If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
> > But these restrictive barriers already exist, and work against the > > domestic US auto makers. > > Korea charges an 8% tariff on all U.S. vehicles. Note that the U.S. > imposes its own import tarrifs on Korean autos -- 25% in the case of > pickup trucks. South Korea has (or, perhaps, had) an 8% tariff on foreign cars. It was announced in April 2007 that the tariff would be eliminated (not sure when). When other local taxes are factored in, the effective tariff worked out to 10.5%. In return, the US will abolish it's --> 2.5% <-- import tax for South Korean cars with engines 3L or smaller. Tariffs for sedans with larger engines will be removed over 3 years. Yes, the US does have a 25% tariff on pickup trucks, which will be removed over 10 years. > Just so I understand this correctly, you're saying U.S. vehicles > cannot be imported into Korea? A 7.5% tariff differential working against US vehicles doesn't help. Your example of the Dodge Caliber being less expensive than the Hyundai Accent begs the question - why doesn't the Caliber sell well in South Korea? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:37:00 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:
>"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote: > >> > But these restrictive barriers already exist, and work against the >> > domestic US auto makers. >> >> Korea charges an 8% tariff on all U.S. vehicles. Note that the U.S. >> imposes its own import tarrifs on Korean autos -- 25% in the case of >> pickup trucks. > >South Korea has (or, perhaps, had) an 8% tariff on foreign cars. It was >announced in April 2007 that the tariff would be eliminated (not sure >when). When other local taxes are factored in, the effective tariff >worked out to 10.5%. > >In return, the US will abolish it's --> 2.5% <-- import tax for South >Korean cars with engines 3L or smaller. Tariffs for sedans with larger >engines will be removed over 3 years. > >Yes, the US does have a 25% tariff on pickup trucks, which will be >removed over 10 years. Well, that's good news. Within ten years, the United States can no longer be accused of duplicity. >> Just so I understand this correctly, you're saying U.S. vehicles >> cannot be imported into Korea? > >A 7.5% tariff differential working against US vehicles doesn't help. It may not help but, then again, I don't think this is Chrysler's biggest worry right now. >Your example of the Dodge Caliber being less expensive than the Hyundai >Accent begs the question - why doesn't the Caliber sell well in South >Korea? The real question Chrysler should be asking itself is why its October sales fell by 35 per cent and year-to-date sales are down 26 per cent. After all, if you can't sell American cars to the American public, arguably among the most brand loyal and patriotic automotive customers in the world, you might as well turn off the lights and lock the door. Cheers, Paul |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
> Well, that's good news. Within ten years, the United States can no > longer be accused of duplicity. As mentioned in the Wikipedia discussion pages for the US-Korean FTA, there has been very little reported in the press about it. Perhaps the term "media blackout" is justified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Ko...rade_Agreement By all accounts, it has not yet been ratified by the US Congress or the National Assembly of South Korea. So the current tariff regime on cars would still be in place. The way I read it, it seems likely it will die unless the next Congress ratifies it. Just to re-cap the relavent point here, SK exported 700,000 cars to the US in 2006, but imported just 5,000 cars from the US. Beef exporters also have it rough. SK was the third largest market for US beef in 2003. In that year the US exported 200,000 tons of beef to SK, up until December of that year when SK halted imports of US beef due to a single case of mad cow disease discovered in the US. I believe imports have resumed only this year, but still face a 40% import tariff. South Korean culture is, by some accounts, incredibly hostile towards the US and this appears to influence consumer purchasing habbits. > > Your example of the Dodge Caliber being less expensive than the > > Hyundai Accent begs the question - why doesn't the Caliber sell > > well in South Korea? > > The real question Chrysler should be asking itself is why its > October sales fell by 35 per cent and year-to-date sales are > down 26 per cent. I believe all auto makers (domestic and foreign) are seeing drops in their US sales. And so, after all, we still have the fact that US domestic auto makers face an uneven international playing field and the US Congress or US Gov't foreign trade policy is to blame. Years of preferential treatment of foreign car imports have taken their toll on the domestic US auto industry and have left them with a dwindling warchest of operating cash. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
> The real question Chrysler should be asking itself is why its October > sales fell by 35 per cent and year-to-date sales are down 26 per cent. Factor in the overall automotive market drop of all cars sold in the USA, foreign and domestic. Asian and European cars aren't doing much better in the USA. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
"MoPar Man" > wrote in message ... > "Paul M. Eldridge" wrote: > >> Well, that's good news. Within ten years, the United States can no >> longer be accused of duplicity. > > As mentioned in the Wikipedia discussion pages for the US-Korean FTA, > there has been very little reported in the press about it. Perhaps the > term "media blackout" is justified. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Ko...rade_Agreement > > By all accounts, it has not yet been ratified by the US Congress or the > National Assembly of South Korea. So the current tariff regime on cars > would still be in place. > > The way I read it, it seems likely it will die unless the next Congress > ratifies it. > > Just to re-cap the relavent point here, SK exported 700,000 cars to the > US in 2006, but imported just 5,000 cars from the US. > > Beef exporters also have it rough. SK was the third largest market for > US beef in 2003. In that year the US exported 200,000 tons of beef to > SK, up until December of that year when SK halted imports of US beef due > to a single case of mad cow disease discovered in the US. I believe > imports have resumed only this year, but still face a 40% import tariff. > > South Korean culture is, by some accounts, incredibly hostile towards > the US and this appears to influence consumer purchasing habbits. > >> > Your example of the Dodge Caliber being less expensive than the >> > Hyundai Accent begs the question - why doesn't the Caliber sell >> > well in South Korea? >> >> The real question Chrysler should be asking itself is why its >> October sales fell by 35 per cent and year-to-date sales are >> down 26 per cent. > > I believe all auto makers (domestic and foreign) are seeing drops in > their US sales. > > And so, after all, we still have the fact that US domestic auto makers > face an uneven international playing field and the US Congress or US > Gov't foreign trade policy is to blame. Years of preferential treatment > of foreign car imports have taken their toll on the domestic US auto > industry and have left them with a dwindling warchest of operating cash. i think most folks might remember there were no Lexus, or Acura or Infinity at one point in the U.S. The Government told the Asian importers they could only bring in the small econo-boxes, no luxury stuff. A few years later they said "ok...bring em' on in boys". when was that? late 80s? I remember when Toyota started saying they were going to build a full size truck. I remember saying "yeah right, they'll never make anything as good as an American truck". maybe it was supposed to spur the American companies into doing better because now they have more competition? i dunno. but as soon as the gov. dropped that import stipulation and others, that's when we should have seen the train coming....laziness and greed has really taken its toll on a lot of the folks in this country, |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
rob wrote:
> I remember > when Toyota started saying they were going to build a full size truck. I > remember saying "yeah right, they'll never make anything as good as an > American truck". They still don't. They only make a 1/2 ton, same with Nissan. Toyotas first attempt was the T100 which did very poorly. Their 2nd attempt is an improvement but still just a 1/2 ton. Not sure if Nissan or Toyota could compete with the big 3 3/4 and 1 tons and above. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:15:32 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:
>"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote: > >> Well, that's good news. Within ten years, the United States can no >> longer be accused of duplicity. > >As mentioned in the Wikipedia discussion pages for the US-Korean FTA, >there has been very little reported in the press about it. Perhaps the >term "media blackout" is justified. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Ko...rade_Agreement > >By all accounts, it has not yet been ratified by the US Congress or the >National Assembly of South Korea. So the current tariff regime on cars >would still be in place. > >The way I read it, it seems likely it will die unless the next Congress >ratifies it. > >Just to re-cap the relavent point here, SK exported 700,000 cars to the >US in 2006, but imported just 5,000 cars from the US. > >Beef exporters also have it rough. SK was the third largest market for >US beef in 2003. In that year the US exported 200,000 tons of beef to >SK, up until December of that year when SK halted imports of US beef due >to a single case of mad cow disease discovered in the US. I believe >imports have resumed only this year, but still face a 40% import tariff. > >South Korean culture is, by some accounts, incredibly hostile towards >the US and this appears to influence consumer purchasing habbits. Well, if, in your words, "South Korean culture is, by some accounts, incredibly hostile towards the US and this appears to influence consumer purchasing habits" this doesn't strike me as a promising market for Chrysler. Wouldn't it make more sense for Chrysler to focus its attention on markets that are a little less "hostile"? [I'm thinking, maybe, North America?] >> > Your example of the Dodge Caliber being less expensive than the >> > Hyundai Accent begs the question - why doesn't the Caliber sell >> > well in South Korea? >> >> The real question Chrysler should be asking itself is why its >> October sales fell by 35 per cent and year-to-date sales are >> down 26 per cent. > >I believe all auto makers (domestic and foreign) are seeing drops in >their US sales. At a time when gasoline prices nation wide were peaking above $4.00 a gallon, what were the vehicles Chrysler was trying to sell us? The Chrysler Aspen? (*gag*) Dodge Durango? Jeep Grand Cherokee? Dodge Ram? Gasoline prices have backed down [for now], but with the economy continuing to head south, what vehicles can Chrysler offer us? The above? Nein, danke! >And so, after all, we still have the fact that US domestic auto makers >face an uneven international playing field and the US Congress or US >Gov't foreign trade policy is to blame. Years of preferential treatment >of foreign car imports have taken their toll on the domestic US auto >industry and have left them with a dwindling warchest of operating cash. "Years of preferential treatment of foreign car imports"?!? I think it's safe to say we see things differently. Can't we just admit that GM, Chrysler and Ford screwed up and stop trying to pin the blame on someone [anyone] else? And for fear I leave you with the wrong impression, I have a strong emotional commitment to this company and with one exception, all my vehicles have been Chrysler products, most recently a 300M Special and a Dodge Magnum R/T. I would dearly like my next vehicle to be a Chrysler but, as I've stated on this forum before, I'm not the least bit interested in driving a truck or SUV, and whilst the new 300 is OK, it's doesn't drop me to my knees (frankly, if I wanted a cheap, plasticky interior, I would buy a Tercel). Cheers, Paul |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
Full-Quoter rob wrote:
> but as soon as the gov. dropped that import stipulation and others, > that's when we should have seen the train coming.... What train was that? That the US gov't likes to formulate trade laws that benefit foreign countries? That the US gov't wanted to destroy whole sectors of the US manufacturing economy by dropping taxes on imports? Are you saying that in spite of anti-American trade policies, that US companies were supposed to be able to out-compete foreign companies at home? Maybe you want to explain how exactly they were ever going to pull that off... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:40:02 -0700, Miles > wrote:
>Paul M. Eldridge wrote: > >> The real question Chrysler should be asking itself is why its October >> sales fell by 35 per cent and year-to-date sales are down 26 per cent. > >Factor in the overall automotive market drop of all cars sold in the >USA, foreign and domestic. Asian and European cars aren't doing much >better in the USA. True, not a whole lot better, but compared to their North American counterparts, perhaps as good as can be expected. As of October 31st, the score card, year-to-date, is as follows: GM - down 20.4% Ford - down 18.6% Chrysler - down 25.9% Toyota - down 11.5% Honda - down 3.2% Nissan - down 6.2% Volkswagen - down 1.8% Mitsubishi - down 23.9% Mazda - down 7.5% Hyundai - down 7.8% BMW - down 4.8% Daimler AG - up 4.7% Subaru - up 2.1% Kai - down 5.3% Source: Autodata The credit crisis, the sour mood of consumers and a tanking economy will ensure there's enough pain to go around for everyone but, as we can see, it won't be shared equally. Sadly, it becomes a matter of who can best weather the storm and if I were a betting man.... Cheers, Paul |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
> Well, if, in your words, "South Korean culture is, by some accounts, > incredibly hostile towards the US and this appears to influence > consumer purchasing habits" this doesn't strike me as a promising > market for Chrysler. Wouldn't it make more sense for Chrysler to > focus its attention on markets that are a little less "hostile"? Consumer sentiment can always be changed. But it makes no sense to even try if import tariffs are stacked up against you, with the intent to form a trade barrier. Why do you give absolutely no credence to the effects that gov't tariffs have on global trade flows? > At a time when gasoline prices nation wide were peaking above > $4.00 a gallon, what were the vehicles Chrysler was trying to > sell us? When gas was $2, even $3 a gallon, "WE" (Canadians and Americans) were busy filling our driveways with pickup trucks and SUV's. That was only a year or two ago. And it's NOT like the big-3 don't have small car options to sell when gas hits $4. They have always had small cars with small engines, and they always do sell a lot of them. They just don't make much profit on them, and they can't when Korean and Japanese cars are effectively dumped into the US market, and the big-3 face trade barriers trying to sell their small cars into those foreign markets. It's been said for a long time that Jap companies uses their protected domestic market to sell their cars at home and make healthy profits, and then sell into the US at practically a loss and build market share. Maybe the big-3 were giving us large vehicles because they couldn't compete with the Korean and Japanese imports which were coming ashore helped by low duties and tariffs? Maybe if the US import tariffs were evenly matched with Korea's and Japan's import tariffs, then we would have seen a different mix of domestic vehicles from the big-3. > > Years of preferential treatment of foreign car imports have > > taken their toll on the domestic US auto industry and have > > left them with a dwindling warchest of operating cash. > > "Years of preferential treatment of foreign car imports"?!? Yes, and you have posted nothing to counter that statement. > I think it's safe to say we see things differently. You can't, or won't, admit that tariffs and taxes affect trade and access to markets. The trade barriers that domestic US makers face when selling (or trying to sell) into Korea and Japan never get much press, because those societies are so alien to us and so far away. Read this: http://www.constitutionpartyofwa.com...ctim_ftaa.html ----------------- "Here is an example of how it worked: If Toyota produced a car with a basic dealer price of $8,160 it would pay a commodity tax, $1,840, to the Japanese government causing the dealer price to rise to $10,000. That tax was then paid by Japanese consumers as a hidden part of the total price, along with other taxes.... "However, the fine print in Japan's tax manual revealed that if that car was exported to the U.S., Japan would rebate (kick back) the commodity tax." Toyota could sell the car in America for $8,160...$1,840 less than its price in Japan. "On the other hand, if a U.S. car carrying a similar dealer price of $10,000 was exported to Japan the U.S. government would not rebate even one dime from $4,000 of taxes that had been imbedded in that price through income, PICA, property, and many other taxes. When the $10,000 U.S. car entered Japan it would not be released from customs bond until the manufacturer paid the 22-1/2 commodity tax, thereby causing the price of the U.S. car in Japan to rise to $12,250, plus other charges...." As a result of these assaults on American auto manufacturers, Stelzer says, "GM has closed at least 70 plants and offices in the U.S. while reducing its domestic work force from over 600,000 to barely 300,000 today, and opening plants in many other countries. At the same time, GM's role as the largest private generator of federal, state, and local tax revenue shrunk by at least 50 percent." He points out that federal, state, and local governments have enacted millions of tax and regulatory laws that have been responsible for over 80 percent of the cost of the average American product. That being a ratio of 4- to-1, it constitutes a tariff of 400 percent on our products. Yet we assess a tariff of only 2 percent on imported cars and parts which are assembled in Japanese plants in the U.S.? --------------------- > all my vehicles have been Chrysler products, most recently a > 300M Special and a Dodge Magnum R/T. I would dearly like my > next vehicle to be a Chrysler but, as I've stated on this forum > before, I'm not the least bit interested in driving a truck or > SUV, and whilst the new 300 is OK, it's doesn't drop me to my > knees Why not buy the new Challenger then? Last time I passed 2 or 3 car carriers full of Challengers on the 401 heading west, they didn't look too much like trucks to me... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast | No UAW Welfare | Driving | 20 | November 17th 08 08:34 PM |
WWSD What would Sarah Palin Do? Bailout Plan | Angelocracy | Driving | 9 | September 28th 08 04:11 AM |
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve | Jim Higgins | Chrysler | 24 | September 20th 08 02:25 PM |