You missed the point and deflecting, again.  The issue of government subsidy is that it gives their companies an advantageous position to challenge products made in foreign markets where the governments don’t subsidize.

And I was referring to my example of the LG and other Korean washing machines where subsidies made it near to impossible for US companies to compete. Not pertaining to the car market.

In you Korea example yes there are subsidies so that isn't free trade. I am talking truly free trade where there are no subsidies.

I just hope that Trump isn't so stubborn and getting a good deal for us that he doesn't shut down an actual reasonable

Yes I know that Ford owns a number of Brands including some European car companies and I did not say that they have no cars successful in Europe, I was explaining that our car companies generally don't make as many cars the Europeans want. I know the Ford focus is popular there though.

I am having trouble seeing how BMW making their cars over here is bad for us in trade. They build factories here and hire people here so all of that Manufacturing cost benefits our country. The alternative would be to Simply build their cars in their country which they sell in their country and we would get none of that. I keep seeing BMW mentioned but not that many European car companies have factories here. If BMW spends money to make cars here for sale in another country, why should we get to tax those sales? That would mean China should get to put tariffs for all the things American companies make in China and have shipped to America to sell.  I think the risk of trying to get tariffs that benefit us better then them is that BMW another car companies might just decide not to build cars in America at all and we would lose out then

I don't think tariffs should be used to manipulate demand though and that is what Trump seems to be doing to me.

Look, I have been down this rabbit hole with you too many times. I am not going to down this road again with you. It is not worth the frustration. Once you get something in your head it makes no difference what reality is, you just keep pushing your ignorance.

I have explained the way things work quite plainly and simplistically. Since you admittedly do not understand how things work, I suggest you use Google to figure it out before you continue. Good luck.

Look, I have been down this rabbit hole with you too many times. I am not going to down this road again with you. It is not worth the frustration. Once you get something in your head it makes no difference what reality is, you just keep pushing your ignorance.

I have explained the way things work quite plainly and simplistically. Since you admittedly do not understand how things work, I suggest you use Google to figure it out before you continue. Good luck.

Nonsense. I am trying to understand it with an open mind but your explanation has holes in it and that is the reason for my comments. I am not saying you are completely wrong but some of what you say is not jiving and I am trying to reason through it with you.

Edit: let me back this up a little bit as we went kind of off track. The point of the thread was not to argue whether or not it was a good deal or the BMW plant and customer preferences justify tarrifs. The point was that Trump was rejecting a free trade offer. If you don't believe in free trade then so be it but Trump can't claim he is for free trade if he is rejecting it.

EEF, the US does make cars that are popular in EU.

http://europe.autonews.com/article/20180220/ANE/180219831/tesla-model-s-outsells-german-luxury-flagships-in-europe

As for Japan, I don't think you can really say "Japanese auto companies" and "no government subsidies" in the same sentence. *cough* Zaibatsu *cough*

EEF, the US does make cars that are popular in EU.

http://europe.autonews.com/article/20180220/ANE/180219831/tesla-model-s-outsells-german-luxury-flagships-in-europe

As for Japan, I don't think you can really say "Japanese auto companies" and "no government subsidies" in the same sentence. *cough* Zaibatsu *cough*

I never said that we don't have any popular car options, only that a lot of the cars produced are not the type Europeans want.

That's because American cars were made for Americans, who have the buying power to buy them.

The American full sized trucks are getting some strong competition from Japan's Toyota and Nissan compact trucks though.

Old categories: US muscle cars vs Asian tuners vs European exotics
New category: Electrics

In you Korea example yes there are subsidies so that isn't free trade. I am talking truly free trade where there are no subsidies.

Uhh, well that is what the US market has to deal with, companies in other countries receiving subsidies.  That's the point. . .

Well, you can have your vision of what "free trade" is.  That's not how the real world market works.  I guess in an truly ideal world, it could happen, but that's not the reality of life.  You seem to be stuck on some ideal that you have in your mind and can't see beyond that.

That's because American cars were made for Americans, who have the buying power to buy them.

The American full sized trucks are getting some strong competition from Japan's Toyota and Nissan compact trucks though.

Old categories: US muscle cars vs Asian tuners vs European exotics
New category: Electrics

Yup.  Ford, Chebby, etc make cars for the US market.  Of course it would be great if there was a greater demand for US produced cars in Europe, but you have to always remember your core customer base. 

You seem to be stuck on some ideal that you have in your mind and can't see beyond that.

That is exactly why I decided to not go any farther with him in this conversation. He doesn’t seem to realize that once he gets something stuck in his mind there is no talking to him rationally. I finally figured out the signs that he is stuck on something and no amount of trying to talk to him will get either of us any where. And he told me that my not wanting to go through all of that BS with him,  “nonsense”.

That is exactly why I decided to not go any farther with him in this conversation. He doesn’t seem to realize that once he gets something stuck in his mind there is no talking to him rationally. I finally figured out the signs that he is stuck on something and no amount of trying to talk to him will get either of us any where. And he told me that my not wanting to go through all of that BS with him,  “nonsense”.

Yeah. I see it too. Just pointing out some things that I’ve noticed and hope he gets. Like I said before, he reminds me a lot of one of my best friends. Argues and argues and argues. Once you start getting the better of him, deflect and goes off on some tangent, which he does a lot. I too have told myself ignore him and he’ll get bored and go away. Just he posts stuff that are just so :rolleyes: worth that I find myself responding.

Yup.  Ford, Chebby, etc make cars for the US market.  Of course it would be great if there was a greater demand for US produced cars in Europe, but you have to always remember your core customer base.

This is exactly why Ford and GM has design studios in those countries they want to sell cars in such as the countries in Europe. American cars are designed by Americans while the cars marketed in Europe are designed over there. Though a lot of that has been changing over the years as Ford has been selling some models designed for the European market here with some changes. And GM has been marketing some Korean cars here and in Europe.

Yeah. I see it too. Just pointing out some things that I’ve noticed and hope he gets. Like I said before, he reminds me a lot of one of my best friends. Argues and argues and argues. Once you start getting the better of him, deflect and goes off on some tangent, which he does a lot. I too have told myself ignore him and he’ll get bored and go away. Just he posts stuff that are just so :rolleyes: worth that I find myself responding.

I agree. In the case of this thread he asked some legit questions and I was happy to answer them for him. And I would have been happy to continue but as soon as I saw the telltale sign I knew it was time to stop.

I agree. In the case of this thread he asked some legit questions and I was happy to answer them for him. And I would have been happy to continue but as soon as I saw the telltale sign I knew it was time to stop.

He freely admits he doesn't understand the subject matter, but won't do the work to learn. He wants to play hypothetical mind games, in hopes he can hook someone into playing with him.

If he used that game to become more educated on international trade and markets, maybe the effort would be worth it.  But if he can't get motivated enough to learn on his own, nothing we say is going to derail his argumentative trolling.

I am no where near educated on these issues, but I at least try to understand the basics so that I can 1) determine if someone is shoveling the BS (aka talking out of their a$$) and 2) evaluate proposals by the Trump administration as well as any other proposals.  I try to research from multiple sources to try and see if different perspectives can help understand from an unbiased perspective.  I've even found coverage by CNN insightful as I am aware of their bias going in and can ask myself questions to look up facts on other sources.  Like mentioned previously, this stuff is SUPER complex and many times the effectiveness of a policy is not fully realized until many years after going into effect and the market adjusts/compensates. 

I am no where near educated on these issues, but I at least try to understand the basics so that I can 1) determine if someone is shoveling the BS (aka talking out of their a$$) and 2) evaluate proposals by the Trump administration as well as any other proposals.  I try to research from multiple sources to try and see if different perspectives can help understand from an unbiased perspective.  I've even found coverage by CNN insightful as I am aware of their bias going in and can ask myself questions to look up facts on other sources.  Like mentioned previously, this stuff is SUPER complex and many times the effectiveness of a policy is not fully realized until many years after going into effect and the market adjusts/compensates.

Knowing what you don't know is the first step toward understanding, not just learning the facts.

EEF, on the other hand, wants to pretend "if we build it, they will come."  Ford could build the fastest, cheapest, most fuel-efficient car ever, and it would still not be allowed in many markets.  It would devastate the local auto companies. That's something their government can't allow.  Protectionist policies are not a US invention.

Nope. If that were true, the US auto makers would rule the planet.  Instead, Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura and Nissan/Infinity have been selling like hotcakes for years in the US, even with high US tariffs and limits on the number of units imported.

Markets are all different in terms of cost, infrastructure for distribution, transportation options to ship vehicles in/out, and competition with both public and private products.  Our auto makers are basically controlled by the unions, who in turn control certain politicians, who in turn control certain aspects of trade law and treaties/agreements. 

I am no where near educated on these issues, but I at least try to understand the basics so that I can 1) determine if someone is shoveling the BS (aka talking out of their a$$) and 2) evaluate proposals by the Trump administration as well as any other proposals.  I try to research from multiple sources to try and see if different perspectives can help understand from an unbiased perspective.  I've even found coverage by CNN insightful as I am aware of their bias going in and can ask myself questions to look up facts on other sources.  Like mentioned previously, this stuff is SUPER complex and many times the effectiveness of a policy is not fully realized until many years after going into effect and the market adjusts/compensates.

I think the really hard thing for the average news consumer is that you can find two economic experts who will look at a set of facts and give two very different accounts of what they mean.  The liberals will believe the one that validates their side and the conservatives will believe the one that validates theirs. Then they will point fingers about how the other side is biased and act as if their expert disproves the other. Any person really trying to digest and understand the situation is left with trying to decipher which one is right and then being called a Trump supporter or gullible liberal for not immediately choosing a side.

Many other topics are easier to digest but things like foreign trade, as you point out, are not.

EEF, on the other hand, wants to pretend "if we build it, they will come."  Ford could build the fastest, cheapest, most fuel-efficient car ever, and it would still not be allowed in many markets.  It would devastate the local auto companies. That's something their government can't allow.  Protectionist policies are not a US invention.

I never said that. Please don't mischaracterize my statements.

Uhh, well that is what the US market has to deal with, companies in other countries receiving subsidies.  That's the point. . .

Well, you can have your vision of what "free trade" is.  That's not how the real world market works.  I guess in an truly ideal world, it could happen, but that's not the reality of life.  You seem to be stuck on some ideal that you have in your mind and can't see beyond that.

Like I said, what Trump is doing isn't free trade. Trump said he wanted free trade and he is doing the opposite.

I never said I was a hard liner on free trade though. Whether it is a good idea or not and whether it is realistic or not is a separate and reasonable discussion though.

I understand the logic being put forth to justify rejecting a free trade offer for cars, I just don't agree with it. I think we will have to agree to disagree there unless we want to have a battle of the experts.

1) Knowing what you don't know is the first step toward understanding, not just learning the facts.

EEF, on the other hand, wants to pretend "if we build it, they will come."  Ford could build the fastest, cheapest, most fuel-efficient car ever, and it would still not be allowed in many markets.  It would devastate the local auto companies. That's something their government can't allow.  Protectionist policies are not a US invention.

Nope. If that were true, the US auto makers would rule the planet.  Instead, Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura and Nissan/Infinity have been selling like hotcakes for years in the US, even with high US tariffs and limits on the number of units imported.

2) Markets are all different in terms of cost, infrastructure for distribution, transportation options to ship vehicles in/out, and competition with both public and private products.  Our auto makers are basically controlled by the unions, who in turn control certain politicians, who in turn control certain aspects of trade law and treaties/agreements.

1) Yup.  That's something I say often.  You (anyone really, including me) don't know what you don't know.  That's particularly true for this subject as well as firearms as well.  Folks who are new to stuff start learning and are absolutely sure they have things right based one what X said or what Y thought.  So many folks don't take the time to think for themselves.  Yeah, it's tough to get to the signal through the abundance of noise, but such is life. 

2) Those are also the legal aspects of trade to consider.  Again, I'm not an expert, but there are so many thing that affect the market.  I would say unions are on the fringes of being legal in that regard.  Just my impression. . . not fact. 

I never said that. Please don't mischaracterize my statements.

So, when you said:

I never said that we don't have any popular car options, only that a lot of the cars produced are not the type Europeans want.

... you didn't mean [ if we produce the type Europeans want, we'd be more competitive ] ?

If not, then tell me where I misstated what you said.  If that's not what you meant, then you need to learn to express yourself more directly.  When you say, "The reason X is unsuccessful is Y", it logically implies "If we alter Y, we have a better chance of succeeding at X."