consecrated in 1853. The brick building is basically two churches conjoined at their backs. One enters the church garden via a lych-gate and the church proper via the leftmost of two towers. To the left of the entrance is a chapel off which open several side chapels; to the right is the main church. Each features splendid stained glass and several strikingly beautiful works of art. The nave of the main church is wide and dark and is covered by a wooden barrel-like ceiling. A pipe organ is located to the right about halfway down the nave; choir seating surrounds the pipe chamber. The sanctuary is backed by a wall of gold leaf, with marble high altar and reredos. To the right of the sanctuary is a columbarium.
The church: Transfiguration's first rector, the Rev. Dr George Hendric Houghton, served in that capacity for 49 years. Dr Houghton helped bring to America the Oxford Movement, which reintroduced the Anglican Church to its Roman roots. Dr Houghton was also one of the founders of the Order of the Holy Cross, the oldest continuing monastic order in the Episcopal Church. During the American Civil War, the church served as a station on the underground railroad, a clandestine support network for runaway slaves. The nickname "Little Church Around the Corner" was coined in 1870, when the rector of a nearby church refused an actor's request for a funeral service for his friend, saying that there was a "little church around the corner where they do that sort of thing." The name has stuck ever since. A window in the south aisle bearing the inscription "God bless the Little Church Around the Corner" depicts Jesus with outstretched arms welcoming the actor as he approaches the lych-gate bearing the shroud-draped body of his friend. Over time a close relationship developed between Transfiguration and the people of the Broadway stage. In 1923 the Episcopal Actors' Guild held its first meeting at Transfiguration. Such theatrical greats as Basil Rathbone, Tallulah Bankhead, Peggy Wood, Joan Fontaine, Rex Harrison and Charlton Heston have served as officers or council members of the guild.
The neighborhood: The church is situated at One East 29th Street in Manhattan's Murray Hill district, see the report on Marble Collegiate Church for more details. In fact, Transfiguration is located "around the corner" from Marble Collegiate.
The cast: The Rev. Warren E. Haynes, priest-in-charge, was the celebrant. Father Haynes was assisted by the Rev. Warren C. Platt, deacon, Mr Yaroslav Dyakiv, verger, and Dr Claudia Dumschat, organist and choir director. The celebrant and deacon were vested in a plain purple chasuble and dalmatic without orphreys; the crucifer and acolytes wore albs and cinctures.
|What was the name of the service?
Solemn Eucharist with the Great Litany in procession (Third Sunday in Lent).
How full was the building?
There were about 50 people present; it appeared about one-third full. The congregation was predominantly young to middle-aged.
Did anyone welcome you personally?
A gentleman was readying leaflets to be passed out; he told me I could take photographs before mass and explained the arrangement of the chapel vs the main church. He asked me if I was there representing a publication (I think I bluffed my way successfully out of that one). He also lamented that he was formerly the church's webmaster but that now he doesn't even know the password!
Was your pew comfortable?
Yes. The wooden pews were lined with red leather cushions. The kneelers, however, were the hassock type that I always find so uncomfortable.
How would you describe the pre-service atmosphere?
People entered quietly; there was very little visiting. The organist offered a prelude.
What were the exact opening words of the service?
"O God the Father, creator of heaven and earth, have mercy upon us" (from the Great Litany).
What books did the congregation use during the service?
1979 Prayer Book, 1982 Hymnal, service leaflet.
What musical instruments were played?
The pipe organ. The choir consisted of six men and about 10 boys, all vested in cassock and surplice, except for a few probationers among the boys who wore only cassocks. The boys also wore frilly white collars.
Did anything distract you?
In a positive way, the church's beautiful architecture and appointments held my attention. But I couldn't help wondering where Tallulah Bankhead had sat.
Was the worship stiff-upper-lip, happy clappy, or what?
Rite I solemn eucharist in the Anglo-Catholic tradition about eight up the candle on a scale of 1 to 10.
Exactly how long was the sermon?
8 minutes.
On a scale of 1-10, how good was the preacher?
8 Father Haynes's style was quiet and undramatic, and yet he held our attention and made his points effortlessly. He had a dry sense of humor, especially when describing what the Samaritan woman must have been thinking during her encounter with Jesus at Jacob's well.
In a nutshell, what was the sermon about?
Father preached on the day's Gospel reading, John 4:5-26; 39-42, the dialog between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. This passage summarizes all that John believed about Jesus. People may think they have plenty, but their spiritual cupboards may be bare nonetheless. Every act of worship of the Christian church embodies the theme, "Come and see the man who will give you living water."
Which part of the service was like being in heaven?
The choir sang a Howells anthem at the offertory that I am sure had Howells looking down from heaven in approbation. They also chanted the psalm to tone 8, with a countertenor singing organum a fourth above the other voices.
And which part was like being in... er... the other place?
I was unable to attend church on the first Sunday of Lent, and I thought for sure I had missed the Great Litany for another season but there it was to surprise me. It is Transfiguration's custom to sing the litany each Sunday in Lent. The choir director insisted on conducting the choir's responses, and she took them at half tempo. The result was that the litany, which drones on endlessly under the best of circumstances, seemed to drone on for twice as long.
What happened when you hung around after the service looking lost?
I followed the others out to coffee, where a lady who is a parish regular was quick to engage me in conversation. The gentleman I had spoken with earlier at the door (the former webmaster) soon joined us. I also chatted with some of the choir members about the use of organum during the psalm.
How would you describe the after-service coffee?
Good, strong, hot coffee served in styrofoam cups. There were also several kinds of tea available, as well as bottled water and orange juice. Cookies, cakes and even devilled eggs were laid out on a table. The presentation, however, could have used some finesse, I thought.
How would you feel about making this church your regular (where 10 = ecstatic, 0 = terminal)?
8 If I lived in Manhattan I would give it serious consideration. It's a very beautiful church with a dignified liturgy and a dedicated congregation. I would probably absent myself during the Sundays in Lent, however or at least arrive late.
Did the service make you feel glad to be a Christian?
What one thing will you remember about all this in seven days' time?
How beautiful the church is.


text:
Sunlight shining on its underside, the inverted suicide plane dove toward the flight deck of the USS Enterprise (CV-6) early on 14 May 1945. The pilot of the bomb-laden Japanese A6M5 Reisen Zeke had carefully used cloud cover and avoided 5-inch and 40-mm antiaircraft fire while approaching the carrier from her stern. Just before the Zeke passed the ship's fantail, he flipped it onto its back in a snap roll. An instant later, the kamikaze pilot steepened his plane's dive and crashed through the carrier's forward flight deck. The resulting explosion blasted most of the ship's forward elevator more than 400 feet into the air. While the Enterprise's casualties were relatively light—14 killed and 68 wounded—and she was able to maintain her place in the formation and fight off more attacks that day, "The Big E" was heavily damaged. On the 16th she set out for home, her combat career ended.
American histories of the Enterprise—most notably Navy Commander Edward P. Stafford's The Big E—identified the kamikaze pilot as "Chief Pilot Tomi Zai." Commander Stafford even titled a chapter in his book after him. But while conducting research in Japan, I found evidence that Tomi Zai was not the brave pilot's name. To the best of my knowledge, only a handful of the several thousand kamikaze pilots who died by crashing into enemy vessels have been identified, and usually only in Japanese-language books. I nevertheless set out on a journey to correctly identify the man who put the Enterprise out of the war.
Against the Backdrop of Okinawa
On 6 April 1945, in response to the recent U.S. landings on Okinawa, Japan launched the largest kamikaze, or Special Attack, offensive of World War II—Operation Kikusui (Floating Chrysanthemum). Its series of ten mass aerial attacks would stretch over 2?? months. On 11 May, about 240 Imperial Japanese Navy and Army planes participated in the sixth Kikusui attack, which severely damaged Vice Admiral Marc Mitscher's flagship, the USS Bunker Hill (CV-17).
After transferring his flag to the Enterprise, the Task Force 58 commander responded by ordering planes from Task Groups 58.1 and 58.3 to intensify their attacks on the Kikusui air bases on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. On the nights of 12-13 and 13-14 May, fighters and bombers from the Enterprise attacked the airfields using general-purpose bombs, incendiary clusters, and rockets.
Although Naval Air Station Kanoya was one of the bases hit, early on the morning of the 14th, 28 A6M5 Model 52C Zekes of the 6th Tsukuba, 11th Kenmu, and 8th Shichisho squadrons were able to take off. A group of 12 started lifting off at 0525, and the remainder began leaving at 0619. The pilots of the kamikaze planes had orders to attack targets of opportunity—namely ships in the task groups about 130 miles to the southeast—and each carried a 500-kg (1,100-pound) armor-piercing delay-action bomb. Forty escort fighters accompanied the planes.
Tomi Zai was the only one of the 28 kamikaze pilots who successfully completed his mission. He is generally credited as being an outstanding pilot for being able to roll his Zeke onto its back and then hit the Enterprise after it appeared that he would fly over and miss the turning carrier. The pilot's body, along with his plane's engine, was found in the bottom of the forward elevator well, and in The Big E, Commander Stafford implied that "Chief Pilot Tomi Zai" was printed on calling cards found in one of his pockets. However, when I checked the names of the kamikaze pilots who had been killed on 14 May 1945 in Combined Fleet records and other sources, I could not find a Tomi Zai. I did, however, find a Lieutenant (junior grade) Shunsuke Tomiyasu, but considered it premature to conclude that Tomi Zai was that pilot.
The Search Begins
Fortunately, I had gotten to know Joel Shepherd, secretary of the USS Enterprise CV-6 Association, through the Internet. According to his information, the pilot's proper name was Shusasuka Tomiyasa, which closely resembled Shunsuke Tomiyasu. An early and improper translation rendered it Tomi Zai. I asked Joel if any of the pilot's personal items besides the calling cards were recovered. About two weeks later I received an e-mailed reply in which Joel said he had a small rubber stamp that he had been told was found among the pilot's effects. He offered to send it to me.
While awaiting the stamp's arrival, I asked three Japanese veterans for help gathering more information about the pilot. Takeharu Nozaki is a member of the Hakuo Bereaved Family Association, an organization of flight reserve officer veterans and relatives of those aviators who died during the war; Fujio Hayashi was a navy veteran who had prepared flight duty rosters at Kanoya in 1945; and Nobuya Kinase was Shunsuke Tomiyasu's comrade in the Tsukuba Air Group. Their search for relevant squadron after-action reports and action-progress summaries at the Japanese Institute for Defense Studies' Archives was unsuccessful; however, Takeharu was able to put me in touch with Lieutenant Tomiyasu's brother, Hideo Tomiyasu.
In the meantime, the long-awaited rubber stamp (hanko) arrived from the United States along with a note from Joel. He wrote: "I've been told it was found in the personal effects of the pilot who crashed Enterprise on May 14, 1945, but have no way of verifying that. Again, if it appears to belong to ?Tomi Zai,' I'd be happy to see it returned to his family." The stamp was about 2?? inches high, with a long, slender wooden handle and a 2-by-??-inch wooden base. A thin piece of rubber embossed with Chinese characters forming the words "Misc. building" was glued to the base.
Hoping direct evidence linking the Enterprise kamikaze to Lieutenant Tomiyasu had been discovered, I asked his brother if he had any information about the stamp. Unfortunately, he knew nothing about it.
Help from an Enterprise Sailor
Although some of my leads were drying up, an Enterprise veteran, as well as Joel, was able to provide background information about the 14 May kamikaze hit. I had gotten to know Norman L. Zafft several years earlier when I was researching Lieutenant Kazuo Nakai, who had attempted to crash into the Enterprise on 1 February 1942 off the Marshall Islands. Norman was then president of the Enterprise Association. He had come aboard the carrier at age 18 in October 1943, and in May 1945 was a shipfitter second class assigned to the ship's Construction and Repair Division.
Neither Norman nor Joel knew how I could obtain one of the pilot's calling cards or a copy of one of them, and Norman added that he had "no idea" where the cards ended up. The pilot's family and others in Japan were concerned about the disposition and burial of the pilot's remains. As it was a most delicate subject, I was prepared to keep the findings to myself or pass them along, depending on the answer. Joel referred me to the Enterprise's war diary, which stated, "At 1410 buried body of Japanese Naval Lieutenant whose plane crashed ship at 0657." According to Norman, "His body, as I recall, was placed in a mattress cover with a 5-inch shell and slid into the sea off the fantail, or stern, of our ship, as we buried our dead." Joel speculated that he was given a simple but respectful burial at sea, probably without much ceremony.
"I don't know how the pilot's name came out to be Tomi Zai," Norman wrote, "but my guess is, someone saw his name and couldn't pronounce it. [He] saw Tomiyasa and shortening it to Tomi Sa in English."
I had earlier determined that a Nisei officer who could translate Japanese was most likely on board the Enterprise at the time of the attack. He might have read one of the calling cards correctly but, either through mispronunciation or misspelling as the name was forwarded along, Shunsuke Tomiyasu became Shusasuka Tomiyasa and was finally shortened to Tomi Zai.
A Key Piece of Evidence Arrives
At this point, I wanted to report to Lieutenant Tomiyasu's brother, as well as Nobuya Kinase and Takeharu Nozaki, on my progress. Our first meeting took place at a restaurant near Yokohama Station. There, I was excited to receive a copy of "Declaration 113, Action Progress Summary Report" from Takeharu. Discovered in the office of the Hakuo Bereaved Families Association, this Imperial Japanese Navy handwritten document summarized information on 14 May 1945 flights out of Kanoya. It was the very report I had been looking for; I thought it would conclusively list the name of the pilot who crashed into the Enterprise. While I was disappointed to discover that was not the case, the report did contain key information that helped me shorten the list of possible pilots by process of elimination.
I had learned from the Senshi Sosho, the Japan Defense Agency's history of the war, that 28 bomb-laden Zekes took off from Kanoya shortly after dawn on 14 May. "Declaration 113" revealed that 22 pilots of those planes actually completed their missions. (Six of the aircraft probably suffered mechanical problems and returned to base.) Furthermore, the report listed the names and ranks of the 22 pilots broken down by squadrons. Four were lieutenants (junior grade), thirteen were ensigns, and five petty officers. According to the Enterprise war diary, the kamikaze pilot was a lieutenant, which left only four possibilities.
According to a notation in the margin of the report: "At/about 0718, position 130?? bearing (true), 140 nautical miles from Miyazaki, ten escort fighters sighted two groups of the enemy task forces. One carrier [the Enterprise] appeared to be a CVE and was sending up a pillar of flames."
Because Lieutenants Keijiro Hiura and Takuro Fujita transmitted their last communications after 0657—the time the Enterprise was hit—they can be eliminated. For the remaining two lieutenants, Shunsuke Tomiyasu and Fumio Kusumoto, the flight times from takeoff to 0657 was approximately 90 minutes, which is the time required for a Zeke laden with a 500-kg bomb to fly from Kanoya to the carrier's location. The known facts about their flights could make either one Tomi Zai. However, I concluded Shunsuke Tomiyasu was the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Enterprise based on the similarity of his name to Shusasuka Tomiyasa, the surname of which closely resembled Tomi Zai.
Recovering a Piece of the Plane
Having completed my research, I next hoped, with the help of Norman Zafft, to bring some comfort and closure to the family and friends of Lieutenant Tomiyasu. On board the Enterprise on 14 May 1945, Norman had the watch from 0400 to 0800. He and three of his shipmates—nicknamed the "Fresh-Water Kings"—took turns caring for the fresh-water tanks and pumps near the Enterprise's forward elevator. Just before 0700, one of the shipmates, George Barker, came down and said, "Zafft, if you want to go and eat chow, I will relieve you early, as I feel safer down here." Norman went to the crew's mess, and while he was in the chow line, general quarters sounded. Immediately afterward, Tomiyasu's plane crashed near the forward elevator. George Barker was one of the Sailors killed, and Norman had the terrible experience of knowing that his friend had died in his place.
As a member of the Construction and Repair Division, Norman had access to the bottom of the elevator well, where he ventured after the crash and explosion. He told me he picked up a souvenir there, a small piece of the Zeke's fuselage. Another shipfitter got part of the plane's propeller blade, a small piece of which Norman later sawed off. He polished one side and engraved on it USS Enterprise—May 14, 1945.
In replying to my request years earlier for information about the Japanese plane that nearly hit the Enterprise in 1942, Norman had begun his letter by writing that he had been bitter toward and prejudiced against the Japanese people, but after 50 years, he knew it was time to forgive. The Japanese had fought the war for their country, as the Americans had for their country. Maybe hearing from me had helped change his attitude.
When I told Hideo Tomiyasu and the members of the Tsukuba Air Group Association that Norman had two pieces of Lieutenant Tomiyasu's plane, which he had carefully preserved for nearly 60 years, opinions were divided between aggressively seeking the return of one of the pieces, and gently urging Norman to part with one of the mementoes. I strongly believed that he would not part with the engraved piece of the prop blade but might return the piece of fuselage. Hideo and members of the Tsukuba Air Group Association decided to entrust me with writing an e-mail asking Norman for one of the pieces. Although I knew his attitudes toward the Japanese had changed considerably in the past couple of years, I carefully chose my words, stating in the message that we would appreciate his considering giving us one of the pieces.
Several days after I sent the e-mail, I received a response from Norman saying, after informing his family of our request, he had decided to send us the piece of the plane's fuselage. He wrote that he could not part with the piece of the prop blade, as it represented a day he would always remember, and his son would have it someday. The other piece of the plane would mean more to the Tomiyasu family than to his family, he said. About a week later I was excited to receive a manila envelope from Norman. A piece of an Imperial Japanese Navy Zeke kamikaze plane had returned to Japan after 58 years!
A Final Resolution
A few weeks later, in early July 2003, I attended a gathering to celebrate the life of Lieutenant (junior grade) Shunsuke Tomiyasu and reach a definitive conclusion about his fate. Held in a hotel room near Yokohama Station, the attendees included Hideo Tomiyasu; the three Japanese veterans I had worked with—Fujio Hayashi, Nobuya Kinase, and Takeharu Nozaki; and Tetsuo Terao, another veteran who had been a middle-school classmate of Lieutenant Tomiyasu's.
Fujio, who had been one of the lieutenant's commanding officers, recounted many episodes from the young aviator's life. I followed by reporting on my research and explaining it was next to impossible to expect further developments. All the attendees then agreed that although the evidence was circumstantial, the kamikaze pilot who had been known as Tomi Zai must have been Lieutenant (junior grade) Shunsuke Tomiyasu.
I then presented the envelope I had received from Norman Zafft to Hideo Tomiyasu. He withdrew from it a small, about 1??-by-3??-inch, slightly bent piece of Duralumin. On the outer surface, part of the dark olive drab paint of the imperial navy's planes had peeled off due to exposure to high temperatures, and a strip of metal about 2??5 an inch wide that seemed to be a stringer was riveted on the back of the piece.
Without saying a word, Hideo Tomiyasu stared fixedly at the piece of the plane in which his beloved brother flew to his death. He, as well as the veterans present, must have felt a thousand emotions as they gazed at it.
According to Hideo, the only official word he had received about his brother's death was that "Lieutenant Tomiyasu was killed in action on May 14, 1945." About ten years ago, he had learned by hearsay that Shunsuke might have crashed into the Enterprise. Having just learned in detail about his brother's final moments, Hideo thought Shunsuke must have been satisfied to have successfully completed his mission. In those days, when a kamikaze pilot left on a sortie, he was determined to hit the target. Hideo calmly said that he wanted all to know that, although people think Shunsuke was the only pilot who distinguished himself in the battle, all the other pilots who took off from Kanoya that morning shared in the success by having cooperated with and supported his brother.
In accordance with Hideo's wishes, the piece of his brother's plane is now displayed at the Kanoya Naval Air Station Museum. The description accompanying the exhibit explains that, more than 60 years before, 22-year-old Lieutenant (junior grade) Shunsuke Tomiyasu, with a high spirit of patriotism, followed the extraordinary command to die for his country and crashed into the USS Enterprise, successfully accomplishing his sure-death, one-way mission. The names of the 14 American officers and men of the Enterprise killed by the crash—including Seaman Second Class George Barker—are also included in the exhibit for the repose of their souls. Moreover, in return for his kindness and generosity, a description is included to the effect that, despite old, hard feelings against the Japanese, Norman L. Zafft gave the relatives and comrades of Lieutenant Tomiyasu a piece of the plane on board which the young pilot died.
Hideo Tomiyasu told me he donated the piece of his brother's kamikaze plane to the museum because he wants present-day young people to know that in the past many young Japanese had willingly sacrificed their lives for the sake of their country. He also wants today's youth to realize how primitive, brutal, and violent war can be. He hopes this small but significant historic artifact is a symbol of the reality of war in hopes that subsequent generations might avoid conflict.
Mr. Sugahara, a retired airline employee, is a translator and World War II historian who attended the Imperial Japanese Naval Academy at Etajima, Hiroshima, during the war. He is also a coauthor, along with Ichiro Matsunaga and Gordon J. Van Wylen, of Encounter at Sea and a Heroic Lifeboat Journey (Troy, MI: Sabre Press, 1994). Mr. Sugahara would like to express his heartfelt appreciation to Joel Shepherd, secretary of the USS Enterprise CV-6 Association, and Norman Zafft, a former president of the organization, for their kind cooperation and assistance in writing this article.
See the full Naval Institute guide to The Pacific.
The Real Tomi ZaiImperial Japanese Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) Shunsuke Tomiyasu was born in 1922 to a Nagasaki family. According to his brother Hideo, he had large eyes and was called "Medama" ("Big Eyes") in his primary and middle-school days. A good harmonica player, he was a member of his school band. He was also accomplished at judo.
After Shunsuke graduated from Waseda University in March 1943 with a degree in politics and economics, he worked for the Nichiman Trading Company in Shinkyo (Changchun), Manchuria. That September he joined the Imperial Japanese Navy in the 13th Class of Reserve Students and received intensive Zeke flight training at Tsukuba Air Base. In May 1944 he was commissioned an ensign. After several transfers and a promotion to lieutenant (junior grade), Shunsuke was assigned to Tsukuba Naval Air Group on 1 March 1945 as an instructor for the 14th Class of Reserve Students. On 28 March, however, Tsukuba Air Group organized a Zeke Special Attack (Kamikaze) Corps, which Lieutenant Tomiyasu joined. Leading the corps' 6th Tsukuba Squadron, he took off from Naval Air Station Kanoya on his final mission early on 14 May.
In his final letter to his family, Shunsuke wrote:
Dear Father, Mother, and Sister,