In , bob  writes:
>Adam H. Kerman  wrote:
>> Jishnu Mukerji  wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2016 12:02 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>>> Final assembly isn't the point at which significant value is added. If
>>>> wages of workers performing final assembly are a little higher in one
>>>> country versus another country, it doesn't make all that much difference
in
>>>> the manufacturer's costs. With respect to railcars, where final assembly
>>>> takes place is not where the true value is added in the manufacturing
>>>> process.
>>
>>> Apparently your mind is sufficiently made up so presenting any facts may
>>> only bring down your abusive wrath and achieve nothing else.
>>
>> I missed any followup in which facts contradicting my points were
>> presented. Do you have that Message-ID?
>>
>>> But the fact is that about 80% of the content will be manufactured at
>>> various sites by various subcontractors in the US.
>>
>> Well, that's something.
>>
>> Are the components themselves made of imported components, again, just
>> receiving final assembly, or are the major subcomponents all manufactured
>> at the point at which the component is assembled?
>>
>> Is the major component designed in Europe or the United States? If it's
>> still Europe, then you are completely discounting the significant value
>> of the manufacturing process that the design portion represents, which is
>> an unreasonable position to take.
>
>The problem with this line of reasoning is it supposes that buying from a
>US supplier is an affordable option. If you take the cost involved in
>developing the technology to design a 200 mph tilting electric trainset
>based on the experience available to US suppliers, and spread it across the
>number of units that the demand for NEC traffic requires, the unit cost
>would be far beyond what Amtrak could afford. The question is therefore not
>one of "buy American or buy European" but of "buy European or don't buy
>anything".  Is it better for the US railway industry to have part of
>something or all of nothing? What about the benefits to the wider economy
>that comes from having a better railway connection? It's a choice between
>having part of the profits from building some trains plus the benefits of
>having a better railway, or not having any of that.
>
>Robin

My view is that economics is not the sole criteria.  I subscribe to the triple
bottom line concept.

By your logic, US taxpayers should have paid Russia to land an American on the
moon, because the Russians were first in space and only a few landings were
required.

Car manufacturers seem to disagree with you, as they all compete to make cars
which are indistinguishable from each other.

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)