On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:26:51 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:

>"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?

What I've been saying is that Chrysler needs to focus its attention
squarely on the North American market and not get distracted trying to
sell its products in countries where, for a variety of reasons, it's
not likely to perform well. It goes to the point I made earlier, that
if you can't sell North American cars to North American car buyers
who, in the past, have been largely loyal to you, it's not likely
you'll fair much better in foreign markets where the general public is
even more committed to supporting their own domestic manufacturers.

>> 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.

It's not like $4.00 gas jumped out of the blue and smacked Chrysler in
the face. Like GM and Ford, they chose to ignore the fact that
America was becoming increasingly more dependent on foreign oil, most
of which originating in countries that don't exactly like the U.S. --
did they simply forget the '70s? And, yet, they've done everything in
their power to expand their full-size luxury truck and SUV sales,
whist efffectively abandoning the passenger vehicle segment to foreign
competitors.

>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.

And North American car buyers have, for the most part, rejected them.
I read this morning that, in 2008, the Dodge Caliber hatchback has
sold for an average of $1,717.00 *less* than a Honda Civic. Why then,
even with this price premium, does the Honda Civic outsell the Dodge
Caliber by, what, I'm guessing, ten to one?

>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?

The same ones that, as noted above and in my previous posts, are
*more* expensive than the domestics?

>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'm sorry, did I fail to mention the 25% import duty that applies to
foreign made trucks?

>> 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.

Actually, I can and I will. My point is that Chrysler has bigger fish
to fry right now than worring about an 8% duty on cars it doesn't sell
in Korea.

>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...

The '74 Dodge Challenger was my first car and so the 2009 Challenger
holds considerable appeal. However, I've decided my next car will be
a hybrid or, better yet, plug-in hybrid. Don't get me wrong, a 5.7 or
6.1L Hemi Challenger would be an incredible ride, but I'm not
convinced it's the type of car I want to be driving now or two to
three years from now, given the general direction of our economy.

Cheers,
Paul