RE: Bananas, etc..

["Lewis, Gerald" <gerald.lewis@domain.elided>]

> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 09:53:44 +0800
> From: Matthew Killick <m.killick@domain.elided>
> Subject: Re: US "rules"
> 
> I wrote:
> << 
>  It won't happen.  Without local design rules, it's not possible to hide
> the
>  protection of domestic manufacturers with the shields of non-tariff
>  barriers.  The reason why Alfa Romeo cars are not available in the US is
>  because the US government ensures that it is unprofitable for FIAT to
>  attempt to sell them. >>
> 
> MAXLTV@domain.elided wrote:
> 
> >With all due respect, this statement cannot hold water. Import
> penetration in 
> the US is about 30-35%, and that hardly smacks of protectionism. In fact,
> no 
> country on earth allows foreign goods such easy access to it's domestic 
> market, even at the expense of hundreds of thousands of workers. In fact,
> we 
> >should retaliate in kind, particularly to our Japanese "allies."
> 
>US markets may be relatively open, but that doesn't mean they aren't
>protected.  If it was an open market, you would be able to import and run
>new  Alfa (or Lotus or whatever).  You cannot do this legally because the
>market is not open.   The US government is also totally ruthless when it
>comes to trade sanctions against overseas industries when US pressure
>groups get their way.  At present, the Scottish angora wool (cottage)
>industry is being killed because US banana traders don't like EC policy.

Here it is the EU that is being protectionist giving market advantage to
their former colonies, i.e. their banana republics.  We are asking that they
open their markets to bananas from US "Banana Republics", i.e, Chiquita and
Dole.  To force the issue we are imposing higher import duties on some
"luxury" goods imported into the US.  Probably cost these companies some
serious campaign contributions to make such an issue out of it.  BTW, the
Euro's do the same thing when it suits them.

<snip>

>  Unfortunately for US enthusiasts, they are used in
> this case to exclude specialist and low volume cars by making them too
> expensive and risky to re-engineer and import.  
> 
Actually the new Alfa Spider (and by extension) the GTV were already
federalized from their inception.  Next excuse?  See next paragraph.

> >FIAT, Maserati, and Alfa all left because of one reason, and that was
> their 
> >inability to build a car most Americans would want to live with.
> 
This is absolutly true.  There were considered quirky, unreliable, and
tended to rust right out from under you..and there was alot of truth to
these charges. The 164 tried hard to overcome these, but the poor service,
parts, and repair was just too much to overcome.
>  
> 
>They build cars which don't appeal to most American buyers.  Which
>particular class of buyers should they design their products to appeal to?
>Hyundai Excel, Honda Accord or F100?  

Sounds like a bit of elitism here. Most Americans view a car like an
appliance and the cars they choose reflect that.


>IMO they left the US market because
>they couldn't make enough profit on their sale volumes to justify the
>risks.  

That is why they call it  "business"  If you don't make money you go out of
business.


>But they can make useful profits in other low volume markets (e.g.
>Australia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, most of the rest of the
>world........).  

What makes you think they are low volume markets?

> Some of these countries have their own design rules,
> others recognise that overseas standards are adequate.  The crucial
> difference with the US market is in the method of implementation of US
> design rules.
> 
FIAT/Alfa is a very large corporate entity with vast engineering resources,
Making the changes necessary to meet US DOE/DOT requirements would be a
minor inconvenience at most.  As I cited earlier, the new Spider is already
federalized.  The technology is readily available and probably already
mostly engineered into the new line of Alfa's.  We forget that Germany and
Switzerland, and soon the rest of the EU (even though the Brits are fighting
to tooth and nail) emissions requirements are/will be as stiff, than the
current US standards.  Bumpers and lighting are not that tough.  Actually,
US law already allows E series lights.

Remember too, that the people that make these laws (i.e. the GOVERNMENT) are
those that we the people elect and send there.  If we don't like the laws,
elect  the people who will repeal or modify them.  Problem is, most
Americans (i.e. those that buy KIA's, and Honda Accords, and other cars) are
NOT enthusiasts and actually approve of these measures. It is tough to be a
minority isn't it?  I personally would like to see some expemptions for low
volume, niche cars that would allow some unique cars into the country, but
it ain't gonna happen.


Jerry in Houston

------------------------------

End of alfa-digest V7 #935
**************************