How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: S'mee on 14 Jul 2010 23:51 On Jul 14, 2:48 pm, sean_q_ <nos...(a)no.spam> wrote: > Bob Myers wrote: > > I have no idea how gravity works, for instance, > > but if someone tells me it's because there are tiny invisible elves > > holding everything down... > > Uh oh, I just heard one Gravity Elf tell his buddy, > "Now we'll have to silence him." Don't worry, I know that guy...he's got a bigger mouth on him than Henry.
From: S'mee on 14 Jul 2010 23:54 On Jul 14, 11:18 am, "tomor...(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 6:25 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > And how do you say all that and yet ignore the Chinese government's > intrusion, manipulation, and totalitarian control of their currency's > exchange value, the flow of capital, the lack of adherence to > international worker safety standards, industrial pollution standards, > etc, etc.? > > There is a lot more than one form of trade interference, as you must > be well aware. It's called "War by other means" combination of pages right out of "The Art of War". Which reminds me my pocket copy is around here somewhere.
From: S'mee on 15 Jul 2010 00:01 On Jul 14, 12:25 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > tomor...(a)erols.com <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > It only seems odd until you realize that they make far more money (per > > bike and overall) on their touring bikes sales in the U.S. (and, > > worldwide, but let's stick to the U.S. market, where Harley *HAS* to > > succeed before they even think about exports) than BMW does on theirs, > > and that if they took every single one of BMW's touring bike sales in > > the U.S. as a "conquest" with a newly developed BMW-like touring bike, > > they would only increase their own touring bike sales by about 5 > > percent, and doing so would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars > > of development costs. > > > They choose not to because doing so makes no financial, marketing, or > > corporate sense whatsoever. > > > Hell, I wish they would make all kinds if bikes that I would like, > > just as I wish Ducati would make an updated version of the Super Mono. > > Oh, God, yes! > > > But fulfilling my wishes and desires doesn't necessarily make > > financial sense to those companies, even though I'm probably more > > likely to buy their products than 99.99% of all consumers. > > I think all this is fair comment, actually. > > But HD *has* to broaden its range. How does it do it, when the world > associates it with a single sort of product? Agreed > Porsche had the same problem. heh adn they are no making a 'SUV' to overcome the perception that they are a one trick pony. The Cayanne is kinda cute.
From: S'mee on 15 Jul 2010 00:03 On Jul 14, 12:25 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > I wonder if they'll ever dust off the old Porsche designed lump? I've > got an article about that in my magazine archive, dating from about > 1982. Very interesting. The Nova? I dunno, might need to be seriously reworked imo. But that's just my take on it.
From: The Older Gentleman on 15 Jul 2010 02:20
S'mee <stevenkeith2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > heh adn they are no making a 'SUV' to overcome the perception that > they are a one trick pony. Troo. > The Cayanne is kinda cute. You have to be kidding. It's as ugly as a hatful of monkeys' arseholes. -- 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 |