Price fixing among tire manufacturers

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

<...>
> I grew up with few toys, and made quite a few for my younger brothers
> and sisters. They have WAY too many today, and too few that exercise
> their magination, their mind, or their body.

I remember when I was a kid, I spent a lot of time playing with trucks
and Legos. I still like to play with them (although now I can include
full-size trucks if I want).

I can't agree with your statement more.

I do think there is a place for kids playing video games, perhaps up to
two hours a day, including time spent playing on the computer. When
they're playing video games, they are learning some important skills.
But not skills that are that important that they need to play video game
or watch TV for hours a day.

Most of the play time should be with toys that exercise the imagination,
mind and body.


>> Also, when it comes to food, I prefer local, because it takes so much
>> energy to transport food half-way across the country or even half-way
>> across the world. Energy is one commodity the world is using more and
>> more of every day.
>
> Not to mention local is picked at the peak of freshness, where
> imported is picked green, and never does get the same flavour.

Great Point!

Jeff

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
> In article <Btfej.1348$jX4.1062@trnddc07>,
> says...
>> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:43:22 GMT, Jeff >
>>> wrote:
>> <...>
>>
>>>> Just because it is from China doesn't mean it is (or isn't) crap.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>> Correct - but "good quality" stuff from China is always a crap-shoot
>>> with their quality control issues.
>>> Also, too many of my friends and their parents have lost their jobs in
>>> the Canadian Rubber industry - BFG, Goodyear, and Uniroyal are all
>>> gone now.
>> I don't see how that is China's fault for producing a product for less.
>> Of course, a lot of people who had the option of buying products made in
>> North America chose ones from China instead for a few measly dollars
>> less. However, the cost of the jobs lost was not figured in.
>
> Since everyone making tires has similar raw material costs, China has
> several advantages for lower cost:
>
> 1. Lower wages
> 2. Virtually no enforced pollution controls
> 3. Virtually no enforced hazardous waste disposal procedures

I tend to think that 2 & 3 (and sometimes 4, below) are costs that we
bear in the end, through environmental degradation. In fact, one can
argue that we are just moving the nasty costs of manufacturing (CO2,
pollution, environmental damage) to other countries for stuff like this.

> 4. Virtually no enforced occupational health/safety regulation

5) Add: Cost of transporting the tires 1/2 way around the world.

> Since it is a developing economy, wages will remain lower than the West,
> as having an industrial sector job like making tires still pays more
> than farming.
>
> Were China to meet USA or Canadian regulations for items 2-4, their cost
> advantage would be significantly smaller.

I am not so sure about. In the end, the costs would probably be about
the same or even less, because they don't have to take care of as many
sick people and our environment is not as badly degraded.

Jeff
>
> --Gene
>
>

In article >,
says...
> Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
> > In article <Btfej.1348$jX4.1062@trnddc07>,
> > says...
> >> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:43:22 GMT, Jeff >
> >>> wrote:
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>>> Just because it is from China doesn't mean it is (or isn't) crap.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff
> >>> Correct - but "good quality" stuff from China is always a crap-shoot
> >>> with their quality control issues.
> >>> Also, too many of my friends and their parents have lost their jobs in
> >>> the Canadian Rubber industry - BFG, Goodyear, and Uniroyal are all
> >>> gone now.
> >> I don't see how that is China's fault for producing a product for less.
> >> Of course, a lot of people who had the option of buying products made in
> >> North America chose ones from China instead for a few measly dollars
> >> less. However, the cost of the jobs lost was not figured in.
> >
> > Since everyone making tires has similar raw material costs, China has
> > several advantages for lower cost:
> >
> > 1. Lower wages
> > 2. Virtually no enforced pollution controls
> > 3. Virtually no enforced hazardous waste disposal procedures
>
> I tend to think that 2 & 3 (and sometimes 4, below) are costs that we
> bear in the end, through environmental degradation. In fact, one can
> argue that we are just moving the nasty costs of manufacturing (CO2,
> pollution, environmental damage) to other countries for stuff like this.

What goes around, comes around. CO2 doesn't stay local, and neither
does mercury emitted from burning coal.

> > 4. Virtually no enforced occupational health/safety regulation
>
> 5) Add: Cost of transporting the tires 1/2 way around the world.

Actually, container ship transport is, pound per mile, incredibly
efficient. The larger cost is incurred shipping from the port of
arrival to final destination in some landlocked midwest city.

> > Since it is a developing economy, wages will remain lower than the West,
> > as having an industrial sector job like making tires still pays more
> > than farming.
> >
> > Were China to meet USA or Canadian regulations for items 2-4, their cost
> > advantage would be significantly smaller.
>
> I am not so sure about. In the end, the costs would probably be about
> the same or even less, because they don't have to take care of as many
> sick people and our environment is not as badly degraded.

Heh? I'm not following this. China WILL face a an aging population and
accompanying health crisis (the demographics guarantee it), and are
rapidly dismantling the multi-generational family that was THE system
for caring for the sick and aged.

--Gene

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>>> In article <Btfej.1348$jX4.1062@trnddc07>,
>>> says...
>>>> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:43:22 GMT, Jeff >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>>> Just because it is from China doesn't mean it is (or isn't) crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>> Correct - but "good quality" stuff from China is always a crap-shoot
>>>>> with their quality control issues.
>>>>> Also, too many of my friends and their parents have lost their jobs in
>>>>> the Canadian Rubber industry - BFG, Goodyear, and Uniroyal are all
>>>>> gone now.
>>>> I don't see how that is China's fault for producing a product for less.
>>>> Of course, a lot of people who had the option of buying products made in
>>>> North America chose ones from China instead for a few measly dollars
>>>> less. However, the cost of the jobs lost was not figured in.
>>> Since everyone making tires has similar raw material costs, China has
>>> several advantages for lower cost:
>>>
>>> 1. Lower wages
>>> 2. Virtually no enforced pollution controls
>>> 3. Virtually no enforced hazardous waste disposal procedures
>> I tend to think that 2 & 3 (and sometimes 4, below) are costs that we
>> bear in the end, through environmental degradation. In fact, one can
>> argue that we are just moving the nasty costs of manufacturing (CO2,
>> pollution, environmental damage) to other countries for stuff like this.
>
> What goes around, comes around. CO2 doesn't stay local, and neither
> does mercury emitted from burning coal.
>
>>> 4. Virtually no enforced occupational health/safety regulation
>> 5) Add: Cost of transporting the tires 1/2 way around the world.
>
> Actually, container ship transport is, pound per mile, incredibly
> efficient. The larger cost is incurred shipping from the port of
> arrival to final destination in some landlocked midwest city.
>
>>> Since it is a developing economy, wages will remain lower than the West,
>>> as having an industrial sector job like making tires still pays more
>>> than farming.
>>>
>>> Were China to meet USA or Canadian regulations for items 2-4, their cost
>>> advantage would be significantly smaller.
>> I am not so sure about. In the end, the costs would probably be about
>> the same or even less, because they don't have to take care of as many
>> sick people and our environment is not as badly degraded.
>
> Heh? I'm not following this. China WILL face a an aging population and
> accompanying health crisis (the demographics guarantee it), and are
> rapidly dismantling the multi-generational family that was THE system
> for caring for the sick and aged.

China will have additional costs because of the higher costs of caring
for chronic illnesses, environment remediation and lost productivity.

Jeff

> --Gene

Jeff wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:

> For all practical purposes, once water is used, it is gone forever. When
> water goes down my drain, it goes to a sewage plant, then to a river and
> out to sea. Certainly, the water will evaporate and eventually rain down
> on earth someplace. Virtually the same amount of water would have rained
> down on earth if that water were never used. In some parts of the world,
> the water comes directly from the ocean (e.g., from reverse osmosis).

You are making no sense whatsoever. Look up "conservation of mass".
You continue to give the impression that the amount of water on the
earth is decreasing all the time. That is absurd.

>> As for shortages - for every person with a shortage, there's someone
>> somewhere else during the same time period that has an excess (called
>> flooding).

> Really? Try telling that to the people in Ethiopia. I bet they really care.

And your point is...? How long have they been without water? And they
are still living there? People in Ethiopia needing water does not equal
available water decreasing in general which is what you've been saying
(i.e., "Once it is used, it is gone forever"). There is a constant
finite quantity of water on the earth - period. Though I'm sure Al Gore
would refute that.

>> That means the issue is controlling and managing it. It disappearing
>> forever is not an issue.

> Wrong!

Absurd.

> The water table in many parts of the US is getting lower and lower.
> That's true in other parts of the world. Fresh water (i.e., water that
> doesn't have a lot of salt in it) is a limited resource. There is a huge
> amount available, but the amount of fresh water that is usable is
> limited and shrinking.
>
>> The truth lies somewhere between zero and infinity. We could argue
>> for a long time exactly where.
>
> I suggest you read this article and some of the references at the bottom:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources

Hmm - interesting. The article says that over 2/3 of the fresh water is
frozen in glaciers and ice caps. If the Amazing Algore's global
warming claims are correct (and they aren't), then we will have all that
additional fresh water to tap into. You guys can't have it both ways.
Unfortunately the world listened to this kind of alarmist
invented-crisis pseudo-science crap about DDT, and as a result millions
of unnecessary deaths occurred from malaria that never would have
happened. How come no one ever talks about that? Instead you want to
move on to the next invented pseudo-science crisis.

Seriously - I'm sure water management is a critical thing - in the
future as in the past. But when you say that when water is used it is
gone forever, you lose all credibility and that weakens any potentially
valid points that you may otherwise want or need to make.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> It seems to me that if a tire manufacturer created a model - for example the
> Michelin Hydroedge - and spent the next 20 years pushing that model and
> making damn sure that every purchaser of it was happy as a clam, that the
> consumer loyalty built up over the Hydroedge name would be enormously
> valuable. I don't understand why the tire manufacturers don't operate this
> way.

Yeah - I know. I was going to suggest that you check into a good
touring tire - maybe you already are looking at those. But they are
very good on low noise.

At the suggestion of someone here (rec.autos.makers.chrysler) 3 or 4
years ago, I tried Cooper Lifeliner Touring SLE - supposedly super
quiet, 620 treadwear rating, and advertised as something like 70k mile.
I tried them and they proved everything they were claimed to be. All
three of my present cars have them - my daily driver is on its second
set. They cost around $80-85 out the door, and included lifetime
rotation and balancing.

But guess what. Cooper has discontinued it. Replaced it with touring
model CS4. I will give them a try the next time I need tires - they
appear to be the same tire (ratings, quietness, etc.) with just enough
changes that they could give it a different name. Oh - and it costs
$110 instead of $80-85.

>
>> Looking at it another way, if the consumer is educated on the product
>> assortment and makes wise decisions, then that should drive divergent
>> products closer together with the overall trend to better and cheaper.
>> If one tire with the same ratings was selling a bunch more, I'd wonder
>> why they continued marketing it - there must be something that makes it
>> better and causes enough people to keep buying it. But the trend
>> *should* be a tighter price variation for like products. Price
>> differences should truly reflect quality and/or performance in a good
>> open market.
>>
>
> Right. But they don't seem to do this. Instead the second they build up
> the slightest amount of consumer loyalty to a tire brand, they discontinue
> it and substitute a new model with a new name.

See above Cooper SLE/CS4.

Anyway - if you don't need to pull the absolute max. G's on cornering,
consider the Cooper CS4 or another good touring tire you may hear good
things about.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
>
> And your point is...? How long have they been without water? And they
> are still living there? People in Ethiopia needing water does not equal
> available water decreasing in general which is what you've been saying
> (i.e., "Once it is used, it is gone forever"). There is a constant
> finite quantity of water on the earth - period.

Actually there isn't. Every time you burn Natural Gas you introduce water
to the earth as your creating it from the burning of the hydrocarbon, as
well as burning many other kinds of hydrocarbons. Introduction of water
through space material (comets and such) hitting the earth adds some more
and doubtless the decomposition of water as a result of lightning removes
some,
although those are minor in comparison.

I think the amount of water on earth varies quite a bit, I'm sure there's
other
chemical actions that tie up the various atoms that make up a water molecule
into other molecules.

>
> Seriously - I'm sure water management is a critical thing - in the
> future as in the past. But when you say that when water is used it is
> gone forever, you lose all credibility and that weakens any potentially
> valid points that you may otherwise want or need to make.
>

I think it was Heinlein who wrote a Sci-Fi story about a future where
spaceships used water as a reaction mass to get out of the Earth's gravity
well - as a result of it, an entire political party on Earth was created
over
the outrage of the idea that Earth's water was being lost to spaceships,
resulting in crushing and punitive restrictions on space travel. The party
collapsed when the opposition brought a giant chunk of frozen ice from
the Asteroid belt, landing it on Mars as a publicity stunt and offering to
freely export water from Mars back to Earth... An amusing
story, kind of like this argument...

Ted

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Anyway - if you don't need to pull the absolute max. G's on cornering,

On a minivan? You kidding?

> consider the Cooper CS4 or another good touring tire you may hear good
> things about.
>

Firestone has apparently started another sale - a $50 off coupon on a set of
4
Bridgestone tires just came in the newspaper today, good til Jan 6th....plus
another 5% off if you use a Firestone credit card to buy them..

Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
> So, in principle, the Goodyears should be the most expensive, followed
> by the Firestone, then the Toyo stuff should be the cheapest.
>
> Yet, this is not the case. Pricing differers very little, in fact the
> Toyo
> stuff is a bit more expensive.

Pricing is an important part of marketing. You want to be low enough to
compete
in your desirability range, but you dont want to leave money on the table.

For example, people will pay more for a BMW than they will for a Chevy, but
the
car may not be any better at the end of the day. So you establish a price
range
for your desirability range. And, you dont give them away even if you
could..

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
> I think it was Heinlein who wrote a Sci-Fi story about a future where
> spaceships used water as a reaction mass to get out of the Earth's gravity
> well - as a result of it, an entire political party on Earth was created
> over
> the outrage of the idea that Earth's water was being lost to spaceships,
> resulting in crushing and punitive restrictions on space travel. The
> party
> collapsed when the opposition brought a giant chunk of frozen ice from
> the Asteroid belt, landing it on Mars as a publicity stunt and offering to
> freely export water from Mars back to Earth... An amusing
> story, kind of like this argument...
>
> Ted

The water could be easily made up though. Everyone should just drink a lot
of beer and pee a lot. The sea level will rise a few inches a month.