ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
NJRVer wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
If the chicken tax protected the big three from competition, they how did Nissan, Toyota, Mazda, Isuzu, Mitsubishi, VW, Subaru, Honda, and Suzuki all sell trucks while the chicken tax was in place?
I fit protected them from competition, they they would have ZERO competition, not nine.
Supply and demand.
Back in the '70's the US had no small pickup. Everybody wanted small pickups. Toyota, Datsun, Mazda sold loads of them.
Ford jumped on board with a rebranded Mazda I believe it was, and Chevy got in on it with a re-branded Isuzu.
And Chrysler with a rebranded Mitsubishi.
Sooooo the reason why the six if the nine competitors went away was due to low demand of their product as I stated, not the chicken tax?
It does do what it was meant to do, but you keep thinking it was implemented to protect US trucks which in that regards it does nothing as I have been saying. It was lobbied by the UAW to protect their interest. It is still here because they(the UAW, not the big three) still lobby for it to this day as the article I posted states. If you actually look at who it was meant to protect(the UAW) instead who you think it was meant it was to protect(the big three), then you would see that it is indeed working in their favor because all six truck brands that sell in the US market build their trucks in the US or NAFTA countries.
If the big three had 46 years of protection in the truck market, then why did they have nine truck competitors in those 46 years with three of them still making trucks to this day?
Come on. It’s in the UAW’s interests to protect its employers markets and I’m sure the
that is just fine with those employers. You’re just being obtuse.
It protects them and allows them to charge more of their products than if they had foreign competition. I’m not arguing the rightness or wrongness, just the reality.
