Forum Discussion
RobertRyan wrote:
One free trade deal in particular with Thailand(TAFTA) signed in 2005, was especially bad for potential Australian truck production jobs since most of the small trucks sold in Australia are produced in Thailand like the Toyota Hilux, Holden Colorado, Isuzu D-max, Ford Ranger, Mazda BT-50, and Nissan Navara. Australia is a big enough auto market to apply high tariffs on their auto imports to protect domestic jobs without giving into high subsidies, but their hands were tied once they signed a free trade deal that lasts for decades with other Asian countries. Australia had to shell out more and more subsidies to get them to stay until it was no longer profitable.
There were no " truck" production jobs before the TAFTA was signed, all these vehicles were produced in Thailand. It is when the US companies were not given subsidies they pulled out, nothing to do with tariffs
GM and a few others decided to build a factory in Thailand for truck production after TAFTA was signed. If it weren't signed and Australia had higher tariffs on their utes, then that would have forced these companies to build their trucks in Australia without having to give away as much tax payer money through subsidies on a federal level.
Australia and New Zealand have a big enough truck market to support multiple truck brands. With a higher tariff, Australia would essentially have the truck makes by the balls if they wanted to sell there without having to give away a lot, if any, subsidies because the tariff would eliminate global competition for those factories and jobs.
In a country with a very small truck market that cannot support enough truck sales to force truck manufacturers to build in their country then I can see them having low tariffs on trucks, but not in a country like Australia who has enough potential truck sales that manufacturers would be stupid not to build and sell there.Now there are rumors of the talks being revived, with Nissan wanting a much larger cut of the action. One thing that hasn’t changed in all of this is that the clock is ticking on FCA. Beyond Jeep, Ram Trucks and its muscle/police cars the company is clearly not positioned for the future because it is woefully lacking in advanced technology. And the whole idea of merging with another automotive partner is designed to fix that.
No that only applies to NA, it has no relevance outside. Fiat is much more than FCA outside NA. Renault wants a tie up to accessthe NA and have much more punch in the vastly bigger Global market.
To put into perspective want I am referringv too. VW Corporation has only ONE PERCENT of it of it's total business in NA- Interesting article on FCA "merger" at autoextremist
First of all, how crazy is the FCA saga getting? When the merger between FCA and Renault – you know, the one that everyone was so certain of – blew up after FCA Chairman John Elkann walked away from the deal, the hand-wringing was only just beginning. There are so many more dimensions to the story that it’s dizzying. There’s Renault, but then there’s the French government too. Those two players alone are enough to give any notion of a merger a stiff headache. And then there’s Nissan, whose nose seems to be permanently out of joint because, in the parlance of Rodney Dangerfield, they just can’t get no respect.
Now there are rumors of the talks being revived, with Nissan wanting a much larger cut of the action. One thing that hasn’t changed in all of this is that the clock is ticking on FCA. Beyond Jeep, Ram Trucks and its muscle/police cars the company is clearly not positioned for the future because it is woefully lacking in advanced technology. And the whole idea of merging with another automotive partner is designed to fix that.
Make no mistake, I believe a deal will be made, simply because FCA has no other choices – or interested partners – and time is running out. Any merger with any company will be fraught with problems and unforeseen challenges, and the sooner FCA can get a deal and set about figuring things out with its new partners, the better off it will be. That’s not to say things will go swimmingly well, because they rarely do with heavyweight corporate egos in play. But at this point FCA has no choice; the company must make a deal for its long-term survival.
Link One free trade deal in particular with Thailand(TAFTA) signed in 2005, was especially bad for potential Australian truck production jobs since most of the small trucks sold in Australia are produced in Thailand like the Toyota Hilux, Holden Colorado, Isuzu D-max, Ford Ranger, Mazda BT-50, and Nissan Navara. Australia is a big enough auto market to apply high tariffs on their auto imports to protect domestic jobs without giving into high subsidies, but their hands were tied once they signed a free trade deal that lasts for decades with other Asian countries. Australia had to shell out more and more subsidies to get them to stay until it was no longer profitable.
There were no " truck" production jobs before the TAFTA was signed, all these vehicles were produced in Thailand. It is when the US companies were not given subsidies they pulled out, nothing to do with tariffswilber1 wrote:
You keep harping on the UAW, maintaining that a tariff that protects their jobs doesn't protect the companies they work for. Like there is no relationship between corporate profits and what they can pay their employees.
Well, the UAW is the one that had light trucks added to the chicken tax and the are the ones who keep lobbying for its continuation. You see, here is where are disconnect is. You see, I agree that it protects the companies they work with as well as any company US or not that builds on US soil, and YOU keep saying it ONLY protects US companies and that is false. The premise of the tax is to protect US jobs, not US companies.wilber1 wrote:
You maintain that the tax doesn't restrict competitiveness. That makes no sense, why have it then.
If competition is or was restricted, then why is it that there was
several foreign competitors that have come and gone since its inception and the US has the most pick up truck model choices(27 to be exact) with the most configurations of any other market? Seems like it is not doing a good job of restricting competition.wilber1 wrote:
Of course it benefits Toyota and Nissan. They produce vehicles in the US with non union labour and are protected from competition from other Asian manufacturers by the same tax. To say their bottom line doesn't benefit is delusional. Korean auto unions were livid when their government signed a trade agreement that extended the Chicken tax on their vehicles for another 25 years.
Toyota didn't always build in an none union facility. For the first 12 years they made pickups in the US, it was at a UAW facility in California.wilber1 wrote:
At least I am not delusional about the real purposes of tariffs and their real consequences.
From my point of view, you kind of are. However, you are not an American and have no say so in what we put tariffs on or how much so I am not sure why you care so much about that something that is not your concern. I am sure I can find a few Canadian policies I don't agree with, but it is not my business what you guys want to do with your taxes and tariffs.- Shinerbock
The purpose of tariffs is to protect domestic industries by keeping up the prices they can charge for their products.
You keep harping on the UAW, maintaining that a tariff that protects their jobs doesn't protect the companies they work for. Like there is no relationship between corporate profits and what they can pay their employees. You maintain that the tax doesn't restrict competitiveness. That makes no sense, why have it then.
Of course it benefits Toyota and Nissan. They produce vehicles in the US with non union labour and are protected from competition from other Asian manufacturers by the same tax. To say their bottom line doesn't benefit is delusional. Korean auto unions were livid when their government signed a trade agreement that extended the Chicken tax on their vehicles for another 25 years.
Whether the tax is a good thing or not depends on your point of view. If you are a US automaker or autoworker it is a good thing and I respect that. If you are just a consumer looking for the best price it isn't because ultimately they pay for the tariff and I respect that too.
At least I am not delusional about the real purposes of tariffs and their real consequences.
Tariffs and protectionism can be a two edged sword. The Soviet Union tried to isolate its economy. How well did that work?
I'll leave this subject now. RobertRyan wrote:
Tariffs are designed to raise money and/or to protect domestic manufacturing jobs from other countries who may have cost advantage due to lower labor/material cost, less regulation, and/or weaker currency. You of all people here should know this being that you had to see all auto manufacturing jobs leave Australia(much of it to Asian countries) due to low to non existent auto tariffs.
No they did not leave Australia to go to Asian Countries. It was the US owned Manufacturers wanted to shut down the Australian manufacturing behind the car companies because the exchange rates were unfavourable, not tariffs
Now they want to build up the Design and Development Cantres that these companies havein Australia to work on primarily US vehicles
The lack of tariffs made it more profitable for vehicles to be made outside Australia than within, and without tariffs protecting those jobs Australia had to come up with a lot of subsidies to keep automakers in Australia until it reached the point where the costs outweighed the benefits. If they had higher tariffs, then those selling cars in Australia whether it be an automaker from the US, Japanese, German, or other country would be more inclined to keep production in Australia. Instead, free trade deals lowered the tariffs to the point where building overseas looked like a viable option which means Australia had to compete with other countries for those jobs with more subsidies with tax revenue from their own people.
One free trade deal in particular with Thailand(TAFTA) signed in 2005, was especially bad for potential Australian truck production jobs since most of the small trucks sold in Australia are produced in Thailand like the Toyota Hilux, Holden Colorado, Isuzu D-max, Ford Ranger, Mazda BT-50, and Nissan Navara. Australia is a big enough auto market to apply high tariffs on their auto imports to protect domestic jobs without giving into high subsidies, but their hands were tied once they signed a free trade deal that lasts for decades with other Asian countries. Australia had to shell out more and more subsidies to get them to stay until it was no longer profitable.
Notice how the US federal government does not have to compete with other countries with subsidies to keep US truck production in the US like we have to do with car production which has lower tariffs.Tariffs are designed to raise money and/or to protect domestic manufacturing jobs from other countries who may have cost advantage due to lower labor/material cost, less regulation, and/or weaker currency. You of all people here should know this being that you had to see all auto manufacturing jobs leave Australia(much of it to Asian countries) due to low to non existent auto tariffs.
No they did not leave Australia to go to Asian Countries. It was the US owned Manufacturers wanted to shut down the Australian manufacturing behind the car companies because the exchange rates were unfavourable, not tariffs
Now they want to build up the Design and Development Cantres that these companies havein Australia to work on primarily US vehiclesRobertRyan wrote:
The tariff was negotiated by the UAW to protect American jobs. That is a fact. As far as price, where did I say it doesn't make any difference in price other than the fact that the price went up when Toyota and Nissan started making trucks in the US and not paying the chicken tax versus making them overseas and paying the chicken tax, not down. I showed you this data with factual number
Tariffs do make differences in prices. They are designed to restrict competition. If that was not the case there would no current Tariff war with China
Tariffs are designed to raise money and/or to protect domestic manufacturing jobs from other countries who may have cost advantage due to lower labor/material cost, less regulation, and/or weaker currency. You of all people here should know this being that you had to see all auto manufacturing jobs leave Australia(much of it to Asian countries) due to low to non existent auto tariffs.
In the case of China, it is being used to even the playing field and balance our trade deficit with them. A vast majority of the $600B 2018 trade deficit was with China. They have steep tariffs with the US (up to 25% on vehicles) and do not allow any outside company to own 100% of land or company while we and many other countries allow them full ownership. Any company that wants to manufacture anything in China are forced into a 50% ownership with a Chinese company that you cannot sue if anything goes wrong. In most cases, the company you are forced to partner with will steal your trade secrets so they can reverse engineer your product and sell it to someone else cheaper.
It will be hard to go into a trade war with China and it will be costly. However, it needs to be done or we will just keep kicking the can down the sidewalk until it is too late.The tariff was negotiated by the UAW to protect American jobs. That is a fact. As far as price, where did I say it doesn't make any difference in price other than the fact that the price went up when Toyota and Nissan started making trucks in the US and not paying the chicken tax versus making them overseas and paying the chicken tax, not down. I showed you this data with factual number
Tariffs do make differences in prices. They are designed to restrict competition. If that was not the case there would no current Tariff war with China
