tpter1

Ahhh...the familiar sucking sound of jobs leaving for countries that allow slave labor in unsafe conditions. How can we compte with that? If you were a CEO, whose bottom line was profit, and you had the opportunity to save huge production costs tariff free, wouldn't you? That's how captiolism works! Profitability, at the end of the day, makes the company. Make the parts on the cheap, slap your name on them so you can maintain your price structure, sell for huge profit.

On the other side of the ocean, our products are taxed the moment they reach the shore. We cannot sell a single thing over there without huge tariffs. Their market is essentially closed to us. BUT, they can sell all they want here (MFN status?), no penalty, no tariff. Sounds like a good deal, doesn't it? Is it? Is it a good deal for those people who work 19+ hours a day in extremely hostile and unsafe conditions and make a nickel an hour? Is it a good deal for the environment when they can pollute all they want with no real repercussions?

Could be the down fall of the great super power. Could well be. We are fast becoming a service based economy rather than manufacturing based. Manufacturing jobs hold the most economic benefit.

Yup. You'll get no argument from me, Manny...some "genious" a couple administrations ago DID start this whole mess. But it could still be stopped, and noone is stopping it.

__________________
-Glenn
"Roses have thorns; shining waters mud. Clouds and eclipses stain the moon and the sun; and history reeks of the wrongs we have done. After today, after today, consider me gone."- Sting

Manny Laureano

I'm with you, Glenn. I side with tarriffs but I'll admit I haven't done all the research to understand the downside. I guess it would have to do with trying to get everyone on board in countries all over the globe. And you know how easy that is.

I'm going to look for some objective articles and see what the arguments are. But there's some single tonguing to attend to first...

ML

gzent

I won't be sorry to see the 'Bach' brand disappear, that happened decades ago when Selmer acquired the company and just got worse with each subsequent aquisition. (And it happened to Benge, King, Olds, Holton, etc.)

I've been through this corporate merger hell myself and I understand what the employees must be going through, it stinks, big time! Its the workers I feel sorry for, not 'Bach'.

I don't believe people will miss the 'Bach' brand, because there are a lot of cheaper, equal quality, similarly built trumpets to take their place. And, there are a handful of builders, like Kanstul, that builds a Strad design with equal or better quality for the same price. The elimination of a stagnant, tired corporation with fresh, new builders could actually be a positive for buyers.

I would hope that enough of the highly skilled instrument builders from Bach could start their own businesses or augment the technical expertise of smaller builders giving their customer base a number of new choices in the market. That's basically what Kanstul and some of his coworkers did after leaving Olds and Benge.

I'm not claiming it will be an easy transition for the workers, but given their skill and reputation I believe the US instrument building market could use them.

As for cheap horns from China, well, if 'Bach' does put its name on that crap it will be our responsibilty to tell everyone we know what has happened and tell them to 'steer clear' of such junk.

In fact, I would challenge the pros out there that are 'Bachaholics' to boycott Bach completely even if just the 'student' horns are rebranded Chinese horns. How can you support a company that is doing this sort of thing?

my 2c,

Greg

__________________
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation

Tootsall

The downside to tariffs (as always) is the upsetting of the economy that is based on letting the market decide the price (or value) of a good or commodity. Trade gets distorted and the country that produces the good or commodity for the international market might not be the lowest cost producer or exporter.

WARNING! THE BALANCE MAY BE UPSETTING TO THE READER. PLEASE UNDERTAKE TO READ THE ENTIRE THING BEFORE RESPONDING! (Ooo, this is going to get me into the cage for sure!)

This is something that Canadians are very well aware of: we are presently in a dispute with the US softwood lumber industry: they claim that our government "sells trees" (through what the US industry says are unfairly low "stumpage fees") to private companies who then harvest the trees and produce lumber that is exported to the US at unfairly low prices. Well... who HAS the most trees? Who can produce lumber at the lowest cost? Does anyone realize that those import tariffs are raising the price of ALL construction that uses softwood in the US? Do you want to have to pay more for your house to enhance the profits of a US-based corporation? (Never mind the fact that many so-called "Canadian" companies are really just branches of US-based corporations!) Of course you do... right up until the point where you have to go into Home Depot and buy some sticks of 2X4 to discover that the price has doubled overnight.

In spite of the VAST majority (0ver 90%) of international trade tribunals and investigations ruling that the import restrictions are being unfairly applied, the US continues to hold over 3 BILLION dollars of "import tariffs" charged against Canadian lumber entering the US (the so-called Byrd amendment... which has recently been struck down I believe).

A month ago I was down in Shelby Montana looking at their rail yards (to see if they were suited for exporting limerock from Montana to Canada). There were trainloads of softwood lumber being taken daily from Canada to the US with the duty not being charged because the demand for lumber to rebuild the Gulf Coast was so high that the US industry could not supply enough! If, however, you were to ship a trainload of lumber to Home Depot in Chicago then you'd have to pay the duty. So it is (as always) a case of "if we need it badly enough we'll accept it but if we think it's going to hurt our profits then you can't send it".

Interesting to observe that there are NO "import restrictions" on energy (electrical or fossil fuels) into the US and that there are lobby groups presently thrashing about Capitol Hill trying to get the rights to import Canadian freshwater.... you can bet they won't be wanting to slap an "import duty" onto that neither! Well, are you willing to pay $3.50/gallon for gas? $4.00? Of course not... it would be political suicide for anyone to suggest that US oil companies be protected against those nasty Canadians and their cheap energy!

In my own industry (sugar) Canada has faced very tight restrictions on sugar entering the US. We have to fight for a very small percentage of the international quota that is allowed in. Yet only 10 years ago Canada had to slap a penalizing import duty on US sugar because it was being sold into Canada at cut-throat prices.... even lower than production costs (that's what is known as "dumping"). Why? Because sugar in the US sells at much higher prices than it does in Canada (partially due to the US Farm Bill that "guarantees" that producers of sugar can't lose money). The result was overproduction of sugar in excess of domestic requirements. What has happened recently? Very interesting... the storms wiped out much of the cane crop in the US and high energy prices have forced Brazil (an enormous sugar producer ... really the "elephant" in the sugar market) to turn much of their sugar production into Ethanol.

At the same time we also penalized the EU because they were bringing in sugar at greatly distorted (low) prices. How? They were using their own laws to guarantee high prices domestically and the producers could "dump" surplus sugar and not lose any money. So in the last year (any of you watching?) the international price of raw sugar has almost tripled, the US stockpiles of "spare sugar" have disappeared, and suddenly the US NEEDS to buy more sugar or suffer shortages! Do you think the average housewife is going to understand why she suddenly can't buy sugar or, if she can find it, has to pay double or triple what she used to pay?

So, international trade is something that the world NEEDS... "no country is an island" (to hack up an old quote). There must be stability in international markets (especially for commodities) because a natural disaster can too-easily cause some real pain in any given country if they've isolated themselves behind trade barriers (which are usually put up to protect the profits of an INDUSTRY rather than a NATION). Global trade IS here to stay whether we like it or not. If you recall, both your country and mine (and Mexico) were founded when someone from the "Old Country" came sailing this way in search of raw resources to take back to the "homeland" and earn profits for the pockets of those who financed the expeditions. What is that if not "international trade" (and mostly favourable to the traders and financiers ... to the detriment of the local folk of the day!)

SPECIAL NOTE! A PRIZE TO THE PERSON WHO CAN IDENTIFY WHERE/WHEN I FIRST WROTE THIS THEME IN TM!

OK, that's my own little bit of flag-waving for the day. But what has it got to do with the situation regarding Bach? Well, quite simply, no matter how much we might rant and rave against it, we are going to have to compete with Asia (and the rest of the world!) and it's going to become a matter of "he who can produce the quality of the goods sufficient to sell them and get an adequate profit" is going to be the winner. That's WHY our leaders are discussing the possibility of forming a "North American Economic Zone"... so we can work together rather than against each other.

There is absolutely no doubt that the "Harvard School of Business Economics" that dictates short-term returns to enhance "shareholder value" is just that... SHORT TERM! Those very workers that are being put out of their jobs and into early retirement in the search for the short term profits are going to be drawing on precisely the same pension plans (or what's left of them) that BUY THOSE STOCKS AND RELY ON THEIR CONTINUED "VALUE GROWTH" IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Yes, it is all very much tied into pensions, benefits and pension shortfalls and stock market variability. Or perhaps pension problems are due to pension problems? Or maybe our economies can NOT continue to grow "ad infinitum" and we must be forced to cut back on our consumption (of both raw materials AND manufactured goods). (Makes you want to climb into a hole and pull a rock over your head)

Gaaaaaa....we're going in a circle here! Let's face it, the only way to truly compete (especially on manufactured goods) is on the basis of QUALITY! I think Bach made a mistake even opening the door to the cheap, Asian stuff because I think that either the Asian stuff will have to improve or Bach will get absolutely KILLED (look at the venerable old firm of Besson and what happened to them in the last few months if you don't believe me). BUT... I recognize that if there IS the opportunity for the Asians to produce good instruments IN TIME! It's the dumping into the marketplace of huge volumes of JUNK at cut-throat prices that has distorted the marketplace (while earning them the hard currency they needed to supercharge their industrial base) where so much of the purchasing is done on an uninformed basis (I'm referring to student-grade instruments).

Now, one last consideration (I know... it's off the topic of import restrictions... sort of). If the global economy (OK, North American) had refused to trade with China...refused to give them the (trade-favourable) status of "developing third world country"...what then? Is warfare an option? Is all of this being done to protect Formosa? Keep the Chinese out of the Russian oil fields? Stop them from invading Japan? Prove to them that the Market Economy is better than what they had before? The threats from a country with "nothing to lose" can be very real. Perhaps I'm raising a Doomsday scenario but..... is it at least worth considering? Hey... it IS an option that can never be discounted you know. We've seen more than enough suicide bombers who feel that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain to dismiss it out of hand.

Just some food for thought. As Red Green would say "We're all in this together; remember, I'm pullin' for ya".

And, as a footnote: I apologize if it seems I am "down" on the US and waving a Canadian flag too strongly: such was not my intention. I am simply using an example (or two) that is "at hand" to make the point that trade restrictions distort international economies, cause short AND long-term instability in domestic industry, and ultimately can lead to excess consumption and artificially high prices. In fact, trade restrictions were one of the causes of the American Revolution if I recall my history correctly.

tpter1

toots- I agree completely that no country is an island and international trade is a necessity. Agree 100%. BUT, it should be FAIR trade, rather than free trade. Fair trade dictates that if a coountry puts tariffs on imports, they should be tariffed on exports. If they are going to export and expect no ariff on their export, they should not tariff imports. All workers should be treated and paid on an equal scale that is fair and guarantees their safety. Environmental concerns should all be consistent and aligned. Level the playing field, and allow nations to use their resouces to their best interest. (I know nothing or very little about the softwood debate, honestly. I try and avoid the news lately).

__________________
-Glenn
"Roses have thorns; shining waters mud. Clouds and eclipses stain the moon and the sun; and history reeks of the wrongs we have done. After today, after today, consider me gone."- Sting

gzent

Excellent post Toots!

You describe many facets of this 'international trade' situation without being ignorant enough to propose easy solutions.

Dumping is a huge problem in a purely 'free' trade market. It is especially a problem when governments pay private companies to 'dump' to gain market share. Many wars have been started that way.

Germany did it with VW's for a while and Japan did it with laptop video displays and drove the US right out of the market. How to guard against govt. backed dumping? Who knows?

Greg

PS - Yeah, subsidies suck, no matter who is screwing whom!

__________________
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation

anotherbachbuffer

I want to thank everyone that posted on this forum in favor of the dedicated members of UAW Local 364, the union in place at Vincent Bach. This strike is NOT about money, rather about how management has been treating us for about 2.5 years(sound familiar Mr. Hall?). There is a posting on Steinways stock section (msn) that says that the Bargaining Committee endorsed this contract, however, we were under a gag order to remain neutral. If not, the company would revert back to their original proposal (which by the way, was MUCH worce than the one we "bargained " for,concessonary bargaining). They even want to make up the shop rules as they go along! I can only hope that the professional instrument players will still think that the STRAD is the best horn on the market (as long as we can continue to make them in Elkhart, Indiana), because we still do. Hopefully , Mr. Messina will come to his sences and realize that it is the Union workers who "TURN METAL INTO MAGIC".April 1,2006: THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED.

gzent

Its not the name 'Bach' or Strad, or the company or the town that makes the trumpet, its you guys, the trained, professional instrument builders.

You are the real asset and if Bach can't see that then they have already lost it.

Sadly, I can't see things getting better where you are at. I still believe in the strength of being 'made in America' and still think the instrument market could use the Bach talent pool in other more appreciative companies.

Best wishes,

Greg

__________________
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation

B15M

I think it was Ross Peroe (sp?) that said there would be a huge sucking sound if we had the North American free trade agreement.

I am not 100% sure about the soft wood market but from my memory, Clinton put huge restrictions on cutting in the U.S. and a lot of local mills closed. There came a big demand and no more little mills so the lumber came from Canada. You can still get lumber from the west coast if you want but it cost more and is a little better. Kind of like getting trumpets from China. Most people want the cheaper lumber so the trains come from Canada.

If we put a big import tax in effect and had a five year phase in the problem would slowly fix it's self. It took a while for the problem to happen and it wouldn't be fair to say tomorrow it's back to normal.

Every time I hear some one talk about a world economy I can't stand it. I have been saying for years this would happen and I bet you couldn't even get a politician to admit it's a problem.

gzent

Yes, it was Perot, alright. Rather than listen to a man who made a billion dollar high tech company from nothing, they just made fun of his looks, his Texas accent and his pie charts.

Instead they put their trust in a career politician from Arkansas (which, as Perot so blunted pointed out in 92, has little to brag about) and the 'Earth in the Balance' socialist from Tenn. NAFTA sailed through, logging in the northwest US was seriously curtailed and China was given MFN status. Naturally, the labor classes were hit hard.

...and yet, blue collar democrats still reminisce about how great Clinton was.

Puzzling, truly.

__________________
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation