Harley-Davidson to move production for some motorcycles out of US after EU tariffs

[tucker6]

I see Clocker has the same unsound thoughts on trade that he did last week. Hooray!!

Int'l trade is not complex? Govts don't need to be involved? What horse poop are you shoveling here, because I don't think you'll get many takers. The little I read of your posts seems to indicate that you loosely equated a personal one-on-one trade that doesn't require govt involvement with global trade among 100 currencies, 150 nations, tens of thousands of companies, and billions of consumers. Govts don't need to involve themselves in int'l trade regulations for the good of their citizens and economies? Is that what I believe you wrote above? If that is true, it's trash. Pure and simple, and you should be embarrassed to have written it. I guess we don't need the ICC either because states are all on the up and up with each other.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Int'l trade is not complex? Govts don't need to be involved? What horse poop are you shoveling here, because I don't think you'll get many takers. The little I read of your posts seems to indicate that you loosely equated a personal one-on-one trade that doesn't require govt involvement with global trade among 100 currencies, 150 nations, tens of thousands of companies, and billions of consumers. Govts don't need to involve themselves in int'l trade regulations for the good of their citizens and economies? Is that what I believe you wrote above? If that is true, it's trash. Pure and simple, and you should be embarrassed to have written it.

If Amazon buys a shipping container full of widgets from a manufacturer in Vietnam, how many thousands of companies are involved? How many nations? How many currencies?

Why does our government need to get involved in that transaction for the good of our citizens and economies? Are Amazon employees so stupid they can't be trusted to make that purchase? Are our citizens so freaking stupid that they can't purchase a Vietnamese widget from Amazon without adult supervision? Do you think that federal employees have a better grasp of trade than Amazon's buyers and lawyers?

I guess we don't need the ICC either because states are all on the up and up with each other.

Well, you got one right. The Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished in 1995. The nation did not subsequently collapse, nor did millions of Americans perish. Sounds like a good precedent to me.

[Tom]

You’re nothing but a useful tool.

And all the other useful tools posting here?

That is not being nice.
And you are a _______________

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Well, you got one right. The Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished in 1995. The nation did not subsequently collapse, nor did millions of Americans perish. Sounds like a good precedent to me.

Meant UCC.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by _______

You’re nothing but a useful tool.

North Korea is our friend. Canada is our enemy. Because Canada (not North Korea) is in bed with China.

WTF happened to you? And all the other useful tools posting here?

Yup that is what I said Canada is our enemy. Friend or not they are in bed with China on trade. Both Canada and Mexico are used by China as a backdoor into the U.S. through NAFTA and both Canada and Mexico make money off of exploiting the U.S. with NAFTA agreements.

Just so you know North Korea and China are not our friends and Canada and Mexico who are supposedly our friends should not be screwing us by being in bed with China.

Those are the facts and nothing but the facts.

p.s. maybe you could connect the dots and see which country those tariffs are aimed? Probably not.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Meant UCC.

Great. Now tell us in detail how Trump and Peter Navarro and the all-knowing bureaucrats in Washington are needed to protect Amazon or Wal-Mart from being screwed over in trade deals by the evil foreigners.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Why does the government have to be involved? Why can't I decide for myself what I want to buy and who I want to buy it from? Who decides what is fair?

The notion of a level playing field is meaningless. Business and life are based on advantages. You do what you do best, and let others do the things they do best. Why shouldn't the government create a level playing field such that Iowa doesn't have a big advantage in producing pork or Nebraska in producing corn? Surely those advantages are not fair to the folks in Alaska or Hawaii or Maine who like to sit down to a meal of pork chops and corn. Should Alaska put tariffs on Iowa pork to "balance the scales"?

China has an advantage in manufacturing low end consumer goods and the US has an advantage in high-tech services, including intellectual property. Should our advantage in IP be handicapped to level the playing field for countries that are less able?

I'm surprised at your posts on this topic, as normally I'm on the same side with you on many issues. But as tucker6 pointed out, it's not simply a case-by-case analysis that will do here, or your own personal level of consumption. The big picture must be looked at, and international trade soon becomes on par with fluid dynamics, with many moving pieces, variables, and trends. Free trade is a great idea for exchanging products not easily or cheaply produced as the trading partner, but that doesn't mean those widgets you buy from Vietnam shouldn't be held to the same standards of child labor laws, environmental impact laws, and reviews of government subsidies.

I'd agree that the notion of a level playing field is more theoretical, but the problems come out when you factor in "unfair" advantages of government kickbacks, environmental laws, and insider trading as well as many other factors. I'm not sure what costs are involved with pork production in Alaska, but shipping alone would make it prohibitive for that state to become Piggy Central. I know that my uncle from Minnesota lamented one year about South Carolina suddenly increasing their turkey production several fold with state assistance, so his business of building metal farm buildings was hit very hard.

In short, it's not natural market forces that balance everything out - some policing is necessary.

Originally Posted by Clocker

Tariffs are evil. They distort free choice in the market and they increase prices for consumers. They protect minor groups that can't compete at the cost of the majority. Trump's steel tariffs protect the steel industry and the 140,000 jobs it provides, to the detriment of the companies that use steel as an input, and the 5 million jobs they provide. And all of it is paid for by consumers. What was the first major result of the steel tariffs? A big increase in prices for American-made steel. Who pays for that? The American consumer.

That is a real problem. Another real problem in trade is theft of intellectual property by other countries. Trump claims that his tariffs will fix that problem. Can anyone explain how greatly increased taxes (i.e., tariffs) on Chinese steel or Canadian lumber will prevent theft of IP?

Tariffs can be evil, and as in the case of Harley's 1980s greater than 700CC tariff, it did allow a company with an inferior product to distort the market - but many will say the ends justified the means. Tariffs applied to foreign products to offset government subsidies or prevent corporate graft OTH are not evil, but the process to apply "good tariffs" versus bad ones is very complex.

Your example of the steel industry is interesting, and demonstrates the complexity of the issue. Should the government protect higher costs of resources to save jobs, or allow the wealth pump put in place by American corporations to run full blast to provide cheaper products for the American consumer? To solve this puzzle properly, requires a rather in-depth study of cause and effect, costs, laws, and at the end of the day - morals. Since the United States has something like 6% of the world's population, consumes about 20% of the world's energy and about a third of finished products, I'd guess much of the rest of the world is not necessarily in favor of preserving or protecting that arrangement.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Canada has a big advantage over the US in producing lumber. They are cutting old growth timber on government property, while there is much less old growth timber available here, and US companies are usually cutting on private property. The Canadian timber companies pay a lot less to cut that timber than do American loggers.

Is that fair? If Canadian companies charge less for their lumber than US companies, how is that bad for US consumers? The US only produces about two-thirds of the lumber we use, and most of the rest comes from Canada. Domestic companies cannot meet the demand, so how does it hurt us to have cheaper lumber from Canada?

Canada's advantage in producing lumber is not "at the cost" of the US, it is to the advantage of US consumers. Trump's tariffs on Canadian lumber, supposedly in the interest of national security, is to the disadvantage of US consumers. How does that level the playing field?

Another interesting example, where you come down on the side of the consumer. In an ideal free trade situation, Canada would be allowed to export some lumber to help meet U.S. demand, as long as the process met the equivalent U.S. laws for sustainable logging. (since I live out in the Pacific NW, I've become a bit of a tree hugger). The arrangement would also require Canada to import American products of equal value, to help keep the overall wealth, jobs and economic scales balanced.

When the scales become unbalanced, then wealth transfer begins, and that usually ends up being bad for the masses. Cheaper Canadian lumber might be good for U.S. consumers, except now logging jobs in the U.S. are at risk. If those unemployed U.S. loggers don't find work in another sector that ships products to Canada, then they soon find their lifestyles declining (err, pretty much the American middle class the last 50 years), and much of the profits going to line the pockets of the insiders. In other words, sacrificing all trade considerations for cost, and cost only, is not a smart way to do business.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

where you come down on the side of the consumer.

Just my own little twisted view of the world.

In an ideal free trade situation, Canada would be allowed to export some lumber to help meet U.S. demand, as long as the process met the equivalent U.S. laws for sustainable logging.

How can that be called free trade, if we try to regulate how another country runs its economy? And why are Canadian logging methods the business of the US government? If you care about sustainable logging, you can take the time and effort to make that part of your buying decisions. I don't want some Washington bureaucrat making that decision for me.

Cheaper Canadian lumber might be good for U.S. consumers, except now logging jobs in the U.S. are at risk.

That would certainly make the tree huggers ecstatic. If logging jobs were at risk, who decides which jobs should be saved and who pays for saving them? Why should we prop up an industry that can't compete? How many more such industries are we going to prop up with taxes on consumers?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

The big picture must be looked at, and international trade soon becomes on par with fluid dynamics, with many moving pieces, variables, and trends.

I don't understand this "big picture" thing. How are logging in Canada and solar panel installation in the American southwest related and interdependent?

And how can anyone say with an ounce of credibility that our government can make more rational and effective decisions about those activities than the buyers and sellers involved?

To solve this puzzle properly, requires a rather in-depth study of cause and effect, costs, laws, and at the end of the day - morals.

In short, it's not natural market forces that balance everything out - some policing is necessary.

I don't have a clue what the reference to "morals" is doing here. If there is anything that our government knows less about than economics, it is morality.

In any case, there is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government the authority or responsibility to "balance everything out" or to police winners and losers in the market place.

[Parkview_Pirate]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...se-bike-makers

“Now that Harley-Davidson is moving part of its operation out of the U.S., my Administration is working with other Motor Cycle companies who want to move into the U.S.” Trump tweeted Tuesday. “Harley customers are not happy with their move -- sales are down 7% in 2017. The U.S. is where the Action is!”

I doubt very much Harley customers last year were unhappy with the move of production overseas announced earlier this month.

A better reading might be that the economy, in spite of Mr. Trump's relentless tweets to the contrary, is not doing that well for many potential customers, and that Harley's sales reflect a lack of disposable income for what is a recreational want, and hardly a need.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...se-bike-makers



I doubt very much Harley customers last year were unhappy with the move of production overseas announced earlier this month.

A better reading might be that the economy, in spite of Mr. Trump's relentless tweets to the contrary, is not doing that well for many potential customers, and that Harley's sales reflect a lack of disposable income for what is a recreational want, and hardly a need.

I don't think you and Clocker are disagreeing on much... mostly semantics.

[Clocker]

Harley is moving because of the tariff wars. In retaliation for Trump's tariffs, the EU has put big tariffs on may US exports, including motorcycles.

Harley-Davidson, the Wisconsin-based motorcycle brand that also builds bikes in Missouri and Pennsylvania, announced last week that it would shift some manufacturing to Europe to avoid the E.U. tariffs. Building motorcycles in the U.S. and shipping them to Europe would leave consumers paying $2,200 more per bike, the company said in a statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and would cost the company about $100 million annually.

Polaris, a Minnesota-based company, could soon follow Harley-Davidson's lead. A spokeswoman told the Associated Press on Friday that Polaris is considering shifting production of its Indian Motorcycle brand from Iowa to Poland.

Harley-Davidson and Polaris could not be more explicit about the reasons for shifting jobs overseas.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/02/tr...ffs-collapsing


The article above also discusses Trump's proposed tariffs on imported cars and car parts. Foreign auto makers with plants here warn that such tariffs could force them to move some of their production back overseas.

"The domestic manufacture of automobiles has no apparent correlation with U.S. national security," BMW writes in its comments to the Commerce Department. In other comments submitted to the department, automakers say tariffs will increase the price of their cars, potentially by thousands of dollars, and will force industry-wide supply chain adjustments that could see American automaking jobs cut or moved overseas.

Trump was apparently unaware of the situation.

Last week, while giving a speech in South Carolina, Trump said he wanted to erect trade barriers so carmakers like BMW would have to "build them here" instead of shipping cars from Germany. But BMW does indeed build them here—the company's largest manufacturing facility in the world is in Spartanburg, South Carolina, less than 100 miles from where Trump was speaking at the time. The plant employs more than 9,000 people and produces more than 40,000 vehicles every year.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Just my own little twisted view of the world.

How can that be called free trade, if we try to regulate how another country runs its economy? And why are Canadian logging methods the business of the US government? If you care about sustainable logging, you can take the time and effort to make that part of your buying decisions. I don't want some Washington bureaucrat making that decision for me.

Depends on the definition of "free trade". If completely unencumbered transactions with no oversight is one extreme, and heavily regulated, subsidized, taxed and monitored is the other, please tell us where your view of "free trade" falls. If you're pointing out that government bureaucrats are not the best resources for making trade decisions, you get no argument from me. But not because their incompetentence, but because they're already in the pockets of corporations.

I would argue that trade, again is a complex issue, and relying on our current government practices is inefficient. But to insist that each consumer take the time and effort to investigate each product they purchase to ensure it meets their ideals, is well, also inefficient.

Originally Posted by Clocker

That would certainly make the tree huggers ecstatic. If logging jobs were at risk, who decides which jobs should be saved and who pays for saving them? Why should we prop up an industry that can't compete? How many more such industries are we going to prop up with taxes on consumers?

I see you have swallowed the capitalistic theory hook, line and sinker. Propping up an industry that can't compete is a bad idea, in theory, but in practice if the government of Canada decides to subsidize their logging industry, does that mean the American loggers couldn't "compete", or were victims of a foreign government providing unfair advantage, which to AMERICAN CONSUMERS seems a great outcome of "free trade"?

If consumers from one country are benefitting at the expense of the citizens of the other (ie, Canadian taxpayers), that's hardly free trade.

Neither crony capitalism nor planned economic socialism is an ideal solution to establishing not so much "free" trade, but "fair" trade, where one nation does not benefit at the cost of lining the pockets of the oligarchs of the other. Countries can benefit with trading products on a level playing field, but the balance of government oversight, corporate restraint and mutual benefits is rarely observed.

Originally Posted by Clocker

I don't understand this "big picture" thing. How are logging in Canada and solar panel installation in the American southwest related and interdependent?

And how can anyone say with an ounce of credibility that our government can make more rational and effective decisions about those activities than the buyers and sellers involved?

Trade does not happen in a vacuum. Each and every transaction has an action, and reaction, that ripple through the markets.

The "big picture" must be taken into account when entering trade agreements, to ensure a balance of wealth, that one country doesn't end up cornering the markets on key resources, that your own countries trade laws are not violated, and that the long-term repercussions are not analyzed. I think many Brits would have loved to have the "big picture" looked at more carefully before entering the EU. I think many American truckers would have loved the American government reviewing the big picture before entering into NAFTA.

Credibility is relative, IMHO, but I might suggest looking at the Chinese-American trade over the last couple of decades as an example. Walmart used to pride itself on American made products, until they became part of the Great Ripoff. American companies exported jobs (allowed by government, and ignored by consumers), American companies skirted EPA regulations (allowed by government, and ignored by consumers), American companies flowed the increase in profits to the elites (allowed by government, ignored by most consumers), the Chinese financed the operation by purchasing American debt (allowed by government, ignored by the voters), and the end result of trade imbalance at the price of cheaper imported goods has been an effective disguise of the decline of the middle class.

That arrangement is coming to an end, and the living standards in the U.S. are about to take an enormous hit.

So while you may look at "government" being less efficient than the process of free markets, our government is actually a reflection of the citizens - and IMHO we've engaged in practices to obtain short-term benefits (cheaper goods) at the cost of long-term catastrophe - which includes a huge national debt, the Chinese emulating our fascist economic model, the Chinese environment being incredibly polluted, the practice of slave labor "legalized" and ignored by U.S. consumers, and so on. You, as a consumer proponent were bribed and bought off, the same as many of the government officials on both sides of the pond. So credibility, like I said, is relative.

Originally Posted by Clocker

I don't have a clue what the reference to "morals" is doing here. If there is anything that our government knows less about than economics, it is morality.

In any case, there is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government the authority or responsibility to "balance everything out" or to police winners and losers in the market place.

"Morals" is an ambiguous term. But when buying a product, like an iPhone, does it not come into play how that device was produced, and what the real cost of it is? I'm not down at the corner market purchasing rhino tusks, ivory or whale oil for my kerosene lamps. Those are obvious choices. But when I buy a handgun made in Turkey, how do I know all the factors in the equation to ensure it's not a purchase that violates my values?

Unlike Obama, I'm no expert on the American constitution. And while it might not be spelled out that balanced free trade is a responsibility, the pursuit of happiness is, and the relations with foreign nations is - so ergo, the government has to have some sort of role in trade.

Your cheerleading stance for free markets, free trade and allowing the marketplace to determine all is shared by many. You must watch CNBC. The result is that we have crony capitalism, and essentially fascism in many aspects of life today. Certainly the controlled, planned and totalitarian approach practiced by Communist regimes is every bit as bad, if not worse. But those two extremes are not the only possibilities, and without change and the American citizen taking on more responsibility in government, we're pretty much headed to an Eastern European bloc standard of living and level of freedom they experienced back in 1950s.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

If consumers from one country are benefitting at the expense of the citizens of the other (ie, Canadian taxpayers), that's hardly free trade.

It's free trade for us if we are allowed to purchase the best deals we can find on the market, without our government imposing its rules and opinions on what we do. Why should we care whether the citizens of other countries have free trade? We are not denying them free trade.

Trade does not happen in a vacuum. Each and every transaction has an action, and reaction, that ripple through the markets.

The "big picture" must be taken into account when entering trade agreements, to ensure a balance of wealth, that one country doesn't end up cornering the markets on key resources, that your own countries trade laws are not violated, and that the long-term repercussions are not analyzed.

Do you think that Trump spent a nanosecond considering the "big picture" or a balance of wealth before imposing steel tariffs? All he was balancing was bitch-slapping the Chinese and pandering to the steel industry executives who were kissing his butt.

I don't even agree with those concepts in theory, but clearly they have no consideration or existence in the real world of tariffs. Since there is no connection between those concepts and tariffs in the real world, now or in the past, they can hardly be relevant in any discussion of tariffs. Tariffs in the real world today are punitive and/or protectionary. End of story.

"Morals" is an ambiguous term. But when buying a product, like an iPhone, does it not come into play how that device was produced, and what the real cost of it is?

In the modern world, it is difficult if not impossible to know where and how a product was produced. To use your own example, an iPhone is assembled in China using parts made in the US, Japan, and many other countries. For me, and probably many others, the issue does not come into play.