• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


aurora97 last won the day on March 9 2015

aurora97 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About aurora97

  • Rank
    Super Sport Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. At least the US of A can get this one right and right on!
  2. Fiat News: Rumorpile: Chinese Automakers Are Interested In FCA

    From today's editorial board in the Wall Street Journal; Trump’s China Trade Sally Beijing steals U.S. business IP, but tariffs could backfire. Donald Trump’s trade policy has been more measured than his campaign rhetoric, but on Monday he ramped up the pressure on China by ordering an investigation into its rampant theft of intellectual property from U.S. firms. The danger is that the stick the President is brandishing, Section 302(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, could harm efforts to open markets to American goods. Mr. Trump is right that China is breaking the promises it made to enter the World Trade Organization in 2001. Instead of embracing freer trade, the country has turned in the direction of import-substitution under current leader Xi Jinping and predecessor Hu Jintao. The “Made in China 2025” program that Mr. Xi started in 2015 aims to boost the Chinese-made content of manufactured products to 70% within eight years. It also calls for China to become the leader in 10 industries through state investment and closing off its market to foreign companies. The Obama Administration released a damning report in January on China’s mercantilist strategy to dominate the global semiconductor industry—to pick one example of the squeeze Beijing puts on U.S. companies. China’s developed-country trading partners are united in believing that these practices are unacceptable, and Beijing has retreated somewhat in response to criticism. But history suggests it will continue to pressure auto makers and technology firms to hand over cutting-edge technology to the government and joint-venture partners. The problem is that Section 302(b) is a blunderbuss weapon that could backfire because it allows the U.S. executive to play judge, jury and executioner, and take any action the President deems appropriate. In the 1980s the Reagan Administration used tariffs to counter Japan’s nontariff barriers and a rising bilateral trade deficit. Instead of opening Japan’s markets, the U.S. and Tokyo settled for managed trade in the likes of semiconductors, which divvied up market share and kept prices higher than they should have been. That outcome was due in part to the lack of a binding mechanism to force Japan to follow international trade law. The conflicts of that era led to the 1995 creation of the WTO along with an appellate division that decides when countries have broken their treaty obligations. So what would happen now if the Trump Administration raised duties on Chinese goods? First, Beijing could pose as the victim and bring the U.S. to the WTO. If the dispute escalated, companies on both sides would lose opportunities, consumers would pay more and the economies would slow down. The conflict would also erode respect for the rules-based WTO system, which could work to China’s advantage. Beijing could use its position as the leading trade partner of East Asian nations to cement its pre-eminence in the region and marginalize the U.S. America’s trading relationships with allies would suffer. The U.S. thus has a strong interest in maintaining the rules-based trading system it helped to build. The flip side of China’s trade surplus is the need to invest in foreign assets, and Beijing wants to diversify from U.S. Treasurys. The Trump Administration is rightly emphasizing reciprocal treatment, and regulations give it the power to hold up Chinese investment, especially in fields using advanced technology. That suggests a more WTO-compliant way to retaliate if Beijing continues to restrict the ability of American companies to invest in China. If the U.S. and other developed countries work together on this issue, they can insist that Beijing follows the trade law it signed up to.
  3. Fiat News: Rumorpile: Chinese Automakers Are Interested In FCA

    The inherent problem with the Chinese acquiring all of this infrastructure is that they do not trust their own people with the knowledge needed to create it in the first place. The printing press was a success in Europe because it allowed the introduction of Islamic texts and once-thought-lost Greek writings to many, many citizens. Thus all of that new-found knowledge brought forth the Renaissance. Eventually, the Industrial Revolution that brought forth the coal, steel, and automobile was caused from that cultural momentum. China deliberately crushes any information and knowledge from outside their country. The Great Firewall of China censors Google, Apple, Facebook, et al. and prohibits any chance of individuality among its people. Yet another industrial engine (pun intended) will be had to continue their juggernaut all of at our expense. We can't do anything about it because they already own the majority of the $20 Trillion in debt that we have accumulated. Where is our cultural momentum now?
  4. Fiat News: Rumorpile: Chinese Automakers Are Interested In FCA

    The industrial revolution started (and is ending?) in the West. Apart from gunpowder and noodles, what, as they would ask in "Life of Brian", have the Chinese done for us?
  5. Fiat News: Rumorpile: Chinese Automakers Are Interested In FCA

    This is typical of China in that they cannot develop any major infrastructure on their own without the aid of outside (western) influence. They need to buy existing platforms of production in order to learn how to make it work and then profit on the improvements. This pattern of behavior is not limited to cars. They have done it with oil and gas, stealth technology for the military, and even golf clubs and bowling balls. China already owns MG and Volvo. They might as well own FCA while they are at it.
  6. Frisky is right on! Make a true RS model with the 5.3L V8/6 speed manual and the basic amenities all at the great price of $30k!
  7. Was Australia expecting the Red Cross to come in and rescue their dying car manufacturing industry?
  8. Not everyone can afford a brand new hybrid that costs $30k+. Until there is a glut of those types of cars on the used market at a very reasonable price, people will be pumping gas into their daily drivers for quite some time.
  9. Ferrari News: Rumorpile: Ferrari Is Planning An SUV

    Built on the Maserati platform no less.
  10. Let's see if its gets any traction. The Dodge Magnum and the CTS Wagon were short-lived.
  11. There is advertising, there are "real world" uses for the product, and then there are MPG mandates. The "truck" manufacturers are stuck between a rock and a hard place when building something that has the same regulations as a passenger car.
  12. Lawyer mandated - absolutely. This is also general fare for risk and reputational management these days. Let's face it. This car is NOT a daily driver at all. It is a toy. The form is what the adults must sign to show that they will still be adults with their expensive toy.
  13. Ducati News: Is Ducati Up For Sale?

    You mean Sergio hasn't claimed that this would be a great deal for FCA yet?
  14. BMW News: BMW Still Believes In Diesel, Sends 540d to U.S.

    So long as it passes emissions.....
  15. This is the end Beautiful friend This is the end My only friend, the end Of our elaborate plans, the end Of everything that stands, the end No safety or surprise, the end I'll never look into your eyes...again The horror....The horror. The Horror....The Horror.