Re: Belaboring the Obvious

[Matthew Killick <m.killick@domain.elided>]

Joe Fillip wrote:

>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. 

Joe, thanks for your well written and nicely argued piece.  However, the
part quoted above is not strictly correct.  I can't speak for Ottawa or The
Hague, but London and another government (Canberra) do allow vehicles which
do not comply with the relevant EU and Australian design rules to be
imported, and run.  This does not "only benefit foreign manufacturers".
This also benefits the individuals who wish to drive cars which are not
otherwise available.  The US government does not seem willing to allow this
freedom of choice to US citizens.

For the UK, the bulk of this private import market is centred on the
various hot versions of Subaru's and Mitsubishi's AWD rally weapons, as
well as Nissan GTRs.  These cars are built exclusively for the Japanese
domestic market, and as such meet only the Japanese design rules.
Australia is slightly different, and we tend to take a trickle of some of
the many prosaic Japanese models not available here.  We also see some
American muscle cars, and last week I saw a Lancia Stratos.  LHD, and
definitely not built to Australian design rules.  The governments of both
these countries accept that despite the differences of detail in design
rules, the net effect is that cars built to non-local standards are
effectively no more toxic or dangerous than those which do conform.  This
is, if you like, a measure of respect by one country of the integrity of
the standards of another.  

This courtesy is not extended by the US goverment to others.  It could be
argued that this is because non-US standards are inferior, but I don't find
that to be self evident.  On the contrary, when buying cars, tools or
domestic appliances, I mostly conscientiously avoid US made (and British
made for that matter) products because the quality and value isn't there.
You see, Australia has the free-est and most open market in the world.  I
know this because our politicians and media tell us it's so, and therefore
it must be true.

I think the phrase "will you contravene a stated social policy.... " holds
the key to this.  The stated US government goals of "promoting safety and
protecting the environment" look pretty rich when they serve to exclude a
tiny number of private imports while ignoring the domination of the
domestic market by vehicles which do not meet either the "car" design
rules, or "promote safety and protect the environment".  The Emperor may
not be entirely naked, but those supposedly fine robes look pretty shabby
to some.  And hence the hoots and guffaws of derision from the uncouth and
unwashed members of this forum, those sitting at the back of the room, or
standing outide in the corridor looking in.

>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.

Yes.  It is a very high cost market to enter and service.  For low volume
players the potential returns don't justify the open ended commercial
risks.  Like many here, I mourn the loss of diversity which has resulted
from concentration of so many fine and individual marques in so few hands.
Subaru is one of the few small players left, still offering clear and
individual engineering vision in small, neat performance bargain packages.

Cheers
Mat

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