Belaboring the Obvious

[joseph.fillipjr@domain.elided]

Kudos to Doug Sedon for hitting the nail on the head in response to Michael Smith's charge that US safety and emissions regs amount to trade protectionism at its worst.

If Michael's point is that the EFFECT of these regs is to keep out cars manufactured by concerns that can't or won't comply with the regs, the response should be a resounding "Duh!"

But if the argument is that the INTENT of the regs is to restrict trade, you've got a much tougher case to make. The "Truck/SUV exception," on which Michael relies so heavily, may demonstrate that we're willing to look the other way on the stated societal goals of promoting safety and the environment in the face of huge market demand and consequent opportunity for domestic manufacturers. However, it also put the lie to the conclusion that the only purpose of the regs (and exceptions thereto) is to keep foreign manufacturers out -- witness the many foreign SUVs that are now selling like hot cakes in the US, with more new models being introduced all the time. As an example, Lexus' SUV presently accounts for more than a third of its total US sales. Not to mention an entire segment of the US vehicle market -- small trucks -- that was developed and dominated by the Japanese well before the current SUV craze.

More proof that the US regs aren't anti-competitive in intent (at least when it comes to sports cars)is provided by Michael himself -- namely, his observation that there is no domestic sports car manufacturing industry in the US to protect. US manufacturers simply ignore this market.

So why not let the low volume foreign sports car manufacturers in? Well, as Doug notes, there's really no significant demand here in the US. And in view of that fact, there's no compelling political reason (i.e., satisfying the desires of a significant segment of the populace)to deviate from the stated social goals of promoting safety and protecting the environment underlying the US safety and emissions regs. And the notion that demand would miraculously appear in the US if only the low volume foreign manufacturers were free to sell here -- that the legions of US SUV, Minivan and Ford Taurus drivers would abandon their current cars to hop into the latest Alfa, Peugeot, Lotus or Alfa -- is, in my view, simply laughable. 

So if the US can be branded an an enemy of free trade because it can't/won't respond affirmatively to the question "will you contravene a stated social policy (facially unrelated to trade) under circumstances in which it will only benefit foreign manufacturers and will not satisfy the demands of a material segment of your citizens?", then I guess the US is guilty as charged.  But I think you'd be hard pressed to get an affirmative response out of Ottawa, London, The Hague, or any other government. 

And getting back to matters Alfa, as Michael admits,the US regs are simply irrelevant to Alfa's current absence from the US. Alfa could have satisfied the regs, but simply chose to cease being a player in the US market. Like Peugeot, Citroen, and other manufacturers before it.

Joe Fillip
Swarthmore, PA 

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