How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: don (Calgary) on 14 Jul 2010 18:58 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT), "tomorrow(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdotcom(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jul 13, 10:49�pm, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:59:53 -0700 (PDT), BryanUT >> >> >> >> >> >> <nestl...(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. > >We have contributed to this state of affairs, of course, as consumers, >demanding the lowest possible price point regardless of the effect on >our own economy. > >A current example: > >My neighbors received a brand new, made in America, very expensive, >aluminum-framed, powder-coated, re-buildable (fabric components) patio >furniture set from one of their sets of parents seven years ago for >their daughter's outdoor wedding. > >I completed building my deck in June, and the neighbors asked me what >I was going to do for deck furniture. I hadn't thought of that yet, >and they offered my theirs. "Aren't you just going to get it >recovered?" I asked. "No," they replied, "we got some other furniture >for less than the price of recovering it, but we can't bring ourselves >to throw out the old stuff." So I took it. > >I ordered the new fabric last week. Yes, actually it cost more than a >cheap, Chinese patio furniture set. But theirs lasted outdoors seven >years without ever being covered or brought inside. I suspect that it >will last me the rest of my life, being covered when not in use, and >brought into the basement in the winter. I also suspect that the >neighbors who gave me their set will be replacing their new, cheap, >Chinese set in about 3-4 years. It is just too easy to jump at the cheapest price, often without considering value. I admit I do it myself, but then regret chasing the false economy of the low ball price. Interesting though I go for the cheap price on low cost items. The higher the sticker price, the more research I do, and almost always opt for quality over price. By the way, I am sure the beer will taste better, as you enjoy your patio furniture, knowing you found a bargain and quality all wrapped in the same package. <g>
From: don (Calgary) on 14 Jul 2010 19:02 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:12:37 -0600, "Bob Myers" <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote: >Beav wrote: >> 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. > >But you're not thinking in the right context. Any product that >is sold in a given market which can take a share of that market >from you is a competitor. At the time, Japanese standards, etc., >were seen as a possible alternative for buyers that might otherwise >have purchased a product from H-D. > >Bob M. > Excellent point. When I was in the retail business, my stores were in competition with every other store in a shopping center, regardless of whether they sold identical products to what I was selling. We were all competing for the consumers disposable income.
From: don (Calgary) on 14 Jul 2010 19:19 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:13:40 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >High Plains Thumper <hpt(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Actually, I'd like to see Harley put the water cooled V-Rod engine into >> a cruiser. I know it would break the mould of oil cooled offerings at >> the loss of the potato - potato - potato sound. But I feel that it is >> inevitable that such should happen. > >Agree 100%. > >I'd also like to see it in a more coherent touring bike than what they >make at the moment. Something with a decent chassis, more power >(obviously!), more ground clearance and the sort of sophistication that >would give BMW a few worries. > >They could do it - they just *choose* not to. Which is a bit odd. They could choose build a better mouse trap too, but that is not in their business plan. They know what they do well and they understand what their customers are looking for. To date they are doing a damn good job of keeping their customers happy. I doubt they care very much you find it "odd".
From: J. Clarke on 14 Jul 2010 19:46 On 7/14/2010 6:50 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:27:40 -0500, Chuck Rhode > <CRhode(a)LacusVeris.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:25:11 -0700, TOG(a)Toil wrote: >> >>> It's a tough old world out there. Companies have to face it. >> >> The best thing we can do for the American Worker is export unionism, >> which paradoxically has not gained a foothold in overseas in Socialist >> economies. > > Yet. > > It will take decades but worker rights will spread to all > industrialized economies. Granted it will take decades more for them > to go the extremes sometimes seen in Canada and the US, but then maybe > the pendulum will swing back to reason over here. But socialist economies don't need no steenkeeng unions because the government already takes care of everybody according to their needs. Besides, they don't generally have any problem with shooting any ingrates who don't appreciate all that the state is doing for them.
From: J. Clarke on 14 Jul 2010 19:47
On 7/14/2010 7:02 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:12:37 -0600, "Bob Myers" > <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote: > >> Beav wrote: >>> 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. >> >> But you're not thinking in the right context. Any product that >> is sold in a given market which can take a share of that market >>from you is a competitor. At the time, Japanese standards, etc., >> were seen as a possible alternative for buyers that might otherwise >> have purchased a product from H-D. >> >> Bob M. >> > > Excellent point. > > When I was in the retail business, my stores were in competition with > every other store in a shopping center, regardless of whether they > sold identical products to what I was selling. We were all competing > for the consumers disposable income. Of course if someone wants a standard and Harley doesn't make one, that's Harley's error. You can't win unless you play the game. |