Capitalism, can it work?

Tools    





Man, is that argument skewed. Thoroughly discredited? No way.
Really? What's it wrong about? Make an argument, for crying out loud.

Read what Henry Ford did. I found an argument by some conservative trying to refute the living wage by claiming Ford did not raise wages so his workers could buy his cars, which contradicts what Ford himself said. That particular article contains a lot of misinformation.
So, you say a completely unspecified article by "some conservative" contains misinformation about Ford's motives. Okay...?

Did Ford do it solely for that reason? No. But he realized, which his competitors did not, by raising wages he increased loyalty, production, korale, and reduced greatly turnover so his actual costs were reduced for making a car.
All potentially great arguments for raising employer wages. And none of them even remotely contradicts or disagrees with anything I've said, or anything in that argument I've linked you to. These digressions are just stalling.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
It contradicts because you claimed the article you cited discredits the idea of raising wages so workers can afford to buy the products they make. But it turns out that was all about the living wage and I was specifically referring to Henry Ford. The other article was more directly relevant to what I was talking about and it was all about connecting what Ford did to the concept of the living wage. I wasn't talking about the living wage.I was talking about how Ford thought if he increased wages, and he doubled the standard day rate, it would make his cars affordable to his workers and would increase his sales. And it did. Nothing in your article contradicts that.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
So why doesn't a new business come in and take advantage of such rampant inefficiency?

New businesses in petroleum, steel, and the railroad?

That is where it was going on.

And it wasn't inefficient. They were very good at preventing competitors from taking them on.


Did you read it at all? Do you understand the arguments? If so, what flaw do you find in them?

I was referring specifically to Henry Ford doubling wages and the article is talking about contemporary conditions in the auto industry. At best, he is talking about how it may not be applicable to that situation. In no way does it refute what Ford did and the general idea of paying wages so workers can afford to buy what they produce as a worthy goal. To flatly say as the article says that it is unsound and a flawed idea is absurd. There may be circumstances where it is not practical, but to attack the basic concept is wrong. And the real purpose for doing so is because the author fears otherwise it would be justification for the living wage. You can be against the living wage and still support the idea Henry Ford had, but apparently some people on the right can't make that distinction. Perhaps it is because they use the same type of logic to support their arguments, using a generalized concept to dubiously support something that is actually a giant leap of faith.


Leaving aside the incredible implication that there's apparently no such thing as a widely held discredited idea (!), how exactly do you claim to know how widely held this idea is? Do you know of even one economist off the top of your head who disagrees, let alone a preponderance of them?

There are widely discredited ideas like the world was created in seven days and the Earth is a few thousand years old, but I am absolutely certain that is not widely believed to have been discredited. This is the first time I heard of it being refuted. I thought it was pretty much accepted. But it appears conservative ideologues will claim white is black if they need to to adhere to their rigid free market ideas.


Your arguments about mainstream economics are invariably circular. You'll say that mainstream economists believe something. I provide you with economists who don't and who explain their positions. You then arbitrarily decide that they must not be "mainstream" economists. Thus, what what you call "mainstream" is just your own arbitrary grouping, not a dispassionate aggregation of views.
There are economists outside of the mainstream from both political spectrums and you like to cite the libertarian types. They are not mainstream.



It contradicts because you claimed the article you cited discredits the idea of raising wages so workers can afford to buy the products they make. But it turns out that was all about the living wage and I was specifically referring to Henry Ford. The other article was more directly relevant to what I was talking about and it was all about connecting what Ford did to the concept of the living wage. I wasn't talking about the living wage.I was talking about how Ford thought if he increased wages, and he doubled the standard day rate, it would make his cars affordable to his workers and would increase his sales. And it did. Nothing in your article contradicts that.
Um, yes it does. The text I linked you to completely contradicts the idea that there is any economic sense in increasing wages to "buy back the product." It absolutely does. You might try reading it before you tell me what is and isn't in it.



New businesses in petroleum, steel, and the railroad?

That is where it was going on.
Okay. So...what's your answer? Leaving aside the fact that price-fixing is illegal anyway, why don't new businesses take advantage of this inadequate compensation?

I was referring specifically to Henry Ford doubling wages and the article is talking about contemporary conditions in the auto industry.
No, it isn't. It's talking about the general theories underneath.

At best, he is talking about how it may not be applicable to that situation. In no way does it refute what Ford did and the general idea of paying wages so workers can afford to buy what they produce as a worthy goal. To flatly say as the article says that it is unsound and a flawed idea is absurd.
Yes, he does refute that. Forcefully and directly and in plain English. If you say the idea is unsound (again, apparently without having even heard it yet), you should explain why.

There may be circumstances where it is not practical, but to attack the basic concept is wrong. And the real purpose for doing so is because the author fears otherwise it would be justification for the living wage. You can be against the living wage and still support the idea Henry Ford had, but apparently some people on the right can't make that distinction. Perhaps it is because they use the same type of logic to support their arguments, using a generalized concept to dubiously support something that is actually a giant leap of faith.
The book I linked you to isn't about Henry Ford. It was published in the 1940s (and updated in the 1970s, I believe) and makes general economic arguments not tethered to any one time. I'm not interested in what you think "some people on the right" are thinking. Those sorts of vague pronouncements are hiding places from the issues and arguments I'm placing directly in front of you.

There are widely discredited ideas like the world was created in seven days and the Earth is a few thousand years old, but I am absolutely certain that is not widely believed to have been discredited. This is the first time I heard of it being refuted. I thought it was pretty much accepted. But it appears conservative ideologues will claim white is black if they need to to adhere to their rigid free market ideas.
We're all aware of the concept of a discredited idea, yes. But as you may have noticed, there's a good deal less consensus in the economic sciences than in the physical ones. So I ask again: how do you determine which is right, and (since you seem to care about this more than what is right) which is mainstream? Based on what?

Hazlett's book (and it's hardly the only place where this case is made), by the way, was published over 60 years ago and has been reprinted again and again. He's been honored by other famous economists and philosophers and even Presidents. The fact that this is the first time you've heard of this refutation would seem to say a lot more about what sort of things you read than about the idea itself.

There are economists outside of the mainstream from both political spectrums and you like to cite the libertarian types. They are not mainstream.
See? This is exactly what I said was happening. First, you make no distinction between "free market" and "libertarian" economists (there are lots of free market economists, guy). Then, you say that they're outside the mainstream (again, based on what?). So, by definition, any free market view of the economy is outside of the mainstream. Therefore, you brush off every free market view out of hand. That's called a circular argument. You haven't presented any critique of the free market view, you've simply defined "mainstream" in a way that automatically excludes it. The ideas themselves haven't been responded to in any way.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Um, yes it does. The text I linked you to completely contradicts the idea that there is any economic sense in increasing wages to "buy back the product." It absolutely does. You might try reading it before you tell me what is and isn't in it.
It doesn't mention Ford who raised wages and said he did it for that reason. How can you refute something if you don't spercifically examine what Ford did who introduced the idea? Did he make it possible for workers to buy his product or not? Without that his discussion is gobbly gook.The author in his argument is talking about unions and this and that, and what has that to do with the basic idea? Nothing. If it doesn't make economic sense, I guess I live in an alternate universe from his where Ford didn't go bankrupt in the 1920s.



It doesn't mention Ford who raised wages and said he did it for that reason. How can you refute something if you don't spercifically examine what Ford did who introduced the idea? Did he make it possible for workers to buy his product or not? Without that his discussion is gobbly gook.The author in his argument is talking about unions and this and that, and what has that to do with the basic idea? Nothing.
You seriously have no clue what you're talking about. It does mention Ford, for one, it just isn't about him specifically. It's about the idea you mentioned--the idea that you get more economic benefit from raising wages for the purposes of being able to "buy back the product." "Enough to Buy Back the Product" is the title of the freaking chapter. It directly refutes what you said. Have a look and see.

If it doesn't make economic sense, I guess I live in an alternate universe from his where Ford didn't go bankrupt in the 1920s.
Ugh, no. The argument is not that Ford--or any other industry titan--would be stupid to raise wages. Sometimes it makes a great deal of sense. The argument is that the principle of doing this so they can "buy back the product" is absolute nonsense and merely distributes resources from one group of workers to another.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Okay. So...what's your answer? Leaving aside the fact that price-fixing is illegal anyway, why don't new businesses take advantage of this inadequate compensation?

Price fixing wasn't illegal for most of the 19th century. That is when it was done legally. I am talking specifically about prices, not compensation, but if prices are fixed, so is compensation. And industries with fixed prices could use their combined strength to drive a fledgling newcomer out of business by various ways. Is there any real point in getting into that discussion?


No, it isn't. It's talking about the general theories underneath.

And never discusses Ford, and never cites any other cases of where it was done. How can you discredit something when all your arguments are academic?


Yes, he does refute that. Forcefully and directly and in plain English. If you say the idea is unsound (again, apparently without having even heard it yet), you should explain why.

See above. I found like I said before an article that actually tries to refute Ford and it is a big giant F in making the case. The author clearly read your guy.


The book I linked you to isn't about Henry Ford. It was published in the 1940s (and updated in the 1970s, I believe) and makes general economic arguments not tethered to any one time. I'm not interested in what you think "some people on the right" are thinking. Those sorts of vague pronouncements are hiding places from the issues and arguments I'm placing directly in front of you.

Yeah, it isn't about Henry Ford, who introduced the idea, and implemented it. How can you discredit the concept without examining Ford's example? And if the idea was discredited in the 1940s, why is it still a concept that is still being discussed today? I have read a lot about Ford and never read once the concept was discredited.


We're all aware of the concept of a discredited idea, yes. But as you may have noticed, there's a good deal less consensus in the economic sciences than in the physical ones. So I ask again: how do you determine which is right, and (since you seem to care about this more than what is right) which is mainstream? Based on what?

If there is less consensus in the economic sciences, an idea can only be discredited if a concept has been widely repudiated by most economists. Not the case here. Economists who try to argue their points by constantly revising history are my idea of economists who are out of the mainstream and that is who you like to cite. They argue from ideological bias. Their ideology determines their interpretation of history, not the other way around. They always write history to fit their economic arguments.

Hazlett's book (and it's hardly the only place where this case is made), by the way, was published over 60 years ago and has been reprinted again and again. He's been honored by other famous economists and philosophers and even Presidents. The fact that this is the first time you've heard of this refutation would seem to say a lot more about what sort of things you read than about the idea itself.

It is proof it hasn't been widely accepted as discrediting the idea. You can't read about Darwin without seeing creationism being discussed.


See? This is exactly what I said was happening. First, you make no distinction between "free market" and "libertarian" economists (there are lots of free market economists, guy). Then, you say that they're outside the mainstream (again, based on what?). So, by definition, any free market view of the economy is outside of the mainstream. Therefore, you brush off every free market view out of hand. That's called a circular argument. You haven't presented any critique of the free market view, you've simply defined "mainstream" in a way that automatically excludes it. The ideas themselves haven't been responded to in any way.
Libertarian economists are more rigid and ideologically pure than just free market economists. Many free market economists see more complexity in Adam Smith than the libertarian ones.



And never discusses Ford, and never cites any other cases of where it was done. How can you discredit something when all your arguments are academic?
This is such a horrendously confused question. First, it has specific examples, too, which you'd know if you actually read it. Second, the claim is "academic." The arguments for paying enough to "Buy Back the Product" and the benefits of this idea are academic claims about creating more demand. And third, there's no magical distinction between specific and academic arguments that renders one irrelevant from the other. The only potential argument is that an academic argument may fail to account for something in a specific example. And if that's the case, then you have to point out where it does this. Which you refuse to do.

You also seem confused about what the argument is even about. It's not saying there aren't good reasons for Ford (or others) to raise their workers' wages. You'd be less confused about what the argument is if you would, you know, actually read and consider the freaking argument.

See above. I found like I said before an article that actually tries to refute Ford and it is a big giant F in making the case. The author clearly read your guy.
Huh? You read some other unspecified article that you thought made a bad case, and you think he must have read this other guy, therefore you don't have to refute or even read what this guy says? That makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah, it isn't about Henry Ford, who introduced the idea, and implemented it. How can you discredit the concept without examining Ford's example? And if the idea was discredited in the 1940s, why is it still a concept that is still being discussed today? I have read a lot about Ford and never read once the concept was discredited.
Lots of discredited ideas are still being discussed. People are arguing about some of the same economic concepts today as they were 80 years ago. If you think the argument does not sufficiently discredit the idea, then tell me what's wrong with it. If you refuse to do this, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

If there is less consensus in the economic sciences, an idea can only be discredited if a concept has been widely repudiated by most economists. Not the case here. Economists who try to argue their points by constantly revising history are my idea of economists who are out of the mainstream and that is who you like to cite. They argue from ideological bias. Their ideology determines their interpretation of history, not the other way around. They always write history to fit their economic arguments.
And you know which is which how? When I cite these things to you, do you go and find some example of them "revising history," and then you come back and tell me they're not "mainstream"? And you decide they've revised history (rather than contradicted someone else's interpretation) because of...what? What another economist says?

Any way you look at it, we're talking about arbitrary groupings used to avoid having to think critically or address arguments.

Libertarian economists are more rigid and ideologically pure than just free market economists. Many free market economists see more complexity in Adam Smith than the libertarian ones.
And you can divine which is which without even reading them, huh? And you can dismiss any argument that comes from someone you think is sufficiently "rigid" without reading it, understanding it, or explaining why it's wrong, too, eh? Impressive.



You really need to stop trying to BS your way through these discussions. You've posted six times since I provided that link, and you've yet to make a single argument against it. You're bending over backwards trying to explain why you apparently don't have to, but you won't expend any effort in reading, understanding, or refuting it.

That is, in a word, ignorant. Don't be ignorant. Don't talk about things you don't understand, especially if you're not willing to even try to understand them.



@ Yoda & Will, I would pay for a ticket to the U.S. to see you guys go at it...seriously I would I believe that will would win because he is a Scorpio and Scorpio's don't care what they do! lol!



There's no genuine animosity, at least not on my end. I'm assume he's a perfectly nice person. My only problem is with his janky thought processes and willingness to talk about things he doesn't understand (or care to).

Basically, I'm trying to argue about ideas, not people or narratives or perception. Unfortunately, lots of people aren't used to thinking that way.



My only problem is with his janky thought processes and willingness to talk about things he doesn't understand (or care to).


Okay...



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
This is such a horrendously confused question. First, it has specific examples, too, which you'd know if you actually read it. Second, the claim is "academic." The arguments for paying enough to "Buy Back the Product" and the benefits of this idea are academic claims about creating more demand. And third, there's no magical distinction between specific and academic arguments that renders one irrelevant from the other. The only potential argument is that an academic argument may fail to account for something in a specific example. And if that's the case, then you have to point out where it does this. Which you refuse to do.

There are no case histories cited, just examples he makes up. Of course there is a difference between academic examples and real ones. Real ones are more convincing. Academic ones you can skew the results to suit your purpose. And you said he widely discredited the idea. With academic examples and not directly mentioning Ford who introduced the idea and implemented it?

You also seem confused about what the argument is even about. It's not saying there aren't good reasons for Ford (or others) to raise their workers' wages. You'd be less confused about what the argument is if you would, you know, actually read and consider the freaking argument.

Ford did it partly so workers could afford to buy his product. He believed by raising wages he would also create demand for his product by increasing demand. So any article refuting this needs to refute Ford. He is the guy who introduced the idea and actually put it in practice.


Huh? You read some other unspecified article that you thought made a bad case, and you think he must have read this other guy, therefore you don't have to refute or even read what this guy says? That makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, he obviously read it, he was coming from the same place. The problem is you cite someone who makes no effort to prove his claim by citing real case histories when they are available. To discredit it, you have to discuss what Ford did.


Lots of discredited ideas are still being discussed. People are arguing about some of the same economic concepts today as they were 80 years ago. If you think the argument does not sufficiently discredit the idea, then tell me what's wrong with it. If you refuse to do this, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

I already said why he doesn't discredit it. He just makes up his own academic examples when he could draw on real life examples. The best way to discredit something is to directly show it failed when tried, if it has been tried, and here we are talking about something that was tried, and generally accepted as having succeeded. So he is arguing it shouldn't be successful. Well, show me Ford was wrong, that he didn't achieve what most people think he did.


And you know which is which how? When I cite these things to you, do you go and find some example of them "revising history," and then you come back and tell me they're not "mainstream"? And you decide they've revised history (rather than contradicted someone else's interpretation) because of...what? What another economist says?

Historian revisionists are revisers of history, the accepted understanding of history. Leftists and and the right commonly do that to justify their ideology. The libertarian economists need to revise the common understanding of American history because it refutes their ideology. Libertarian thought is indeed out of the American mainstream.



And you can divine which is which without even reading them, huh? And you can dismiss any argument that comes from someone you think is sufficiently "rigid" without reading it, understanding it, or explaining why it's wrong, too, eh? Impressive.
You asked me what the difference was between free market economists and libertarian ones and I explained it. And it is true, I didn't read extra carefully his argument because he never made an effort to refute Ford or someone else that tried to implement the same idea. When you are making up your own examples of what should happen you can take the argument anywhere you like. He is basically arguing it shouldn't be successful in the real world when it is believed to have been successfully implemented by Ford in the real word. If he doesn't directly examine what Ford did he can't discredit it.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
You really need to stop trying to BS your way through these discussions. You've posted six times since I provided that link, and you've yet to make a single argument against it. You're bending over backwards trying to explain why you apparently don't have to, but you won't expend any effort in reading, understanding, or refuting it.

That is, in a word, ignorant. Don't be ignorant. Don't talk about things you don't understand, especially if you're not willing to even try to understand them.
He doesn't mention Ford, that's why, who first introduced the concept and implemented it. if you want, i will post the guy arguing against Ford who is trying to apply your guy's arguments to a specific case history.



There are no case histories cited, just examples he makes up. Of course there is a difference between academic examples and real ones. Real ones are more convincing.
And again, the claim is academic. The claim you made is about the economic benefit derived from "Buying Back the Product" through increased demand. That's a general argument about economic theory, and one directly refuted by Hazlett. That's why you should read it.

Academic ones you can skew the results to suit your purpose. And you said he widely discredited the idea. With academic examples and not directly mentioning Ford who introduced the idea and implemented it?
Actually, my exact quote was that he "thoroughly discredited it." Which he did, through logic straightforward economic arguments. That's why you should read it.

Ford did it partly so workers could afford to buy his product. He believed by raising wages he would also create demand for his product by increasing demand. So any article refuting this needs to refute Ford. He is the guy who introduced the idea and actually put it in practice.
It does refute Ford, at least assuming you're representing his views accurately. It refutes the part where he claims that it's a good idea to raise wages to create more demand for the product they're creating. That's why you should read it.

Yes, he obviously read it, he was coming from the same place. The problem is you cite someone who makes no effort to prove his claim by citing real case histories when they are available. To discredit it, you have to discuss what Ford did.
That depends on what "it" is. If "it" is the idea that Henry Ford was right to raise wages, then yeah, you have to discuss Ford. But it isn't. "It" is the notion that you should raise wages to spur demand for your product, and that is a claim about economics, not just Henry Ford.

Incidentally, I can provide you with more analysis (some of it even citing Hazlett) that focuses on Ford's claim, specifically. But the principle you've cited as the reason for his actions ("Enough to Buy Back the Product") simply does not hold water. There can be other good reasons to raise wages, but that particular reason is nonsense.

I already said why he doesn't discredit it. He just makes up his own academic examples when he could draw on real life examples. The best way to discredit something is to directly show it failed when tried, if it has been tried, and here we are talking about something that was tried, and generally accepted as having succeeded. So he is arguing it shouldn't be successful. Well, show me Ford was wrong, that he didn't achieve what most people think he did.
He does show Ford was wrong, insofar as he listed those reasons. The problem here is that you've mashed everything together: Ford's decision to raise wages, his stated reasons for doing so, and the political arguments made in favor of such things. They're not all the same claim. So when you say Ford "succeeded," you're talking about the fact that raising wages was clearly, with hindsight, a good idea. But that's not the thing being refuted.

Historian revisionists are revisers of history, the accepted understanding of history.
This is completely tautological. Accepted by who?

Leftists and and the right commonly do that to justify their ideology. The libertarian economists need to revise the common understanding of American history because it refutes their ideology. Libertarian thought is indeed out of the American mainstream.
You didn't answer a single question I asked. Here they are again:
"And you know which is which how? When I cite these things to you, do you go and find some example of them "revising history," and then you come back and tell me they're not "mainstream"? And you decide they've revised history (rather than contradicted someone else's interpretation) because of...what? What another economist says?"
You asked me what the difference was between free market economists and libertarian ones and I explained it. And it is true, I didn't read extra carefully his argument because he never made an effort to refute Ford or someone else that tried to implement the same idea. When you are making up your own examples of what should happen you can take the argument anywhere you like. He is basically arguing it shouldn't be successful in the real world when it is believed to have been successfully implemented by Ford in the real word. If he doesn't directly examine what Ford did he can't discredit it.
See above. You're confusing Ford's actions and reasons as a whole for the one specific one being refuted.

At this point you've written, like, six pages worth of excuses to avoid reading three pages of arguments.



He doesn't mention Ford, that's why, who first introduced the concept and implemented it. if you want, i will post the guy arguing against Ford who is trying to apply your guy's arguments to a specific case history.
Up to you. I've got a few of my own I can point you to, as you seem determined to conflate Ford's decision with the rationales given for it, even though the former can be sound while the latter isn't. But understand that it is a digression from the actual argument: you listed an economic rationale (which I'm simply taking for granted you've correctly attributed to Ford), and that rationale is inherently invalid, applied to Ford's situation or any other.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank...es/dt13as.html

Ford had another notion, rather original in its time: the workers were also potential consumers! In 1914, Ford workers' wages were raised to $5 a day -- an excellent wage -- and they soon proved him right by buying their own Model Ts. Ford was called "a traitor to his class" by other industrialists and professionals, but he held firm in believing that well-paid workers would put up with dull work, be loyal, and buy his cars.
Ford's manufacturing principles were adopted by countless other industries. Henry Ford went beyond his 1907 goal of making cars affordable for all; he changed the habits of a nation, and shaped its very character.



Will your system be alright, when you dream of home tonight?
On a side note, every time I glance at this topic I think it says Cannibalism , can it work?


I get way too excited to read it...
__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.
Originally Posted by Yoda
If I were buying a laser gun I'd definitely take the XF-3800 before I took the "Pew Pew Pew Fun Gun."



Paid Enough to Buy the Product:

One argument against the assembly line was that the work was monotonous. Ford almost conceded this point when he said, "There is not much personal contact—the men do their work and go home." Ford did keep his factories well lighted and ventilated, and he worked hard to prevent accidents on the job. But the work was not challenging. Partly as a result, he (and many other industrial employers) had high rates of turnover and absenteeism. Ford found himself spending $100 to train each new worker, though many stayed only for a month or two and then quit.

Ford's reaction to this problem was dramatic: in 1914 he doubled his minimum wage to five dollars a day and cut daily working hours from nine to eight. The experiment caught the industrial world by surprise. His competitors were startled; his workers were energized. Ford himself was ecstatic. Some of the most talented workers in Detroit lined up by the thousands to apply for jobs with Ford. He couldn't hire as many as he would have liked because turnover and absenteeism almost disappeared overnight. No one wanted to lose his job. As a result, production surged and profits skyrocketed. Ford happily paid the higher wages and also cut the price of the Model T by over 10 percent in 1914, 1915, and again in 1916. With each cut, more and more of his workers could afford to buy the cars they were making.

Ford was delighted to violate "the custom of paying a man the smallest amount he would take." And yet "[t]here was . . . no charity in any way involved. . . . The payment of five dollars a day for an eight-hour day was one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made." Ford was so pleased that in 1922, when Model T sales began to top a million a year, he raised his minimum wage to six dollars a day. Meanwhile, he cut the price to about $300. With all of their manufactured steel, vulcanized rubber, and processed plate glass, Model Ts were selling at about 25 cents a pound—perhaps the best bargain in the industrialized world.
Raising wages to retain experienced workers is a perfectly sound idea, particularly when it reduces turnover and ultimately cuts costs. But it doesn't follow that the wisdom of this decision magically validates whatever nonsense reasons people want to attach to it.

That link, by the way, specifically mentions Hazlett's argument as an example of how the "Buy Back the Product" claim is inherently impossible. There is no scenario--Ford's or anyone else's--where it makes logical sense. Read it and see for yourself.