p First off, who died and made you god? Also, in this country, there is
p something called "freedom". Freedom to choose is one of them. If we ar
p to stop buying cars based on racism, then we sure as hell wouldn’t buy
p anything from the US, Germany, France, etc. etc. You mean to tell me th
p we as Americans are not racist? Give me a break! I think that you have
p (sadly) disproven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
p What you’ve read? You mean "Rising Sun"? Michael Crichton? Well, let’
p just hope that most human beings are more open to the rest of the world
p than you and your petty books(which hold a scant bit of truth in them).
p Don’t believe everything that you read,
p Pico
You think you’re truly "free" here? Don’t believe everything you read,
Pico.
Leonard
—
* WR [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
LRThat’s because, due to all the impediments, Detroit knows it can
LRonly sell small numbers in Japan and it’s not worth the expense of
LRmodifying the cars. Why does a Japanese car cost less in the US
LRthan it does in Japan? Why does a US car cost 2 – 3 times as much
LRin Japan as it does in the US?
Uh, excuse me, this has more to do with the EXCHANGE rate.
Leonard
—
* WR [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
LRThe April 92 EX, the one featured in their chart at the back of
LRissues, was 8.4, so around 8.3 sec is probably right. Both times
LRthey’ve tested a Neon, it turned in 7.9, so that’s quite
LRconsistent. But Pico, when you pay thousands more for the EX and
LRget 23 more hp, shouldn’t it be quicker than the DX by more than
LR0.3-0.5 sec? Of course, considering the Accord EX is slower than
LRthe DX/LX, that’s not too surprising!
Well, why don’t we just all sell our cars and just buy Camaros? Gee,
they’re faster than any other new car for under $30,000. If we all decided
to buy our cars based on the spec sheets, this is what we’d have. Catch my
drift? While .3 or .5 secs may not make a difference on paper, it may make
a huge difference when you take into account that the gearing might be
different or the torque is more usable or the EX offers more standard
features for the money.
Leonard
—
* WR [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
Leonard Cachola (leonard.cach…@cld9.com) wrote:
: LRThat’s because, due to all the impediments, Detroit knows it can
: LRonly sell small numbers in Japan and it’s not worth the expense of
: LRmodifying the cars. Why does a Japanese car cost less in the US
: LRthan it does in Japan? Why does a US car cost 2 – 3 times as much
: LRin Japan as it does in the US?
: Uh, excuse me, this has more to do with the EXCHANGE rate.
: Leonard
: —
: * WR [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
No, it doesn’t. When costs in Japan and the US are compared, both costs
are in dollars. It has to do with dumping vs excessive tariffs.
In article <32b3sk$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
|> Leonard Cachola (leonard.cach…@cld9.com) wrote:
|> : LRThat’s because, due to all the impediments, Detroit knows it can
|> : LRonly sell small numbers in Japan and it’s not worth the expense of
|> : LRmodifying the cars. Why does a Japanese car cost less in the US
|> : LRthan it does in Japan? Why does a US car cost 2 – 3 times as much
|> : LRin Japan as it does in the US?
|>
|> : Uh, excuse me, this has more to do with the EXCHANGE rate.
|>
|> : Leonard
|>
|>
|> : —
|> : * WR [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
|>
|> No, it doesn’t. When costs in Japan and the US are compared, both costs
|> are in dollars. It has to do with dumping vs excessive tariffs.
Actually, Lloyd, no it doesn’t.
In article <32qud8$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
|> Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
|> : In article <32b3sk$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
|> : |> Leonard Cachola (leonard.cach…@cld9.com) wrote:
|> : |> : LRThat’s because, due to all the impediments, Detroit knows it can
|> : |> : LRonly sell small numbers in Japan and it’s not worth the expense of
|> : |> : LRmodifying the cars. Why does a Japanese car cost less in the US
|> : |> : LRthan it does in Japan? Why does a US car cost 2 – 3 times as much
|> : |> : LRin Japan as it does in the US?
|> : |>
|> : |> : Uh, excuse me, this has more to do with the EXCHANGE rate.
|> : |>
|> : |> : Leonard
|> : |>
|> : |>
|> : |> : —
|> : |> : * WR [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
|> : |>
|> : |> No, it doesn’t. When costs in Japan and the US are compared, both costs
|> : |> are in dollars. It has to do with dumping vs excessive tariffs.
|>
|> : Actually, Lloyd, no it doesn’t.
|>
|> Yes it does. If 100 yen = $1 (just to take an example), let’s say a
|> Japanese car costs 2,000,000 yen at home, it should cost $20,000 here.
|> If it costs $18,000 here, then the maker is dumping. Let’s say a US car
|> costs $20,000 here; it should cost 2,000,000 yen in Japan. If it costs
|> 2,500,000 yen, and it’s not due to the manufacturer arbitrarily raising
|> the price, then Japan is putting excessive tariffs and restrictions on
|> the importation of the car.
|>
|> If you say 100 yen now = $2, all of the above comparisons stay the same
|> in relative terms, so it has nothing to do with the exchange rate.
Guess you need to learn what dumping means, first.
Also, please tell us what Japanese tariffs there are on imported cars (since
you claim there are some). References also, please. Thanks.
Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
: In article <32b3sk$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
: |> Leonard Cachola (leonard.cach…@cld9.com) wrote:
: |> : LRThat’s because, due to all the impediments, Detroit knows it can
: |> : LRonly sell small numbers in Japan and it’s not worth the expense of
: |> : LRmodifying the cars. Why does a Japanese car cost less in the US
: |> : LRthan it does in Japan? Why does a US car cost 2 – 3 times as much
: |> : LRin Japan as it does in the US?
: |>
: |> : Uh, excuse me, this has more to do with the EXCHANGE rate.
: |>
: |> : Leonard
: |>
: |>
: |> : —
: |> : * WR [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
: |>
: |> No, it doesn’t. When costs in Japan and the US are compared, both costs
: |> are in dollars. It has to do with dumping vs excessive tariffs.
: Actually, Lloyd, no it doesn’t.
Yes it does. If 100 yen = $1 (just to take an example), let’s say a
Japanese car costs 2,000,000 yen at home, it should cost $20,000 here.
If it costs $18,000 here, then the maker is dumping. Let’s say a US car
costs $20,000 here; it should cost 2,000,000 yen in Japan. If it costs
2,500,000 yen, and it’s not due to the manufacturer arbitrarily raising
the price, then Japan is putting excessive tariffs and restrictions on
the importation of the car.
If you say 100 yen now = $2, all of the above comparisons stay the same
in relative terms, so it has nothing to do with the exchange rate.
Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
: In article <32qud8$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
: |> Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
: |> : In article <32b3sk$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
: |> : |> Leonard Cachola (leonard.cach…@cld9.com) wrote:
: |> : |> : LRThat’s because, due to all the impediments, Detroit knows it can
: |> : |> : LRonly sell small numbers in Japan and it’s not worth the expense of
: |> : |> : LRmodifying the cars. Why does a Japanese car cost less in the US
: |> : |> : LRthan it does in Japan? Why does a US car cost 2 – 3 times as much
: |> : |> : LRin Japan as it does in the US?
: |> : |>
: |> : |> : Uh, excuse me, this has more to do with the EXCHANGE rate.
: |> : |>
: |> : |> : Leonard
: |> : |>
: |> : |>
: |> : |> : —
: |> : |> : * WR [NR] * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
: |> : |>
: |> : |> No, it doesn’t. When costs in Japan and the US are compared, both costs
: |> : |> are in dollars. It has to do with dumping vs excessive tariffs.
: |>
: |> : Actually, Lloyd, no it doesn’t.
: |>
: |> Yes it does. If 100 yen = $1 (just to take an example), let’s say a
: |> Japanese car costs 2,000,000 yen at home, it should cost $20,000 here.
: |> If it costs $18,000 here, then the maker is dumping. Let’s say a US car
: |> costs $20,000 here; it should cost 2,000,000 yen in Japan. If it costs
: |> 2,500,000 yen, and it’s not due to the manufacturer arbitrarily raising
: |> the price, then Japan is putting excessive tariffs and restrictions on
: |> the importation of the car.
: |>
: |> If you say 100 yen now = $2, all of the above comparisons stay the same
: |> in relative terms, so it has nothing to do with the exchange rate.
: Guess you need to learn what dumping means, first.
: Also, please tell us what Japanese tariffs there are on imported cars (since
: you claim there are some). References also, please. Thanks.
Dumping is legally defined as selling a car here for less than it sells
in its home market. Period.
When a Cherokee that costs $20,000 here costs over $40,000 in Japan; when
a Caprice costs over $40,000 in Japan — that’s due to tariffs and
excessive, obstructionary regulations like requiring every individual car
to be emissions and safety tested.
In article <32t92f$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
|> Dumping is legally defined as selling a car here for less than it sells
|> in its home market. Period.
Sorry, dumping is defined as selling something for less than it costs to
manufacture it. Period.
|> When a Cherokee that costs $20,000 here costs over $40,000 in Japan; when
|> a Caprice costs over $40,000 in Japan — that’s due to tariffs and
|> excessive, obstructionary regulations like requiring every individual car
|> to be emissions and safety tested.
Hmm, so you can’t cite the tariffs? Just like to make baseless accusations,
eh? Either cite these tariffs and regulations, or admit they don’t exist.
(Even the example you try to cite "requiring every individual car to be
emissions and safety tested" is wrong. Yes, the Japanese have emissions and
safety standards for cars sold there. So do the U.S. WHile the U.S. has only
one way to certify a car to those — i.e. get a certification for the engine/
chassis combination– Japan has two. A manufacturer who wants to sell a car in
Japan can either apply for a certification of the engine/chassis, as done was
done by Chrysler in the case of the Cherokee you mention above, and also Ford
has done so for the Mustang — BMW, Mercedes, Opel, VW, etc have also gone
this route –; or one can have the cars certified on an individual basis.
Only the former is available for automakers who want to import cars into the
U.S., thus excluding such cars as the Porsche 959, etc.)
In <32tff6$1…@postoffice.btv.ibm.com> b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com (Bob Davis) writes:
>In article <32t92f$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>|> Dumping is legally defined as selling a car here for less than it sells
>|> in its home market. Period.
>Sorry, dumping is defined as selling something for less than it costs to
>manufacture it. Period.
>|> When a Cherokee that costs $20,000 here costs over $40,000 in Japan; when
>|> a Caprice costs over $40,000 in Japan — that’s due to tariffs and
>|> excessive, obstructionary regulations like requiring every individual car
>|> to be emissions and safety tested.
>Hmm, so you can’t cite the tariffs? Just like to make baseless accusations,
>eh? Either cite these tariffs and regulations, or admit they don’t exist.
If there is a substantial price difference between domestically-sold U.S.
cars and Japanese-market U.S. cars, does it really matter if the price
difference is called a "tariff" by the Japanese government?. I’m pretty
sure the U.S. manufacturers aren’t jacking up the prices of their products
in Japan because that’s how they get their kicks–extra fees are being
levied somewhere in the import process. Contrary to common belief, many
Japanese consumers would like to own American cars, but when they are so
prohibitively expensive, who can afford them?
Scott
Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
: In article <32t92f$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
: |> Dumping is legally defined as selling a car here for less than it sells
: |> in its home market. Period.
: Sorry, dumping is defined as selling something for less than it costs to
: manufacture it. Period.
Not true. When a US company sells below price, that might be predatory
pricing if it is to drive a competitor out of business, but it’s not
legally dumping. My original definition of dumping is correct.
: |> When a Cherokee that costs $20,000 here costs over $40,000 in Japan; when
: |> a Caprice costs over $40,000 in Japan — that’s due to tariffs and
: |> excessive, obstructionary regulations like requiring every individual car
: |> to be emissions and safety tested.
: Hmm, so you can’t cite the tariffs? Just like to make baseless accusations,
: eh? Either cite these tariffs and regulations, or admit they don’t exist.
But they do exist! What do you mean, cite them? Are you demanding
Japanese civil code references or what?
: (Even the example you try to cite "requiring every individual car to be
: emissions and safety tested" is wrong. Yes, the Japanese have emissions and
: safety standards for cars sold there. So do the U.S. WHile the U.S. has only
: one way to certify a car to those — i.e. get a certification for the engine/
: chassis combination– Japan has two. A manufacturer who wants to sell a car in
: Japan can either apply for a certification of the engine/chassis, as done was
: done by Chrysler in the case of the Cherokee you mention above, and also Ford
: has done so for the Mustang — BMW, Mercedes, Opel, VW, etc have also gone
: this route –; or one can have the cars certified on an individual basis.
: Only the former is available for automakers who want to import cars into the
: U.S., thus excluding such cars as the Porsche 959, etc.)
Only in the past couple of years have US manufacturers had the option of
certifying a line; up to then, individual certification was mandatory.
And requiring separate dealers for all imports into Japan also is an
obstacle. They also have hefty import tariffs, whether you want to admit
it or not.
And how about rice? Skis? Did you know US skis cannot be imported into
Japan because the gov’t there says, "Japanese snow is different from
American snow"?
Face it, Japan is an extremely protective country that complains loudly
when any other country starts talking about protection of their own.
srgri…@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Scott R. Griggs) writes:
> If there is a substantial price difference between domestically-sold U.S.
> cars and Japanese-market U.S. cars, does it really matter if the price
> difference is called a "tariff" by the Japanese government?. I’m pretty
> sure the U.S. manufacturers aren’t jacking up the prices of their products
> in Japan because that’s how they get their kicks–extra fees are being
> levied somewhere in the import process.
So, do you know if there is a tariff or not? If it is called
otherwise, what is it called and how does it work?
*Specific* information is a good thing.
> Contrary to common belief, many
> Japanese consumers would like to own American cars, but when they are so
> prohibitively expensive, who can afford them?
How do you know this? Some briliant Big3 executive told you? Do the
Japanese let European cars in easier than American cars? If I’m not
mistaken the European sell more cars in Japan than the Big3
(considering GM Europe as an European automaker, of course).
It is obvious that most American cars are not suitable for the
Japanese market (as they are not for the European). Others are, and
sell quite well (i.e. Grand Cherokee, Explorer) despite their high
prices.
Ignasi.
—
Ignasi Palou-Rivera
Dept of Chemical Engineering U of Wisconsin, Madison
pa…@osnome.che.wisc.edu http://osnome.che.wisc.edu/~palou
Check out the afc FAQ: http://osnome.che.wisc.edu/~palou/afcFAQ
In article <32vl9p$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
|> Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
|> : In article <32t92f$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
|> : |> Dumping is legally defined as selling a car here for less than it sells
|> : |> in its home market. Period.
|>
|> : Sorry, dumping is defined as selling something for less than it costs to
|> : manufacture it. Period.
|>
|> Not true. When a US company sells below price, that might be predatory
|> pricing if it is to drive a competitor out of business, but it’s not
|> legally dumping. My original definition of dumping is correct.
". . .American competitors are frequently convinced that the Japanese are
‘dumping’ — selling products at no profit, or even a loss." From "The Coming
War with Japan" by George Friedman and Meredith Lebard; St. Martin’s Press, New
York, 1991, page 380.
Now, for your definition, what is the "selling price"? Retail, FOB, CIT, FAS?
|> : |> When a Cherokee that costs $20,000 here costs over $40,000 in Japan; when
|> : |> a Caprice costs over $40,000 in Japan — that’s due to tariffs and
|> : |> excessive, obstructionary regulations like requiring every individual car
|> : |> to be emissions and safety tested.
|>
|> : Hmm, so you can’t cite the tariffs? Just like to make baseless accusations,
|> : eh? Either cite these tariffs and regulations, or admit they don’t exist.
|>
|> But they do exist! What do you mean, cite them? Are you demanding
|> Japanese civil code references or what?
Hey, at this point I’ll even settle for you telling me what they are. For
instance, the U.S. puts a 69% tariff on imported active-matrix LCD screens
(though not if they are part of a complete system).
|> : (Even the example you try to cite "requiring every individual car to be
|> : emissions and safety tested" is wrong. Yes, the Japanese have emissions and
|> : safety standards for cars sold there. So do the U.S. WHile the U.S. has only
|> : one way to certify a car to those — i.e. get a certification for the engine/
|> : chassis combination– Japan has two. A manufacturer who wants to sell a car in
|> : Japan can either apply for a certification of the engine/chassis, as done was
|> : done by Chrysler in the case of the Cherokee you mention above, and also Ford
|> : has done so for the Mustang — BMW, Mercedes, Opel, VW, etc have also gone
|> : this route –; or one can have the cars certified on an individual basis.
|> : Only the former is available for automakers who want to import cars into the
|> : U.S., thus excluding such cars as the Porsche 959, etc.)
|>
|> Only in the past couple of years have US manufacturers had the option of
|> certifying a line; up to then, individual certification was mandatory.
|> And requiring separate dealers for all imports into Japan also is an
|> obstacle. They also have hefty import tariffs, whether you want to admit
|> it or not.
So, what are those tariffs? re separate dealers, I assume your talking about
deals like Autozam?
|> And how about rice? Skis? Did you know US skis cannot be imported into
|> Japan because the gov’t there says, "Japanese snow is different from
|> American snow"?
Skis? Amazing. The September 1994 National Geographics I got has a picture
on page 79 of four Japanese folks riding a quad chair lift in Japan. Of the
four, two have Rossignol Skis (made about two miles away from where I’m
sitting), one is wearing Fischers, and the second from the left is the only
one wearing a Japanese brand. I guess the other three must have smuggled
their skis in.
|> Face it, Japan is an extremely protective country that complains loudly
|> when any other country starts talking about protection of their own.
Sure, but you can say the exact same about the US.
Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
: |> Face it, Japan is an extremely protective country that complains loudly
: |> when any other country starts talking about protection of their own.
: Sure, but you can say the exact same about the US.
Name the restrictions we place on Japanese imports. There are none on
cars. Japanese manufacturers are free to set up dealerships anyway they
want — stand-alones or with another make. Japanese manufacturers have
always been treated the same way as US manufacturers when it comes to
certifying emissions and safety in this country. Our tariffs on imported
cars are 2.5% — extremely low. We let our domestic TV industry wither
and die due to imports from Japan. We barely protect our steel industry
from dumping. How can you say the US is protective? Cite some examples!
In article <PALOU.94Aug18105…@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, pa…@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Ignasi Palou-Rivera) writes:
|> srgri…@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Scott R. Griggs) writes:
|> > Contrary to common belief, many
|> > Japanese consumers would like to own American cars, but when they are so
|> > prohibitively expensive, who can afford them?
|>
|> How do you know this? Some briliant Big3 executive told you? Do the
|> Japanese let European cars in easier than American cars? If I’m not
|> mistaken the European sell more cars in Japan than the Big3
|> (considering GM Europe as an European automaker, of course).
Yes. The only American "car" I’ve ever heard a Japanese person in Japan
express a desire for was a Cherokee. Most of them feel that American cars
are unreliable and wouldn’t want one (though the Japanese nameplate cars
built in the US are helping change this image – an advertising campaign by
US manufacturers wouldn’t hurt either. BTW, I’ve seen many Japanese and
German auto ads in Japan, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen an ad for an
American brand!)
|> It is obvious that most American cars are not suitable for the
|> Japanese market (as they are not for the European). Others are, and
|> sell quite well (i.e. Grand Cherokee, Explorer) despite their high
|> prices.
Exactly. On many roads in Japan the Audi 90 we were in seemed large (we
got to one intersection of one-lane two-way roads where three cars were
trying to each turn down the road another was coming up. Took quite a bit of
jockeying before we all got where we wanted to be. I can’t imagine even
trying that in the aforementioned Caprice! Shoot, I can’t even imagine where
the average Japanese would park something as big as a Caprice! Probably one
of the reason big American cars like the Caprice have the stigma that the owner
must be Yakuza, and only they would drive something like that.
In article <3306qj$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
|> Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
|>
|> : |> Face it, Japan is an extremely protective country that complains loudly
|> : |> when any other country starts talking about protection of their own.
|>
|> : Sure, but you can say the exact same about the US.
|>
|> Name the restrictions we place on Japanese imports. There are none on
|> cars. Japanese manufacturers are free to set up dealerships anyway they
|> want — stand-alones or with another make. Japanese manufacturers have
|> always been treated the same way as US manufacturers when it comes to
|> certifying emissions and safety in this country. Our tariffs on imported
|> cars are 2.5% — extremely low. We let our domestic TV industry wither
|> and die due to imports from Japan. We barely protect our steel industry
|> from dumping. How can you say the US is protective? Cite some examples!
Well, I did cite one in the post you responded to! I repeat it again: The US
places a 69% tariff on imported active-matrix LCD screens. (Note that, as I
said before, this does not apply to screens imported as part of a complete
system.)
More examples? Didn’t the US put a tariff on imported motorcycles for a while
at the request of Harley-Davidson? How about a tariff on imported pickups?
(Remember the Subaru Brat that came with two seats welded in the back, so it
did not fall into the pickup truck category.)
If one wants to count only tariffs, the average of tariffs charged by Japan on
all imports (2.5%) is lower than Europe (2.8%) or the US (3.5%).
Gee, didn’t we just recently impose some tariffs on cellular phones to help
Motorola get into the Tokyo market?
Does Super 301 mean anything to you? Most favored nation status? (If we are
so open, why even worry about that?)
Want to get into agicultural barriers? (Oops, you said Japanese imports, the
agricultural stuff gets more into European and other imports.)
How can you not say the US is protective?!? (Y’all in Europe think the US
is not protective?)
As for the TV and steel business, that’s not nearly as clear cut as you make
it out to be. The US television makers themselves are as much to blame.
>>Sorry, dumping is defined as selling something for less than it costs to
>>manufacture it. Period.
That’s right. Depends on the market, sometimes a manufacturer can get away
with a higher mark up in certain place but not the others. So, selling car
at a lower price in the US than they are in Japan DOES NOT necessary means
dumping.
> If there is a substantial price difference between domestically-sold U.S.
> cars and Japanese-market U.S. cars, does it really matter if the price
> difference is called a "tariff" by the Japanese government?. I’m pretty
> sure the U.S. manufacturers aren’t jacking up the prices of their products
> in Japan because that’s how they get their kicks–extra fees are being
> levied somewhere in the import process. Contrary to common belief, many
> Japanese consumers would like to own American cars, but when they are so
> prohibitively expensive, who can afford them?
> Scott
How do you find out that Japanese consumers like to own American cars? I
find it very difficult to believe. I don’t think price is the primary
factor why American cars are not selling well in Japan. If that’s the case,
there shouldn’t be any MBZ, BMW, Audi, Porsche, Bentley …. running in
Japan.
—
Frank K. Ip Voice: (408) 748-8649 ext 231
AIM Technology FAX: (408) 748-0161
4699 Old Ironsides, Suite 150 E-mail: f…@aim.com
Santa Clara, CA 95054 I speak for myself only.
>>>>> "B" == Bob Davis <b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com> writes:
B> In article <3306qj$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
B> |> Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
B> |>
B> |> : |> Face it, Japan is an extremely protective country that complains loudly
B> |> : |> when any other country starts talking about protection of their own.
B> |>
B> |> : Sure, but you can say the exact same about the US.
B> |>
B> |> Name the restrictions we place on Japanese imports. There are none on
B> |> cars. Japanese manufacturers are free to set up dealerships anyway they
B> |> want — stand-alones or with another make. Japanese manufacturers have
B> |> always been treated the same way as US manufacturers when it comes to
B> |> certifying emissions and safety in this country. Our tariffs on imported
B> |> cars are 2.5% — extremely low. We let our domestic TV industry wither
B> |> and die due to imports from Japan. We barely protect our steel industry
B> |> from dumping. How can you say the US is protective? Cite some examples!
B> Well, I did cite one in the post you responded to! I repeat it again: The US
B> places a 69% tariff on imported active-matrix LCD screens. (Note that, as I
B> said before, this does not apply to screens imported as part of a complete
B> system.)
B> More examples? Didn’t the US put a tariff on imported motorcycles for a while
B> at the request of Harley-Davidson? How about a tariff on imported pickups?
B> (Remember the Subaru Brat that came with two seats welded in the back, so it
B> did not fall into the pickup truck category.)
B> If one wants to count only tariffs, the average of tariffs charged by Japan on
B> all imports (2.5%) is lower than Europe (2.8%) or the US (3.5%).
B> Gee, didn’t we just recently impose some tariffs on cellular phones to help
B> Motorola get into the Tokyo market?
B> Does Super 301 mean anything to you? Most favored nation status? (If we are
B> so open, why even worry about that?)
B> Want to get into agicultural barriers? (Oops, you said Japanese imports, the
B> agricultural stuff gets more into European and other imports.)
B> How can you not say the US is protective?!? (Y’all in Europe think the US
B> is not protective?)
B> As for the TV and steel business, that’s not nearly as clear cut as you make
B> it out to be. The US television makers themselves are as much to blame.
As a Canadian, I do see the protectionist forces in the U.S. at work
all the time. These are mostly special interest groups, or sometimes
particular states, that push for tariffs. The free trade agreement is
under continual bombardment from state governments, and there is a
parade of cases before the International trade commission. The
U.S. (or state thereof) usually loses, is told to pay back all the
tariffs, refuses and appeals again. Just a data point.
Jeff Goss
In article <JGOSS.94Aug18154…@flanker.torolab.vnet.ibm.com>, jg…@torolab.vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Goss) writes:
> As a Canadian, I do see the protectionist forces in the U.S. at work
> all the time. These are mostly special interest groups, or sometimes
> particular states, that push for tariffs. The free trade agreement is
> under continual bombardment from state governments, and there is a
> parade of cases before the International trade commission. The
> U.S. (or state thereof) usually loses, is told to pay back all the
> tariffs, refuses and appeals again. Just a data point.
> Jeff Goss
Hasn’t there been a big battle over importing Canadian wheat or some kinda
grain? I’ve seen it on the news a couple of time where Canadian trucks
were blockaded by farmers who didn’t want the grains to be imported, since
they can be sold at a lower price via subsidizing. Also, let’s not forget
the protectionist French farmers who wanted tarrifs on anything American-grown.
You see, Lloyd, what happens when everyone becomes a "protectionist"? Trade
wars don’t improve economies.
Pico
Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
: Well, I did cite one in the post you responded to! I repeat it again: The US
: places a 69% tariff on imported active-matrix LCD screens. (Note that, as I
: said before, this does not apply to screens imported as part of a complete
: system.)
Placed on the screens because the Japanese were dumping them here.
That’s allowed by GATT.
: More examples? Didn’t the US put a tariff on imported motorcycles for a while
: at the request of Harley-Davidson? How about a tariff on imported pickups?
: (Remember the Subaru Brat that came with two seats welded in the back, so it
: did not fall into the pickup truck category.)
Trucks are 25%, yes. Cars 2.5%. I admit that’s silly.
: If one wants to count only tariffs, the average of tariffs charged by Japan on
: all imports (2.5%) is lower than Europe (2.8%) or the US (3.5%).
Can you support those numbers?
: Gee, didn’t we just recently impose some tariffs on cellular phones to help
: Motorola get into the Tokyo market?
No, we filed an unfair trade complaint because the Japanese refused to
let Morotola compete in the Japanese telecommunications market and said
we’d impose tariffs on their exports to us. Again, that’s allowed under
GATT.
: Does Super 301 mean anything to you? Most favored nation status? (If we are
: so open, why even worry about that?)
: Want to get into agicultural barriers? (Oops, you said Japanese imports, the
: agricultural stuff gets more into European and other imports.)
Yes, how about the Japanese letting US rice into their country?
: How can you not say the US is protective?!? (Y’all in Europe think the US
: is not protective?)
: As for the TV and steel business, that’s not nearly as clear cut as you make
: it out to be. The US television makers themselves are as much to blame.
How do you figure that? And what about steel? Dumping there has been
clearly shown.
Frank Ip (fr…@aim.com) wrote:
: >>Sorry, dumping is defined as selling something for less than it costs to
: >>manufacture it. Period.
: >
: That’s right. Depends on the market, sometimes a manufacturer can get away
: with a higher mark up in certain place but not the others. So, selling car
: at a lower price in the US than they are in Japan DOES NOT necessary means
: dumping.
Legally, it does. That’s the legal definition of dumping.
Jeff Goss (jg…@torolab.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
: As a Canadian, I do see the protectionist forces in the U.S. at work
: all the time. These are mostly special interest groups, or sometimes
: particular states, that push for tariffs. The free trade agreement is
: under continual bombardment from state governments, and there is a
: parade of cases before the International trade commission. The
: U.S. (or state thereof) usually loses, is told to pay back all the
: tariffs, refuses and appeals again. Just a data point.
: Jeff Goss
?? States are not allowed to impose tariffs — that’s constitutionally
the federal gov’t's area. And the US did just lose a case on imported
Canadian lumber.
>Hasn’t there been a big battle over importing Canadian wheat or some kinda
>grain? I’ve seen it on the news a couple of time where Canadian trucks
>were blockaded by farmers who didn’t want the grains to be imported, since
>they can be sold at a lower price via subsidizing. Also, let’s not forget
>the protectionist French farmers who wanted tarrifs on anything American-grown.
>You see, Lloyd, what happens when everyone becomes a "protectionist"? Trade
>wars don’t improve economies.
>Pico
Yes, there was a feature article on the front page of Wall Street J. a couple
weeks ago. The farmer that drove his truck to block the dock has become the
local hero. Yaaaaaaak. Protectionism at work. And Llyod, don’t say I didn’t
tell you that.
–
Frank K. Ip Voice: (408) 748-8649 ext 231
AIM Technology FAX: (408) 748-0161
4699 Old Ironsides, Suite 150 E-mail: f…@aim.com
Santa Clara, CA 95054 I speak for myself only.
Lloyd R. Parker (lpar…@cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: Legally, it does. That’s the legal definition of dumping.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you have a REFERENCE for this claim? …or is it from the
same collection of "Facts a la Lloyd" that brought us the turbo
F1 and the Camry DX-V6?
just curious,
Mark
In article <3336q5$…@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, lpar…@cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
|> Bob Davis (b…@earth.fishkill.ibm.com) wrote:
|>
|> : Well, I did cite one in the post you responded to! I repeat it again: The US
|> : places a 69% tariff on imported active-matrix LCD screens. (Note that, as I
|> : said before, this does not apply to screens imported as part of a complete
|> : system.)
|>
|> Placed on the screens because the Japanese were dumping them here.
|> That’s allowed by GATT.
Still protectionist.
|> : More examples? Didn’t the US put a tariff on imported motorcycles for a while
|> : at the request of Harley-Davidson? How about a tariff on imported pickups?
|> : (Remember the Subaru Brat that came with two seats welded in the back, so it
|> : did not fall into the pickup truck category.)
|>
|> Trucks are 25%, yes. Cars 2.5%. I admit that’s silly.
|>
|> : If one wants to count only tariffs, the average of tariffs charged by Japan on
|> : all imports (2.5%) is lower than Europe (2.8%) or the US (3.5%).
|>
|> Can you support those numbers?
Yes. Point is, tariffs are only one trade-barrier.
|> : Gee, didn’t we just recently impose some tariffs on cellular phones to help
|> : Motorola get into the Tokyo market?
|>
|> No, we filed an unfair trade complaint because the Japanese refused to
|> let Morotola compete in the Japanese telecommunications market and said
|> we’d impose tariffs on their exports to us. Again, that’s allowed under
|> GATT.
Wrong. Motorola does and has been competing in the Japanese telecommunications
market. In fact, prior to the flap, Motorola had 50% of the Japanese market
outside of Tokyo. The concern was with respect to the Tokyo market only. And
I seem to recall that the actions were not supported by GATT, in fact, they
were protested by other GATT signatories.
|> Yes, how about the Japanese letting US rice into their country?
Yes, they do now. But how is that relevant to how the US is protectionist?
|> : How can you not say the US is protective?!? (Y’all in Europe think the US
|> : is not protective?)