How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: J. Clarke on 12 Jul 2010 20:12 On 7/12/2010 5:08 PM, The Older Gentleman wrote: > J. Clarke<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> If one knows what one is about and is allowed to inspect, reject, and >> modify parts that could be a wonderful opportunity. If it's just turn >> wrenches as GM tells you it's a lot less so. > > Oh yes! > > "I'll have that camshaft, thanks, oh, and *that* cylinder head. Valves? > Oh, the sodium-filled ones, of course. And the forged hi-compression > pistons, and...." Not so much a matter of what fancy parts to use, but with a GM plant full of engine parts to draw from one can come pretty close to a blueprinted engine if one can pick and choose on the basis of dimensions, alignments, etc.
From: sean_q_ on 12 Jul 2010 22:39 tomorrow(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. > ...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. However, "bail-out" is more drastic than a mere "come to the aid of" for convenience etc. It has the sense of "rescue", as from dire straits. So I'd say the question really comes down to whether or not Reagan's tariff saved HD from going under. I'm no economist but my opinion FWIW is yes. Not only that, I believe RR would have taken further measures to keep the MoCo afloat if necessary. It's an American cultural icon after all. I found an interesting contemporary analysis at this site which explores a number of aspects; social, economic and political: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa032.html "POLICY ANALYSIS - Taking America for a Ride: The Politics of Motorcycle Tariffs" It was published January, 1984 by Daniel Klein, Economics grad student at NYU. He says: Due to the change in market demand, its own entrepreneurial deficiencies, and a crushing debt problem, Harley was quickly approaching bankruptcy. The firm turned to the government for aid... Besides aggressive (or predatory) Japanese competition, the MoCo had other problems in the early 80's. For instance even after the break from AMF their reputation for quality problems still persisted. The Wik sez, "Most analysts consider the Evolution to be the engine that saved the reorganized Harley-Davidson company from certain bankruptcy." However true this may be, the Company would have needed a few years of good sales to recover the investment in the Evo's R&D cost. > And the tariff was a VERY good thing that happened to work, unlike > many other government interventions in free trade. A good thing? I'd tend to agree. But a VERY good thing? There was a downside to the results, so this at least is debatable. SQ
From: don (Calgary) on 12 Jul 2010 23:32 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:39:47 -0700, sean_q_ <nospam(a)no.spam> wrote: > >Bail-out or not? Other factors aside, the answer depends a lot >on your views on government intervention in a "free" market. 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. I don't like protectionism, but with out government action in this case it is conceivable HD could have died. Whether you like the Motor Company's bikes or the image, HD is a very successful American Company and a lot of people rely on it for their livelihood.
From: The Older Gentleman on 13 Jul 2010 02:20 J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 7/12/2010 5:08 PM, The Older Gentleman wrote: > > J. Clarke<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > >> If one knows what one is about and is allowed to inspect, reject, and > >> modify parts that could be a wonderful opportunity. If it's just turn > >> wrenches as GM tells you it's a lot less so. > > > > Oh yes! > > > > "I'll have that camshaft, thanks, oh, and *that* cylinder head. Valves? > > Oh, the sodium-filled ones, of course. And the forged hi-compression > > pistons, and...." > > Not so much a matter of what fancy parts to use, but with a GM plant > full of engine parts to draw from one can come pretty close to a > blueprinted engine if one can pick and choose on the basis of > dimensions, alignments, etc. Oooh, I hadn't thought of that. <Happy reverie> -- 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: The Older Gentleman on 13 Jul 2010 02:24
The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" still holds good. Erm, in the sense that it's an example of how *not* to reason, that is. -- 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 |