3 ms·

It was a very good thing for the US that we didn't have restrictions on imports. That's why trade negotiations are so backwards, if you look at them from a cons

It was a very good thing for the US that we didn't have restrictions on imports. That's why trade negotiations are so backwards, if you look at them from a consumer perspective: "I'll hurt my people less, but only IF you also hurt your people less". Access to better cars is good. The small, small minority of people in an individual industry hurt by more competition should react like any of us would in the things we build: try to build something better.

raganwald 17y ago
Are you saying that as long as our consumers want whatever they're selling, we shouldn't worry about whether they permit our companies to do business with their consumers? Let's get around the argument about crappy vs. good products and talk about two fairly competent companies. If Canada refuses to allow Boeing to sell aircraft to Canadian airlines, is it still ok for Bombardier to sell aircraft to US airlines?
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  It doesn't really matter if our consumers want what they're selling. That's not the government's job to decide what consumers want. But, yes, we should permit companies owned by people outside the US to sell things to people in the US, regardless of any policies in other countries. Would you rather have better planes for all Americans, or slightly higher profits for a single company? It turns out it is almost always huge numbers of domestic consumers vs. a very small number of domestic suppliers, and NOT natives vs. foreigners as the suppliers would like us to believe. Also, foreign companies often employ very many people in the US, which means the labor interest component of the issue is very often blurred.
didip 17y ago
Is it true that in US we didn't have restrictions on imports? I am genuinely curious on why we (in US) don't have: 1. Micro cars (things like KeiCar or Tata from India) 2. Japanese-brand Washer and Dryers which are clearly more efficient. But then again you use past tense, did you mean the US used to NOT have restrictions? Just curiosity.
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  I'm not familiar with the details but my understanding is that the US has had lots of trade restrictions but fewer on cars than Japan.

raganwald 17y ago

Are you saying that as long as our consumers want whatever they're selling, we shouldn't worry about whether they permit our companies to do business with their consumers? Let's get around the argument about crappy vs. good products and talk about two fairly competent companies. If Canada refuses to allow Boeing to sell aircraft to Canadian airlines, is it still ok for Bombardier to sell aircraft to US airlines?

ivankirigin 17y ago
It doesn't really matter if our consumers want what they're selling. That's not the government's job to decide what consumers want. But, yes, we should permit companies owned by people outside the US to sell things to people in the US, regardless of any policies in other countries. Would you rather have better planes for all Americans, or slightly higher profits for a single company? It turns out it is almost always huge numbers of domestic consumers vs. a very small number of domestic suppliers, and NOT natives vs. foreigners as the suppliers would like us to believe. Also, foreign companies often employ very many people in the US, which means the labor interest component of the issue is very often blurred.

didip 17y ago

Is it true that in US we didn't have restrictions on imports? I am genuinely curious on why we (in US) don't have: 1. Micro cars (things like KeiCar or Tata from India) 2. Japanese-brand Washer and Dryers which are clearly more efficient. But then again you use past tense, did you mean the US used to NOT have restrictions? Just curiosity.

ivankirigin 17y ago
I'm not familiar with the details but my understanding is that the US has had lots of trade restrictions but fewer on cars than Japan.