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?)

: 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

>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.

: 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.

: 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.

: >>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.

> 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  

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

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.

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.