How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: J. Clarke on 13 Jul 2010 15:31 On 7/13/2010 2:18 PM, tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 13, 11:03 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On 7/13/2010 10:25 AM, Beav wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> "tomor...(a)erols.com"<tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:e01615b6-bff3-4b96-912f-95e75f447b3b(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Jul 12, 10:39 pm, sean_q_<nos...(a)no.spam> wrote: >>>>> tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: >>>>>> What I want to know is how someone can claim that a nation's legal >>>>>> response to an illegal trade practice by the company of another >>>>>> nation, a legal response that did not put ANY money into Harley- >>>>>> Davidson's coffers... >> >>>>> Were there any govt loans or any other kind of direct aid such as >>>>> subsidies or tax relief? I don't know for sure about this, >>>>> but at least one blogger mentions loans. >> >>>> There were no subsidies or loans. >> >>>>>> ...can be described as a "bail-out" of Harley-Davidson. >> >>>>>> It most assuredly was NOT a bail-out. >> >>>>> Bail-out or not? Other factors aside, the answer depends a lot >>>>> on your views on government intervention in a "free" market. >> >>>> I'll echo Calgary's point that with the Japanese companies receiving >>>> coordinated Japanese government assitance, and using profits earned >>>> (legitimately) in other markets and from other products to subsidize >>>> those products which competed with Harley-Davidson in the marketplace, >>>> the market was hardly "free" prior to the impositon of the tariff. >> >>> I'm interested to know which bikes the Japanese produced were in >>> competition with Harley? Until they produced the Harely clones I can't >>> think of one. >> >> And I wanna know what other products Honda was making. As for "profits >> earned in other markets" why didn't Harley figure out how to use its >> profits in the US to play in those "other markets". >> >> Harley came into existence in the US in 1903. 45 years later Honda came >> into existence. Between 1903 and now Harley has grown to about a 4 >> billion dollar a year company. Between 1948 and now Honda has grown to >> a 100 billion dollar a year company. Seems to me that Harley's been >> sitting on its butt for most of that time while Honda tried a bunch of >> different stuff and gone with what worked and dumped what didn't and all >> the while worked for a reputation for quality. >> >> You can say what you want to about "coordinated Japanese government >> assistance" and "using profits earned in other markets" but the fact >> remains that a company that in 1948 was a loose confederation of bicycle >> shop owners picking over the rubble for the parts to make scooters had >> by 1964 become the world's largest motorcycle company. So what was >> Harley doing in those 16 years and why wasn't Harley able to do it with >> a 45 year head start? > > Different companies pursue different business philosophies; not all of > them want to become huge megacorporations whose original core business > is merely a sideline for them. So between 1948 and 1964, what was Honda making besides motorcycles? > Different countries produce different corporate cultures, and those > different cultures result in hugely different corporate practices. So you're saying that it is inherent in the Japanese culture that Japanese companies want to become the largest and most successful producers in the world of whatever it is that they make, but in the US it is to be a second-rate niche player? You seem to be forgetting that once Harley-Davidson was the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world, with subsidiaries and licensees all over the place including Japan. > At no point did I claim that Harley-Davidson was a "better" company > than Honda (or any other company) nor did I say that people should > favor their products over the products of Honda, if they prefer Honda > products. Well, that's the thing, by 1964 far more people, the world over, preferred Honda motorcycles to Harley-Davidson. > All I said was that, in my opnion, the temporary tariffs that the U.S. > government placed on certain imported motorcycles with engines > displacing over 700cc in response to verified unfair trade practices > practiced by some U.S. motorcycle importers did not constitute a "bail- > out" of Harley-Davidson. Harley had been begging for those tariffs for more than 30 years when they finally got them. So I guess that those "verified unfair trade practices" were being implemented in 1952 when Honda's major product was a 50cc clip-on engine to be attached to a bicycle. At the time Harley claimed that it was Triumph that was "dumping". That's always been Harley's excuse--they can't compete because the other guys are "dumping". And we're going to keep hearing Harley whine about it until some hapless Chinese outfit that doesn't know any better is stupid enough to buy them out (the Japanese were never quite that dumb). > Others may have different opinions, of course.
From: don (Calgary) on 13 Jul 2010 19:43 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:33:09 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> I am the last one to condone governments messing with the free market, >> but it wasn't a free market. The Japanese had already screwed it up. >> They had used similar techniques in the past to dominate the consumer >> electronic product business. > >What techniques, making a better and more technologically advanced product? In fact for a couple of decades after the second world war Japan had in place a variety of programs to provide tax relief and government subsidies directed to improve exports. I stand to be corrected but I believe one of the subsidies was a tax exemption for export income. It was only pressure from the IMF in the mid 60's that encouraged Japan to drop the various subsidies. Wasn't it 60 Minutes that did a segment exposing Japan's unfair trade practices?
From: BryanUT on 13 Jul 2010 19:56 On Jul 13, 5:43 pm, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:33:09 -0400, "J. Clarke" > > <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > >> I am the last one to condone governments messing with the free market, > >> but it wasn't a free market. The Japanese had already screwed it up. > >> They had used similar techniques in the past to dominate the consumer > >> electronic product business. > > >What techniques, making a better and more technologically advanced product? > > In fact for a couple of decades after the second world war Japan had > in place a variety of programs to provide tax relief and government > subsidies directed to improve exports. I stand to be corrected but I > believe one of the subsidies was a tax exemption for export income. > > It was only pressure from the IMF in the mid 60's that encouraged > Japan to drop the various subsidies. > > Wasn't it 60 Minutes that did a segment exposing Japan's unfair trade > practices? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103957.html Things never change. Fact is that China is dumping tires on the US market, with full complicity of the American manufacturers. If tariffs were fair and good for Harley (and its workers) it is also fair and good today for tire workers.
From: J. Clarke on 13 Jul 2010 20:29 On 7/13/2010 7:43 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:33:09 -0400, "J. Clarke" > <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> >>> I am the last one to condone governments messing with the free market, >>> but it wasn't a free market. The Japanese had already screwed it up. >>> They had used similar techniques in the past to dominate the consumer >>> electronic product business. >> >> What techniques, making a better and more technologically advanced product? > > In fact for a couple of decades after the second world war Japan had > in place a variety of programs to provide tax relief and government > subsidies directed to improve exports. Good for them. Perhaps the US government should try this. > I stand to be corrected but I > believe one of the subsidies was a tax exemption for export income. Good move if true. > It was only pressure from the IMF in the mid 60's that encouraged > Japan to drop the various subsidies. So let's see, the whole conquest of the American automobile industry and so on by the Japanese took place after the "various subsidies" were "dropped" but it's still the result of predatory activities by the nefarious Japanese and not to the bumbling incompetence of American industrialists. > Wasn't it 60 Minutes that did a segment exposing Japan's unfair trade > practices? That alone is enough to convince me that it isn't so.
From: Beav on 13 Jul 2010 10:27
"Andrew" <yogig(a)no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:i1amiv$8un$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > "sean_q_" <nospam(a)no.spam> wrote in message > news:4T0_n.12213$3%3.8275(a)newsfe23.iad... >> The site recently mentioned by S'mee [in "Proper oil for cruisers"] >> contains links to a series of articles on How To Save Harley Davidson, >> starting with this one: >> >> http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/oped/save-harley-davidson-part-1-branding/ >> >> I wasn't aware that HD needed saving. But if they do then >> I have an idea of my own, namely "paying volunteers". >> >> The concept is that plenty of HD fanatics (such as the type >> who get themselves tattooed with Harley's logo) would be glad >> to volunteer to travel (at their own expense) to Milwaukee >> and assemble HD motorcycles -- not only pro bono, but would >> actually be willing to *pay* the MoCo for the privilege! >> >> Of course they'd also have to buy their own branded work duds, >> pay their own living expenses and even buy their own (branded) >> tools if necessary. >> >> Imagine the line-up of volunteers. HD might even have to arrange >> for them to competitively bid for various jobs. After their >> contracts expired, workers would then be allowed to buy a patch >> reading, "HARLEY DAVIDSON VOLUNTEER" with the number >> of motorcycles helped in building. >> >> For an extra fee, celebrities such as Paris Hilton could pay >> extra to sign their name on the bikes they worked on, and >> of course such machines would command premium prices >> on the sales floor. >> >> I'm sure Harley Davidson could exploit their strong brand >> loyalty in other new ways I haven't thought of. Ideas, anyone? >> >> SQ > > HD should build a line of bikes around the Vrod motor which cost less and > are lighter, then maybe they could increase sales and margins. > BTW, they aren't going anywhere as is. But the water cooled motor isn't what your traditional Harley owner wants, so it's only ever going to appeal to those with a more futuristic view. -- Beav |