Yes, he was a bastard. He financed a lot of Father Coughlin's crap in the 1930s. The ban on the people having access to automatic weapons (machine guns) was sponsored by Ford . He was building machine gun nests on the top of his plants when the change occurred because the union organizers were targeting his plants.

When I found out that it was illegal to own machine guns in the 1950s, I asked my mother why my grandfather had a Thompson machine gun in the early fifties. She said my grandfather believed that his best chance in life was to do exactly the opposite of anything Henry Ford did.

When she was dying, she told me where she had buried the Thompson. After she died, I dug it up but 30 years in the ground had destroyed it so I just refilled the hole.

we increase the interest rates on US debt so China has more money to buy bonds?

And continue to believe more strongly as the years go by, that this trope about Ford is pure BS.
Just going with my gut here, but I think this is one of the mythifications of things people like to pull out and use as a "truth" when it suits their argument.
Wasn't around back then but I get the feeling they didn't call the captains of industry preceding Ford "Robber Barons" in jest.

Henry Ford was the lede, not the subject. A fairly incidental lede at that.

It appeared the Henry Ford anecdote was the only echo of evidence for the posters conclusions, which is why that aspect received comments.

"Growth is bottom up. When the system gets too top heavy, it collapses. Supply side economics was hit the wall and that's all there is to it. The bankers and the plutocrats have all the money, but nothing to do with it. They have become a shell which needs to be shed." - We couldn't have said much about that as there's no evidence or examples for one to agree or disagree.

Now I do share the conclusion that we need to get rid of the bankers as they exist now but under such a scenario his previous claim becomes false "The economy has to have a convection cycle of rising assets and precipitating benefits, or it breaks down. ". That is, if he's saying what I think he's saying.

Isn't it interesting how someone provides jobs for people and they get labeled robber barons? Speaking of the car industry, how come non-union auto makers are the only manufacturers that are making a profit? You remember profits, don't you? Profits allow the owner to keep paying workers a salary, contribute to pension and profit sharing, pay for some or all of the health insurance costs, pay federal and state income taxes, pay for research, pay for advertising, and on and on and on. Whenever I reached a point in my lifetime where I thought I was worth more than what I was being paid, I moved on to something else. Sometimes it was a good move, sometimes not. But I never complained about an opportunity. It was up to me to find what I needed in this life. casino en ligne

Toyota isn't profitable in the US.Toyota isn't profitable in the US and the carmakers have since announced the closure of NUMMI.

Ford had this figured out 100 years ago. A further excerpt from the same source as that quote of Ford's line:

s only possible when income is "spread around." That was the lesson of the Great Depression, a lesson that was unlearned by Republicans and Market-worshipping conservative economists from around 1980 onward.

Tax cuts for the highest income brackets and opposition to labor unions and to any government regulation of the market were the orders of the day under the Republican governments of the 1920s, as they have been under the Republican government of the 2000s.

Those policies accomplished the opposite of "spreading the wealth around." By 1928, the richest 10 percent of Americans was taking in almost half of the nation's income. The economy was kept going only by the extension of credit to middle-class buyers. When the credit bubble burst in 1929, the economy collapsed.

Very much the same thing has happened in the present decade. By 2005, income concentration had actually become somewhat greater than it had been just before the 1929 collapse. In 2005, the richest 1 percent of Americans took in 22 percent of the national income, while the top 10 percent made off with more than 48 percent.

Should anyone still be tempted to think that "spreading the wealth around" has been the problem, consider the following trends:

In 1964 the ratio of executive to employee compensation in the United States was 24:1. In 2005, it was 262:1.

Between 2000 and 2005, median CEO compensation increased by 84 percent, while median worker pay was stagnant, actually falling slightly, by 0.3 percent.

Between 1970 and 2003, the compensation of the top 100 CEOs in the United States increased 83 times faster than did the average wage.

Hold onto your wallets, indeed.

Do you begin to understand the problem yet?