U.S. Treasury Continues Sell-Off of GM Shares, UAW Sells Warrants

lol, what I don't understand is why do they care? I don't care what kind of cars are available there and I don't care how they got there. Why do they care so much about what we drive? Must not be a lot going on down under

Welcome back. Missed your pithy responses. I'm sure that BAFO finds blasting down gravel roads at 130 km/h in Northern Territory in an overpriced Ranger diesel turbo is a fine place to formulate policies conducive to the well-being of the US economy. As he is so fond of informing us. He opinions may, in my view, be safely disregarded.

@wmba "He opinions may, in my view, be safely disregarded." Whew!... Our government thanks you

@Lie2me Poor Al has a political ax to grind, even though the blade keeps hitting him in the foot. The Aussies used to have very high import tariffs and quite a bit of government involvement in the local auto industry, which included government cash and government-managed badge engineering. But about a decade ago, conservative prime minister John Howard promised them that their domestic producers would perform beautifully with reduced tariffs, free trade agreements and the elimination of subsidies. The locals would produce cars for export that the world would adore, and everyone would be happy. Fast forward to today, and we can see what happened. Ford is bailing out, Toyota and GM want more government money, the Falcon is dead and the Commodore is living on borrowed time. Ford is on record as saying that it is leaving Australia because of the reduced tariffs -- there is no reason to build cars in Australia when they can import them from Thailand, Europe and the US, instead. Al is in denial of this failed promise. Instead of accepting that his country is simply too small and too expensive to be an optimal auto producer, he wants to blame the US, instead. And since anti-Americanism isn't exactly unknown Down Under, his manifestos also reflect a version of local patriotism that often takes the form of anti-English and/or anti-American sentiment. (That, and he seems to be one of the few Aussies who bought a Chinese truck. Great Wall trucks seem to be his version of the manual transmission diesel station wagon. Fanboys, you know.)

@April Is it over? The US auto industry can't survive on it's own without barriers and tariffs. Like I have mentioned approximately 50% of the US vehicle market has an effective 53.5% tax levied on imports. Now the US want FTAs, this will create some bargaining issues. Did they not learn anything?

@Big Al from Oz "Like I have mentioned approximately 50% of the US vehicle market has an effective 53.5% tax levied on imports." [citation needed] You claim that enormous tariffs are keeping manufacturing concentrated in the US, but you aren't willing to show credible evidence of such. You also claim that said tariffs are creating noticeable market inefficiencies, even when US consumers are generally acknowledged to pay the lowest prices for comparable vehicles anywhere in the world. Your inefficiency doesn't exist.

@J.Emerson Al has convinced himself that Americans would be driving midsize pickups if there was no chicken tax. Nevermind that Chrysler and Toyota have both bailed out of the midsized segment to focus on full-size trucks. They aren't impacted by the chicken tax, yet they've decided not to serve that market, regardless. Nevermind that Canada has no chicken tax, yet has very similar truck buying habits to the US. It's simply not possible to discuss these things rationally with an anti-American ideologue.

@DenverMike Again, you present yourself as a fool and idiot. (sorry TTAC readers). Here is a cut and paste from another site directed at YOU, WITH links on the very question you have just asked. Why did you do such a stupid thing, you already knew the answer. Why are you such a moron. Why do you troll. Why? Because you are a UAW sponsored fool. Here is the cut and paste. ..................................................................... @DenverMike - I'll throw you a bone since it is a legitimate question, where did I get the 26% figure? Here is a direct quote: "The United States has a 2.5 percent tariff on European-made passenger vehicles and the European Union has a 10 percent tariff on American-made passenger vehicles. Regulatory differences between the markets are equal to an added tariff of 26 percent, Blunt's group and the European industry association ACEA say in comments filed May 10." http://europe.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130524/ANE/305249993#axzz2ZKMqOTGe Tariffs are "per unit" unless you have proof with references that show otherwise. ..................................................................... Now, before you come up with another lame ass piece of trolling, I stated EFFECTIVE tax. As has been mentioned to you many times in the past comprehend what is written. CAFE, design regs, EPA, etc have an effective barrier equivalent to a 26% tax. Now, add that to the 25% chicken tax, then add another 2.5% import tax and walla, you have an effective tax on some imports of 53.5%. I know the UAW and US manufacturers don't want the public to see this. This is why the US auto industry is extremely protected. Hence my arguments of the US creating a level playing field and restructuring its motor vehicle industry to be less reliant of this kind of protection. It will fall into a heap again with these levels of protectionism. But you UAW guys loathe me. I love it.

Before anyone else tries and 'correct' me, DenverMike hasn't expressed an opinion or even asked a reasonable question. He already knew the answer. The guy continually posts information that he knows is malicious and untrue, he then tries and palms it off as opinion. There is not much opinion in his method of trolling. He asks for proof. Then can't provide his own proof to support his argument. There are others who use this technique of trolling. Maybe TTAC management should send the guy an email expressing there dissatisfaction at the methods he employs on this site.

@Big Al from Oz This sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. (Although I think the pot is a much darker shade of black.) The US tariff rate for imported motor vehicles is 2.5% (Chapter 87 of the US Tariff Schedules). The EU rate is 10%. Chalk one up for DenverMike. The 26% effective tariff rate you quote is because of differences in regulations between the EU and the US. It works both ways in that US vehicles are more expensive in the EU for the same reason. (That's clearly indicated in the article although you conveniently forget to mention that.) If you consider it to be a trade barrier for imports into the US, it's just as an effective trade barrier for exports from the US. There's nothing in the regulatory background that would indicate EPA, DOT or CARB developed regulations because of a desire to protect the domestic automotive industry. Indeed, if you look at the relevant dockets, you'll notice most of the adverse comments are from the domestic manufacturers. Chalk up another one for DenverMike. In addition, since the effective tariff rate is a result of differences in the regulatory schemes, are you proposing that we should adopt the EU approach and let the European Commission dictate US policy? Finally, you'd be in a much stronger position if you had clearly indicated the 25% chicken tax only applies to light trucks and as a result, it impacts a very small portion of the US market. It appears that manufacturers, such as Ford, have found a way around the tax for those vehicles that have actually have a market in the US. I'd have to do a little more research, but my guess is that the tax impacts less than 2% of the market. (How many full size trucks do you see being manufactured in the EU?) I'd call this one a draw. Looking at the big picture, an unbiased observer would note that there are more trade barriers (if you base the comparison on published or effective tariff rates) for US manufacturers exporting vehicles to the EU than the reverse. The only exception is light trucks and I would make the argument that the number of impacted vehicles that have an actual market in the US is extremely small.

@Big Al from Oz You should read the whole article, BAF0. Unless a citation is given, 26% is just an inflated estimate to push the agenda. And by US OEMs, no less. Hmmmm... Now imagine a Jetta hit with a 53.5% Tax... And the subject is niche vehicle hardly worth exporting anyway if they're just selling 20 to 30,000 vehicles (in the entire production run?) A 'non issue' when talking about 500,000 vehicles, obviously. The article's quote is hardly based on anything real and is vague for a reason. And just the type of links you love. The ONLY type it seems. And I won't even get into the Chicken tax trolling nonsense. That alone says it all.

@DenverMike "I won’t even get into the Chicken tax trolling nonsense" I read an article in C&D today that dealt with the free-trade agreement that the US and the Eurozone are trying to develop. All auto manufacturers seem to be for it and it would mean more foreigners would choose to build in America because of the weak dollar and cheaper labor costs, and then export back to the Eurozone.

@highdesertcat Right. And there's nothing stopping Euro OEMs from building in the US right now, exclusively for Eurozone export and totally bypassing the US market for its outrageous 26% cost of adapting to US safety regulations and whatnot. Yeah right! Actually, conforming to US, ECE and world regs (similtaneously) has never been an issue for OEMs selling high or medium volume. Same with US import tariffs. Not a problem. But I can't speak for very high Euro tariffs. Complaining OEMs are only making Chicken $H!T excuses for sub par, unwanted and or extremely low volume niche vehicles.

@kjblair Unfortunately, the previous editor of this website spent a lot of time claiming that there were two sets of regulations governing autos - the US, and everyone else. That isn't correct. There is a UN agreement, but it isn't universally applied. For example, Japan has its own unique "type approval" system. Its crash test standards are a blend of EU and US regs, and it has its own emissions standards. Until recently, the Aussies had their own standards, including an oddball child seat restraint system that nobody else uses and that cost a fair bit to install in imported vehicles. It's odd to claim that the US standards are some abhorrent or bad. The US has been a leader in establishing safety and emissions standards, and for the most part, they're better than those used by the Europeans. There's no reason to increase US emissions or put American drivers at risk just to please a few people who like to squawk on the internet. We're a sovereign nation, and we're free to protect our citizens as we see fit. This obviously hasn't stopped foreign automakers from doing business in the US, often selling us cars for lower prices than they do in their home countries.

@kjblair No, the Europeans do accept US standard vehicles.

@HDC I do normally agree with what you come out with. But, on this I totally disagree. Then why is it a sticking point on most FTA's? How can a 25% tariff not effect trade. Sorry. If the US regulations where different you would have the range of vehicle we have on offer in the US. We have companies that import only 1 000 vehicles per year. Even VW expressed they would import Amaroks if the chicken tax didn't exist. VW stated they need a volume of 100 000 Amaroks per year to build a manufacturing facitlity in NAFTA.

@HDC Sorry, I miss read one word. The reality is if the chicken tax was of no use it wouldn't be there. I have read if the US does remove these tariffs and barrier manufacturers would move into the US to manufacture for export. I can't remember the article, but the increase of vehicle manufacture in the US was actually substantial. This would create American jobs. But there is one problem. The companies wouldn't be UAW controlled.

@BAFO - 25% would affect trade, but why not take advantage of a loophole? Loopholes that amount to around 2%. And who has paid 25%? Free trade is what everyone in the world wants, especially US OEMs. US OEMs (and therefore the UAW) have the most to gain. Absolutely positively. Pony cars could be a hit, around the world. Same with full-size SUVs. US full-size pickups would sell great around the world. Don't kid yourself. Their slightly wider stance could be an issue for some, but not everyone in the world lives in Medieval villages. But there's much to gain from pickups spanning the gap between mid-size pickups and full-size commercial medium duty flatbeds and cut-off vans. Great opportunity for US full-size. Why fight them? Why the hate? Do full-size trucks represent all that's "American"? There isn't a worthy outcry for more mid-size trucks in the US, but fleet and other cheapskates would love more stripper choices for sure. Global OEMs just have to ask Mazda, Mitsu or Isuzu if it's a good idea to come to America. Especially setting up a dealer network to sell 1,000+ vehicles, mostly to fleet? Regardless of what VW wants you to believe, they'd shoot themselves in the foot by selling a low margin, BOF (that costs as much as 1/2 tons to build) vehicle in the US, cannibalizing their highly profitable car lines. Subaru found that their fwd Baja ate away at their Forester/Legacy/Outbacks sales and had to kill it promptly. If Mexican assembly works for other VW cars, why should a truck be any different? The Frontier can barely sell 50K units, so what chance do any global OEM have of selling anything worth their efforts? Besides slight technical changes, new sheet metal and gas engine, what's different about the US spec Colorado? And would US consumers be good with a Thai built Chevy? Isn't that what forced domestic assembly, not some non sense about chickens?

@highdesertcat Correction - Not all OEMs in the world want "Free Trade". Any OEM that's already setup footholds in most meaningful markets around the world, have nothing to gain from more competition. Why would Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru,VW, etc, welcome newcomers to the US from places around the world they already sell in? If it's anyone lobbying to keep or increase US "protection", it's foreign (owned) OEMs, already selling in the US.

@DocOlds Like my views on the chicken tax, you are trying to turn it into a us versus them to justify stupid tariffs and regulations, not a fullsize vs midsize. If you're an engineer I would have expected a response similar to that of a manager. Show me where only 11% of the US vehicle market is afflicted with the chicken tax. As you well know I'm even more against Australia subsidising. So I will not enter into your attempt of deflecting the argument. The UAW does this all the time. So do politicians. We all know politicians are great honest people as a whole.