[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Was: Muchos Gracias Now: Muchas Dinero

To: Bullwinkle <>, Dan DiBiase <>,
Subject: Re: Was: Muchos Gracias Now: Muchas Dinero
From: Barney Gaylord <>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:45:30 -0600
At 12:49 AM 11/15/02 -0600, Bullwinkle wrote:

>I am no authority, but the original reference was in regard to a trade 
>embargo I thought.  I thought a trade embargo controlled the quantity of 
>items being imported or even prevented their importation.  Quotas in other 

Sounds right to me.  But I think the embargo bit was more implied by virtue 
of other inhibiting actions, such as emissions and safety requirements 
(neither of which should actually be a problem in the case of the mew MGs).

>A duty is a tax.  Originally most of them were created for revenue 
>purposes.  From what I recall of my history, that's how the US got most of 
>its income before the personal income tax.

Before my time, but probably also right.

>Now day's the primary purpose of a duty has been as a protection for U.S. 
>manufactures against cheaper foreign goods.

Yeah, that's pretty close too.  It is not intended to shut them out all 
together, just to adjust the playing field to some desired level of 
competition (and I didn't say "even" level).

In the case of the pickup trucks being imported as cab and chassis units 
and the load beds being manufactured and installed in the US, that was 
serving two different purposes, both instigated by the same tarrif (and 
fairly successfully at that).

First was the traditional effect of partly discouraging the import of 
vehicles at a time when the import vehicles had a significant price 
advantage in the domestic market (partly the result of a strange aberation 
in the value of currency).  But people still need vehicles, so they just 
end up paying a bit more for the combined lot of domestic and import 
vehicles in the interest of retaining domestic jobs and keeping the 
domestic economy on a steady path while weathering the storm.

Secondly, the incomplete trucks were being imported as "parts" as opposed 
to complete vehicles, so a certain vehicle import duty (tax) was being 
avoided.  The load beds being manufactured domestically gave the finished 
vehicle a certain minimum level of "domestic content" as required by 
another part of the tarfif law, which was also serving the protectionist 
intent of the action by retaining some domestic jobs.

One of the less desireable side effects or this arrangement turned out to 
be a bunch of 5 year old trucks in good running condition with a solid cab 
and badly rusted out load bed.  You can make up your own stories about the 
politics and economics of that issue.

As for the current crop of MGs possibly getting into the US, I suppose the 
total absence of tarrifs might not even help much.  There are other issues 
of vehicle pricing which are probably the overbearing restraint, and the 
capital investment involved to ramp up production when developoment money 
within the company is having to be rationed.  And then there's that still 
nagging (but not insurmountable) problem of prior existing dealer 
franchises.  I'm not holding my breath, but I am betting that some new MGs 
will get here eventually (given at least a few more years), and also 
betting that the company will not fold in the interim.

Barney Gaylord
1958 MGA with an attitude

///  or try
///  Archives at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>