From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Strike at Saturn?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:09:29 -0500

In article <1992Aug30.221408.6859@leland.Stanford.EDU> underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:

>Think again.  And don't bring Germany into this.  We are debating
>the auto complexities between the USA and Japan.

He was making a comparison between other foreign car markets, however
it was off the point. 

>Tell me, Mr. Clayton.  Do you think that Accord owners in the USA
>would pay ~$24,000 for an Accord?

Depending on what options you get, that just may be what you pay these
days. 

>This statement is about as intelligent as the previous statement by you.

Can you not discuss or debate without underhanded comments such as
this?  I'm beginning to wonder. 

>Who the hell are _you_ to tell someone what to sell?  Who the hell
>are _you_ to tell someone what amount will "justify the expense"?
>
>The point is that there should be free markets.  The access to the
>Japanese market should be as open as the American one.

I *agree* with this.  However, this is not the case at hand.  What do
you suggest we do, besides whine about it?  Restrict the Japanese
imports?  However, doesn't this just reinforce the American car makers
who will then have less competition to continue to make inferior
products?  Why improve your product if people have no choice but to
buy it? 

What are the other solutions to this problem?

>We should let the market decide what constitutes an inferior product.
>That's all that economists and I want.  Equal access.
>
>I just "love" stupidity like this.  Let's look at the statement made my
>Mr. Clayton:
>
>   "Her point was why sell an inferior product in a market where
>    it will obviously lose?"
>
>This statement is bullshit.  It is made frequently by pseudo-free traders.

It was also wrong in it's assumption of my point.  My point was that
even with a drop in prices, I did not believe that American car sales
would rise significantly in Japan, this based on the opinions voiced
by those who were from there. 

>Ms. Leith is free to _not_ sell her own products if she feels that they
>are inferior.  But the point is that John Doe should be allowed to have
>equal access Japanese market, regardless of what Ms. Leith thinks of John's
>products.  Now, access to the Japanese market is restricted.  John
>can't freely sell his products.  Ms. Leith just says, "Well.
>In my opinion, John's products suck.  So, until John improves his
>products, I will not support retaliation by my gov't to open the
>Japanese markets.  End of discussion."
>
>Note that Ms. Leith has missed the point all together.  Whether John's products
>suck is all together irrelevant.  The system of free trade does _not_
>work like this:  (1) Somebody like Ms. Leith _decides_ that John's
>products are good enough.  (2) Only after #1 is fulfilled, then
>then efforts are made to open the Japanese market.
>
>No ma'am.

You need to slow down when you read, or perhaps read the whole post
before you post yourself.  I agree with fair trade, and what the
Japanese are doing to American car makers is not "fair."  Please,
instead of screaming about it, let's talk about what can be done about
it.  God knows I'd much prefer to be able to buy a car made my my
neighbors and feel confident with it.  

My point was, again, that the imbalance in ease of trade was not the
only problem relating to poor sales of American autos overseas. 

I never said that A should not be able to sell products to B because C
didn't like them. 

>But a lot of stupid Americans can't seem to distinguish between
>#1 and #2.  I agree with many Japanese in that there are some very stupid
>Americans.

Many ignorant and egotistical ones, as well. 

>No one is being forced to be part of the free trade community.
>If some country doesn't want to trade with another, _it_ doesn't have to.

Obviously, American government wants to trade with Japan AT ANY COST.
We need to ask why.  

>Why should the USA give a damn?  The hypocrisy inherent in what France
>is doing is self-evident.  (This is just a hypothetical situation; I
>have no comment on French trade policies.)

I hope you also ask this question ("Why should the USA give a damn?")
in relation to many issues of foreign affairs.

>The American policy should be "If you expect free access to American
>markets, then we expect free access to your markets.  Otherwise,
>we'll play tic for tac."

Any insight into why Bush does not feel this way?

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		  I'm on my own time.  I only speak for myself. 

Newsgroups: rec.autos