Harley Davidsson bygger fabrik i Thailand på grund av TPPApril 25, 2018 | Magnus Nilsson, Frihandelsbloggen
Att skrota TPP och starta handelskrig skulle enligt Donald Trump ge amerikanerna jobben tillbaka. Istället flyttar ett av de mest amerikanska av företag — motorcykeltillverkaren Harley-Davidson — delar av sin tillverkning till Thailand.
All politik får oväntade konsekvenser.
Enligt Bloomberg bygger nu den amerikanska motorcykeltillverkaren Harley-Davidson en fabrik i Thailand.
Anledningen är att USA ställde sig utanför TPP i kombination med USA:s handelskrig med Kina. Råvarukostnaderna blir kring 200 miljoner kronor högre på grund av ståltullarna och importtullarna till den asiatiska marknaden blir kvar. Till saken hör att HD redan tappar försäljning i USA och riskerar tullar på importen till EU — också en effekt av Trumps handelskrig. Företaget har redan sagt upp 260 personer i USA som en konsekvens av försäljningstappet.
Sanningen att säga är den aktuella nedgången inte en direkt konsekvens av handelspolitiken. Den har ännu inte fått några mätbara konsekvenser. Däremot gör bortfallet av TPP och tullarna att en återhämtning kommer bli mycket svårare. Och medan man tappar på USA-marknaden blir den asiatiska marknaden allt viktigare. Välståndet ökar och HD är ett riktig statusmärke i Asien.
Därför är det viktigt att ha en sammansättningsfabrik i Thailand.
Enligt HD:s VD Matt Levatich är etableringen i Thailand ett direkt resultat av att USA (eller snarare Trump) valde bort TPP:
”The Thailand plant will allow Harley-Davidson to price its motorcycles more competitively in the region and stimulate growth for its U.S. supply chain, Levatich said. The factory will start making motorcycles later this year to circumvent what he called “unbelievable trade and tariff barriers” in “critical” Southeast Asian markets.
“We were very optimistic about what the TPP would enable for Harley-Davidson,” Levatich said. “It took seven years for it to come to fruition. We could see the writing on the wall, and we got busy with Plan B.””
Det var just det här Donald Trump trodde han skulle kunna stoppa genom olika protektionistiska åtgärder. Genom dyrare import skulle amerikanska konsumenter börja köpa inhemskt producerade varor. Men han glömde att dyrare import ger dyrare inhemska varor och dyrare exportprodukter.
Protektionism bygger på idén att man gör ett lands ekonomi starkare genom att göra dess medborgare fattigare. Men det har aldrig fungerat förr och fungerar inte nu.
Frihandel i media vecka 43Oktober 26, 2017 | Magnus Nilsson, Frihandelsbloggen
Den här veckan har dominerats av NAFTA-förhandlingarna. Här följer ett antal klipp från internationell press:
”Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland criticized a one-sided strategy in Nafta negotiations after U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said he wasn’t prepared to make concessions to reach a deal.
“A negotiation where a one party takes a winner-takes-all approach is a negotiation that may find some difficulties in reaching a conclusion,” Freeland said Thursday during a press conference in Toronto, without specifying which party she was referring to. She later added Canada understands the value of opening new export markets in China and elsewhere. “Perhaps now we understand it more urgently than ever.”
Ildefonso Guajardo, Mexico’s economy minister and lead Nafta negotiator, told reporters on Sunday his country has some margin to compromise with the U.S. on Nafta, without specifying in which areas. The government will be analyzing that issue between now and the next round of talks, scheduled for Mexico City from Nov. 17-21.
The previous round wrapped up this month with ministers trading barbs amid five key impasses on dairy, automotive content, dispute panels, government procurement and a sunset clause. Mexico and Canada are effectively dismissing U.S. proposals on all five.”
”In an interview on Fox New’s Lou Dobbs Tonight on Wednesday, President Donald Trump elaborated on his initiative to end the North American Free Trade Agreement, stating that he believed terminating the agreement is the only way to ensure a fair deal for the United States.
A common argument against NAFTA is that it lowers the demand for American manufacturing jobs because Mexican labor is cheaper.
“We’ve been very tough, and we’re being very fair, but we have to get back a lot,” Trump said in his interview with Lou Dobbs. “What’s happened to this country with NAFTA is unbelievable; the jobs that have been taken, the factories that are moving out of Michigan, out of Ohio, out of Pennsylvania, out of our states is incredible.””
”President Trump is holding fast to his threats to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to gain leverage in the contentious negotiations.
Trump repeated his threat, which he presented as a negotiating strategy, during his private lunch with Republican senators on Tuesday.
He told the senators that the United States may need to start the six-month withdrawal process to reach a better agreement with Canada and Mexico. Trump has previously suggested that this threat of withdrawal could lead to concessions by the trading partners.
Bill Reinsch, a trade expert with the Stimson Center, said Thursday at a Cato Institute trade event that at this stage one of the most likely scenarios is that the three countries get into a stare down over the deal and none are willing to either agree or pull the trigger to pull out of the agreement.
The process is murky regarding how Trump could withdraw from the deal.
Trump could start the clock ticking but Congress would likely flex its muscle about its role in any final decision. But there are no hard and fast rules about how that would work.
The next round of talks are next month in Mexico City. Negotiations will continue into 2018.
The discussions have at least one built-in political deadline: Mexico’s presidential elections on July 1.”
”The NAFTA war is heating up. It’s a confusing conflict because perceptions are driven by political rhetoric, not economic reality.
NAFTA, of course, stands for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has eliminated most tariffs among the United States, Mexico and Canada. During the campaign, candidate Donald Trump denounced NAFTA as a bad deal for the United States. He vowed to improve or scrap it. The trouble is that NAFTA actually isn’t a bad deal for the United States.
Consider. Canada and Mexico are the first- and second-largest markets for U.S. exports. In 2015, these exports — counting both goods (such as computers) and services (such as tourism) — amounted to $600 billion. That’s more than a quarter of total U.S. exports and almost four times U.S. exports to China.
Why would we want to attack our best foreign markets? But what about the massive trade deficit with Mexico? On inspection, it turns out not to be so large.
It’s true that Mexico had a $63 billion surplus in goods traded with us in 2016. But it also runs a deficit with the United States in services. Likewise, Canada runs a slight overall deficit with us in goods and services. Counting these trade flows, the United States runs about a $50 billion deficit with the two countries on total trade of $1.2 trillion. The U.S. deficit roughly equals 4 percent of NAFTA trade.
It’s a good deal for us and our partners. We all get more consumer choice. We all get more competition, which holds down prices. Jobs are created in all the countries. To be sure, some American jobs are lost, as factories move to Mexico. This is hard on the displaced workers, but so is competition that eliminates American jobs for other American jobs. Overall, benefits exceed costs.”