Henry Ford's Legacy

[Perknose]

The man held some batshit crazy views, virulent anti-semitism, for one. He also did some truly ugly things, like his private army of union busting thugs, but the man also did some damn fine things.

People are complicated, is what I'm saying.

 

[K1052]

He was a brilliant but deeply flawed man, especially as he got older. He nearly destroyed his own company several times through paranoia and inflexibility.

 

[Vic]

Ford was a brilliant businessman, but he was also uneducated to the point where he was barely literate.
Here's an interesting article about when Ford sued the Chicago Tribune for libel and got humiliated in court. This event spurred him to buy the Dearborn Independent shortly thereafter.
http://www.ozy.com/flashback/the-astonishing-ignorance-of-henry-ford/31368

 

[momeNt]

Ford was a brilliant businessman, but he was also uneducated to the point where he was barely literate.
Here's an interesting article about when Ford sued the Chicago Tribune for libel and got humiliated in court. This event spurred him to buy the Dearborn Independent shortly thereafter.
http://www.ozy.com/flashback/the-astonishing-ignorance-of-henry-ford/31368

I gotta say I side with Ford on this. It takes a special kind of idiot to snicker and call that man "a joke" as the The New York Post put it. Maybe they did this to feel better about themselves in a way to reconcile the fact that a large part of their ego rests with their education credentials?

 

[zinfamous]

I gotta say I side with Ford on this. It takes a special kind of idiot to snicker and call that man "a joke" as the The New York Post put it. Maybe they did this to feel better about themselves in a way to reconcile the fact that a large part of their ego rests with their education credentials?

Careful. This is how Trump support is born.

 

[Mai72]

Who is this Henry Ford character?

Was he made up by the press? It's lies. All lies!!

 

[Ken g6]

Hm. On one hand, Henry Ford's legacy of automation is destroying jobs. On the other hand Henry Ford knew people need a living wage.

 

[momeNt]

Careful. This is how Trump support is born.

Upon some closer reading. It's actually hilarious that you say that. As it was potentially the exact opposite of today's circumstances.

Ford - the deranged, illiterate, media-laughed-at billionaire, was against war with Mexico.

The Media - lying - hate-spewing, agenda driven, objectiveness be damned, wanted war with Mexico.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-06-08/news/9706300080_1_henry-ford-chicago-tribune-anarchist

To this day, it sounds more like a movie treatment than a libel trial. McCormick and his army of lawyers imported a collection of cattle ranchers from Texas, in cowboy clothing, to support the arguments about "rape" and "massacre" along the Rio Grande.

Ford and his army of attorneys countered with more than 100 Mexican witnesses.

What the Chicago Tribune did back then remind you of anybody?

 

[zinfamous]

Upon some closer reading. It's actually hilarious that you say that. As it was potentially the exact opposite of today's circumstances.

Ford - the deranged, illiterate, media-laughed-at billionaire, was against war with Mexico.

The Media - lying - hate-spewing, agenda driven, objectiveness be damned, wanted war with Mexico.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-06-08/news/9706300080_1_henry-ford-chicago-tribune-anarchist


What the Chicago Tribune did back then remind you of anybody?

...you miss my point. The justification of supporting an ignorant asshole (and by all accounts, and for all his evils, Ford was much less of a pure asshole than Trumplefingers) simply because they are really just an ignorant asshole "being bullied by smart people!" explains the typical Trump supporter: an ignorant idiot that justifies their own worth by watching another useful idiot get justifiably pilloried in public.

 

[momeNt]

...you miss my point. The justification of supporting an ignorant asshole (and by all accounts, and for all his evils, Ford was much less of a pure asshole than Trumplefingers) simply because they are really just an ignorant asshole "being bullied by smart people!" explains the typical Trump supporter: an ignorant idiot that justifies their own worth by watching another useful idiot get justifiably pilloried in public.

You're gonna have to spell that all out the first time. Not everybody sees a comment as all roads lead to Trump.

What the Tribune did to Ford seems pretty much uncalled for all around though. So even with your explanation, I don't really accept them as similar. This is more you drawing conclusions in an all roads lead to Trump sort of thing.

If you could, would you be able to spend a day this coming week without Trump crossing your mind? If you can't then I think you are unhealthily consumed and need a break. There is a whole big wide world out there and it would like to have you in it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Hm. On one hand, Henry Ford's legacy of automation is destroying jobs. On the other hand Henry Ford knew people need a living wage.

He was a 'rising tide raises all ships' kinda guy. As his processes improved he actually *lowered* the cost of his product (since the bottom line was being lowered). He'd be laughed out of a business school nowadays.

 

[Brainonska511]

Ford was a brilliant businessman, but he was also uneducated to the point where he was barely literate.
Here's an interesting article about when Ford sued the Chicago Tribune for libel and got humiliated in court. This event spurred him to buy the Dearborn Independent shortly thereafter.
http://www.ozy.com/flashback/the-astonishing-ignorance-of-henry-ford/31368

This line sounds oddly familiar and seems like it could be easily written about a certain president...

After the trial, the media pronounced its own unequivocal verdict on Ford’s performance. “Mr. Ford has been submitted to a severe examination of his intellectual qualities,” wrote the New York Times. “He has not received a pass.” “The man is a joke,” blasted the New York Post.

But the 11-man jury and the American public took a rather different view of the proceedings. After 10 hours of deliberation, the jury found in favor of Ford but awarded only six cents in damages (which the Tribune never paid). And despite incurring the scorn of the intelligentsia, Ford’s bumbling testimony seemed to endear him even more to the millions of Americans for whom he was the quintessential man-of-the-people.

 

[zinfamous]

You're gonna have to spell that all out the first time. Not everybody sees a comment as all roads lead to Trump.

What the Tribune did to Ford seems pretty much uncalled for all around though. So even with your explanation, I don't really accept them as similar. This is more you drawing conclusions in an all roads lead to Trump sort of thing.

If you could, would you be able to spend a day this coming week without Trump crossing your mind? If you can't then I think you are unhealthily consumed and need a break. There is a whole big wide world out there and it would like to have you in it.

Your comment that I responded to didn't imply anything about the subject in question, only the response of the press and what would be public (your) perception of that:

I gotta say I side with Ford on this. It takes a special kind of idiot to snicker and call that man "a joke" as the The New York Post put it. Maybe they did this to feel better about themselves in a way to reconcile the fact that a large part of their ego rests with their education credentials?

Not that I don't see your point after you went back and addressed the context; but here^ you are only sympathizing with someone simply because they are being bullied by perceived "betters." Essentially, the decades long conservative assault on Intellectualism and the general drive towards lionizing pure imbecility in our politics and in our culture.

It is this attitude specifically that fueled a lot of Trump's support. e.g. "Look at them liberal smartypantses and conservative establishment get all angry whenever he says something!"

Further and without digging, I would caution you that the likely "media" in question here, one that would support a war with our neighbors at any cost and libel those opposed to such a policy, is very likely one of the many arms WR Hearst, considering the time point here. ....I don't think you want to compare the Hearst media of that time to what you consider the same type of "intellectual evil" that you perceive in today's media. I mean, that would just look bad.

 

[zinfamous]

This line sounds oddly familiar and seems like it could be easily written about a certain president...

But the 11-man jury and the American public took a rather different view of the proceedings. After 10 hours of deliberation, the jury found in favor of Ford but awarded only six cents in damages (which the Tribune never paid). And despite incurring the scorn of the intelligentsia, Ford’s bumbling testimony seemed to endear him even more to the millions of Americans for whom he was the quintessential man-of-the-people.

...and don't forget that this dude was buried with the very Iron Cross that Heir Fuhrer himself bestowed upon him. A true man of the people, a hero of the working class. And a true Nazi. Nah, not familiar at all.

 

[K1052]

...and don't forget that this dude was buried with the very Iron Cross that Heir Fuhrer himself bestowed upon him. A true man of the people, a hero of the working class. And a true Nazi. Nah, not familiar at all.

Also not generally well known that he, mostly successfully, resisted the company's entry into military production until Pearl Harbor and even then caused labor issues that made the US government seriously consider nationalizing the company as an emergency war measure. The only thing that kept Ford in family hands was Edsel, his long suffering (literally and figuratively) son.

 

[Perknose]

Also not generally well known that he, mostly successfully, resisted the company's entry into military production until Pearl Harbor and even then caused labor issues that made the US government seriously consider nationalizing the company as an emergency war measure. The only thing that kept Ford in family hands was Edsel, his long suffering (literally and figuratively) son.

Iirc, during WWll, his other son and namesake got a special exemption to come home and run the company.

Ha ha, yeah, "left the Navy" in 1943 in the middle of WWll. No able bodied man permanently "left the Navy" during the war.

When his father Edsel, the president of Ford, died of cancer in May 1943 (during World War II), Henry Ford II was serving in the Navy, and was thus unable to take over the presidency of the family-owned business. The elderly and ailing Henry Ford, company founder, re-assumed the presidency. By this point in his life, the elder Ford was mentally inconsistent, suspicious, and no longer fit for the job; most of the directors did not want to see him as president. But for the previous 20 years, although he had long been without any official executive title, he had always had de facto control over the company; the board and the management had never seriously defied him, and this moment was not different. The directors elected him,[5] and he served until the end of the war. During this period the company began to decline, losing over $10 million a month. The administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been considering a government takeover of the company in order to ensure continued war production, but the idea never progressed to execution.

Henry Ford II left the Navy in July 1943 and joined the company's management a few weeks later.

 

[K1052]

Iirc, during WWll, his other son and namesake got a special exemption to come home and run the company.

Ha ha, yeah, "left the Navy" in 1943 in the middle of WWll. No able bodied man permanently "left the Navy" during the war.

Henry II was his grandson, Edsel's kid. He only got to come home because Edsel died in 1943 and Henry I was far to erratic and mentally diminished to be left in charge alone during the time of the country's utmost need for war production. All things considered I think it was wise of the government to release him from service to guide the company since there was nobody else left to take the reins. Edsel literally killed himself with the strain of dealing with his abusive father, the work demands of highly innovative war production, and his cancer.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Henry II was his grandson, Edsel's kid. He only got to come home because Edsel died in 1943 and Henry I was far to erratic and mentally diminished to be left in charge alone during the time of the country's utmost need for war production. All things considered I think it was wise of the government to release him from service to guide the company since there was nobody else left to take the reins. Edsel literally killed himself with the strain of dealing with his abusive father, the work demands of highly innovative war production, and his cancer.

This, he served the country better running the company that created hundreds of thousands of vehicles, planes, guns, and components for the american war machine, than he ever would have as a sailor.

 

[momeNt]

Your comment that I responded to didn't imply anything about the subject in question, only the response of the press and what would be public (your) perception of that:



Not that I don't see your point after you went back and addressed the context; but here^ you are only sympathizing with someone simply because they are being bullied by perceived "betters." Essentially, the decades long conservative assault on Intellectualism and the general drive towards lionizing pure imbecility in our politics and in our culture.

It is this attitude specifically that fueled a lot of Trump's support. e.g. "Look at them liberal smartypantses and conservative establishment get all angry whenever he says something!"

Further and without digging, I would caution you that the likely "media" in question here, one that would support a war with our neighbors at any cost and libel those opposed to such a policy, is very likely one of the many arms WR Hearst, considering the time point here. ....I don't think you want to compare the Hearst media of that time to what you consider the same type of "intellectual evil" that you perceive in today's media. I mean, that would just look bad.

First bold - What? No I am not. I am not sympathizing with him because they are being bullied by perceived betters. I am sympathizing with them because they are being attacked based on something that was clearly irrelevant to his success. Might as well tell Bill Gates he's a moron because he didn't finish college? I mean what? I think it is endearing that he couldn't read, had ADHD to the point of being incapable of being prepped on American history, yet he had an interest in engineering strong enough to be backed by Thomas Edison and created the american automobile industry almost single handedly.

Basically, to restate what I originally said. They attacked him because he made them feel bad about themselves. How can this dummy be so rich and brilliant when I own all these books and degrees?

This has like basically nothing to do with Trump. I've decided I don't like him as a businessman, I think there was a time when he did well in real estate, but the growth of his wealth from the late 80s onward is very poor. His wealth is at a point where it should just grow because of its size, like the phenomena of Bill Gates and Liliane Bettencourt from L'Oreal. One made his wealth, the other inherited, and they have had the same amount of growth in wealth. Donald Trump has not done that.

As to who the press was - McCormick of Chicago Tribune - Not a Hearst publication. Just a rich guy from Yale and Northwestern that inherited a bunch of money from Cyrus McCormick. Somebody not all that different from Ford.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune#Years_of_McCormick

edit: I guess you maybe took offense to the following from my response to your initial post about trump support with regards to the media.

Ford - the deranged, illiterate, media-laughed-at billionaire, was against war with Mexico.

The Media - lying - hate-spewing, agenda driven, objectiveness be damned, wanted war with Mexico.

I was speaking about this from how one speaks about the other. Media says this about the Trump (Ford) and Trump (Ford) says this about media. You only latched onto one side of it though and didn't see it at face value. Maybe its because one statement is true, or you believe it to be true, so you would take it as not a fair comparison.