How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: don (Calgary) on 13 Jul 2010 22:49 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:59:53 -0700 (PDT), BryanUT <nestle12(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jul 13, 7:26�pm, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:56:01 -0700 (PDT), BryanUT >> >> >> >> <nestl...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >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/AR200... >> >> >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. >> >> I didn't see anything in the article that suggested China is >> subsidizing their tire manufacturers or providing tax relief for >> exports. Is the issue just that manufacturing is cheaper in China? > >http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_49/b3911401.htm > >""The China price." They are the three scariest words in U.S. >industry. In general, it means 30% to 50% less than what you can >possibly make something for in the U.S. In the worst cases, it means >below your cost of materials. " So what's the solution? Slap import tariffs on everything Chinese? Add Mexico, India and several others to the list of areas where labour is cheaper than in the US. Another question would be, what are you willing to pay to limit Chinese imports? If they are producing goods 30 to 40n points cheaper than can be done in the US, are you willing or able to pay the upcharge for a made in USA stamp. This is a tough one Bryan. China has a built in advantage over the US and right now they are making good use of it. I'm not sure government intervention is the answer for this problem. There could be a very dark downside to it.
From: The Older Gentleman on 14 Jul 2010 02:13 don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > Silliness, not even worth spending the time to respond. What he posted was succinct and accurate. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: TOG on 14 Jul 2010 06:25 On 14 July, 03:49, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: > So what's the solution? Slap import tariffs on everything Chinese? > Add Mexico, India and several others to the list of areas where labour > is cheaper than in the US. > > Another question would be, what are you willing to pay to limit > Chinese imports? If they are producing goods 30 to 40n points cheaper > than can be done in the US, are you willing or able to pay the > upcharge for a made in USA stamp. > > This is a tough one Bryan. China has a built in advantage over the US > and right now they are making good use of it. I'm not sure government > intervention is the answer for this problem. There could be a very > dark downside to it. Now this is right on the money. At last. You can deliberately buy home-produced goods wherever you go, but experience shows people don't do that when an import is (a) cheaper and (b) works better. Government intervention (tariffs, quotas, subsidies, banning imports altogether) makes matters even worse, because all you're doing there is propping up an existing uncompetitive industry and you *cannot* do that indefinitely. Well, OK, they did it that way in Russia and the Commie eastern European satellites for the thick end of 60 years, but even they had to call it a day. And when your tottering industry finally has to compete properly - as, one day, it will - it will be in an even worse state relative to the opposition, which will have grown ever more efficient while your old clunker didn't care what sort of products it made because, hey, they've gotta buy them anyway... Challenge: name one, just one, old Communist industry that was absolutely competitive with its equivalents in the West and Far East. To an extent, I suppose you could name the armaments industry, or some sectors of it. Damned if I can think of another. Protectionism and state interference helped kill off the UK motor industry (Japanese car imports were limited by quota) and Lord knows how many other examples you can draw. What state interference did to our aircraft industry doesn't bear thinking about, either. It's a tough old world out there. Companies have to face it.
From: sean_q_ on 14 Jul 2010 06:31 TOG(a)Toil wrote: > You can deliberately buy home-produced goods wherever you go Not if the Made-in-China products are the only ones on the shelf -- or any shelf. SQ
From: TOG on 14 Jul 2010 07:03
On 14 July, 11:31, sean_q_ <nos...(a)no.spam> wrote: > TOG(a)Toil wrote: > > You can deliberately buy home-produced goods wherever you go > > Not if the Made-in-China products are the only ones on the shelf -- > or any shelf. > Well, OK, yes, *obviously*. Makes no difference to the core theme, though. If Chinese is the only product there is, ask yourself why. |