c60a-4fl@widow.berkeley.edu (Antony A. Courtney) (01/07/89)
in (Article 6832 of misc.forsale) (mms%sordid@Sun.COM (Michael Silverstein)) writes: >In article <7745@lanl.gov> jxdl@lanl.gov (Jerry DeLapp) writes: >>*> >>*> Dumping is not a natural market force! It is a concerted and >>*> focused effort involving sale of a commodity at lower than true >>*> value for the specific purpose of eliminating competitors from the >>*> market. In the case of RAM, there was specific support by the >>*> Japanese government for the policy of dumping. At one point, RAMs >>*> from Japan were selling for much less in the US than they were in >>*> Japan! >>*> >>*> It was these UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES that led to the current laws. >>*> -- > >So, the free market is fine until some one, other than ourselves, is >the winner. At that point, selling high quality merchandise at low >prices becomes "dumping". > >The price of chips in Japan is irrelevant. A manufacturer has the >right to sell a product for whatever price he wishes, in any location >he chooses. > >The true cost of all this catering to special interests is borne by >the rest of us, who now pay $10 for a three dollar DRAM, or $14,000 >for an "economy" car. > >Views expressed are my own. > >*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=* >| /\/\ike Silverstein | This can't be deja vous. Things are more like | >| sun!mms -or- mms@sun.com | they are now, than they've ever been before! | >*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*> 'Scuse me for saying so, but I think you are out of your mind. The Japanese Government was subsidizing Japanese companies to sell DRAMs way below cost. As such, there was no possible way that US Companies could stay in competition with this. The end result: US Companies stopped making DRAMs. Fortunately, the US Government caught the problem in time. It is my belief that, once all US competition had been destroyed, the Japanese would have a fierce grasp on the computer market as a whole. They could just raise DRAM prices to...mmm...say... $20 or so for US Computer Companies doing development like Sun, and then they could sell their computers for much cheaper because they would obviously have DRAMs at their cost. Also, given the fact that EVERY computer uses DRAMs, including DoD computers, etc... being at the total mercy of another country is far far too dangerous. Now I've never been one to support Ronald Reagan, (believe me!!!!), but I do agree with him on this policy. And I think if we can just stick through this, we'll be stronger for it...I certainly can barely afford a computer, and unfortunately, the DRAM price increase ends up hurting me and others like me. But I honestly believe the chrisis is almost over. In my opinion, Dumping is most definitely NOT a 'natural' market force. It is a slimey way to put the little guy out of business because some fat company can afford to subsidize the loss for long enough to destroy competition. And then when the competition is gone the market is at their mercy. And having a government backing such slimey practices makes it even tougher for the little guy. Fortunately the US acted on this in a respectable, moral way. Antony A. Courtney c60a-4fl@widow.berkeley.edu Pete Shipley: email: shipley@widow.berkeley.edu Flames: cimarron@postgres.berkeley.edu uunet!lurnix!shipley or ucbvax!shipley or pyramid!hippo!{ root peter } Spelling corections: /dev/null Quote: "Anger is an energy"
mms%sordid@Sun.COM (Michael Silverstein) (01/08/89)
In article <18814@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> c60a-4fl@widow.berkeley.edu (Antony A. Courtney) writes: >*> 'Scuse me for saying so, but I think you are out of your mind. >*> >*> The Japanese Government was subsidizing Japanese companies to sell DRAMs way >*> below cost. As such, there was no possible way that US Companies could stay >*> in competition with this. The end result: US Companies stopped making >*> DRAMs. Possibly encouraging them. There's no evidence that the Japanese gov't was actually subsididzing. >*> They could just raise DRAM >*> prices to...mmm...say... $20 or so for US Computer Companies doing development >*> like Sun, and then they could sell their computers for much cheaper because >*> they would obviously have DRAMs at their cost. After US companies quit making drams, prices continued to FALL. The Japanese manufacturers were competing furiously against EACH OTHER. There's no reason to think this wouldn't have continued if we hadn't "fixed" the problem. As I said previously, we are now paying $10 for three dollar chips so that as consumers we can SUBSIDIZE American industry back into the dram business. But the worst of many bad effects this policy has is the message it sends to the Japanese: "Don't take all this free market stuff too seriously. Cut back production, raise prices, and we can all make more money, (and keep the peace)". Compare the price of a basic, 4 passenger Japanese economy car to what it was before the "voluntary" quotas, and you'll see who is really paying the bill for this policy. Views expressed are my own. *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=* | /\/\ike Silverstein | This can't be deja vous. Things are more like | | sun!mms -or- mms@sun.com | they are now, than they've ever been before! | *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (01/08/89)
In article <18814@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, c60a-4fl@widow.berkeley.edu (Antony A. Courtney) writes: > The Japanese Government was subsidizing Japanese companies to sell DRAMs way > below cost. Why should we reject a gift from the Japanese taxpayer? Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com V-Systems, Inc. I speak for me only attmail!vsi!friedl Santa Ana, CA USA +1 714 545 6442 {backbones}!vsi!friedl -------Nancy Reagan on Usenix in San Diego: "Just say *go*"-------
johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) (01/08/89)
In article <18814@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> c60a-4fl@widow.berkeley.edu (Antony A. Courtney) writes: >'Scuse me for saying so, but I think you are out of your mind. >... >Fortunately, the US Government caught the problem in time. ... >Fortunately the US acted on this in a respectable, moral way. Oh, give me a break. I would have considerably more sympathy for the government's DRAM action were it applied in an even partially rational way. They took action specifically against DRAMs. Did they do anything about boards with RAM chips on them? Nope, so that rational manufacturers had their boards stuffed overseas thus exporting American jobs. Ensuring a domestic supplier of RAM chips is a reasonable security goal, but I can think of a lot more effective ways than jacking up chip prices from $2 to $10, thus sending billions of American dollars to the Japanese chip makers who dominate the market. For example, the gov't could have specified domestic chips in government computers. It seems to me that the Japanese were doing us a great favor by shipping us all those cheap chips to subsidize our large and growing computer industry. I also note that I'm now seeing European chips here (Siemens, specifically.) Should we slap tarriffs on them, too? -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 { bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something You're never too old to have a happy childhood.
urjlew@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (01/08/89)
Oh come on now! both dumping and protectionist measures are perfectly good natural market forces. After all, how does one define natural? in a dog eat dog, survival of those who survive world of real competition. I think that the proper question to ask is - have the protectionist measures taken by the US government been on the whole effective or beneficial for the US economy? I claim that they have done more harm than good. If the Japanese were truly selling their ram at a loss or unrealistic margin, then the proper course of action is to take them for all that they are willing to give. In the meantime subsidize research in order to come up with a better replacement product that you can begin to sell back to them at a higher profit margin. As it is stopping the DRAM supply has crippled the development, production and spread of all kinds of new electronic equipment which increased US exports and productivity. It does not appear to have stimulated domestic production of DRAM. The US embargo is a knee-jerk reaction not well thought out and ineffective. THis is not to rule out embargoes in general, or even an embargo against Japanese electronics if properly coupled with other steps.
john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (01/08/89)
>In article <18814@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> c60a-4fl@widow.berkeley.edu (Antony A. Courtney) writes: > > 'Scuse me for saying so, but I think you are out of your mind. > > The Japanese Government was subsidizing Japanese companies to sell DRAMs way > below cost. As such, there was no possible way that US Companies could stay > in competition with this. The end result: US Companies stopped making > DRAMs. > You don't REALLY believe this do you? I noticed in "EE weekly" a few days ago that the world market price of 256k DRAM is about 3 bux a chip. Do you s'pose the Japaneese government is subsidizing the whole damn world? Or do you maybe think that 3 bux represents the real value of a DRAM chip manufactured with modern fab lines and techniques? As to subsidies, one could also note that the US government subsidizes almost ALL US industry. Don't believe me? Well consider for a moment Investment Tax Credits, Capital Gains taxes, interest deduction, depriciation, state & local tax deduction, expense deductions including labor costs. Some of these are now gone but ALL were in effect when the american semi industry started it's whining. Personally, my response to this is to pledge never but never buy american-made memory again. More of us should do the same. john -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "I can't drive 85!" Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | Sammy Hagar driving ...!gatech!stiatl!john | thru Atlanta!
jeff@stormy.atmos.washington.edu (Jeff L. Bowden) (01/09/89)
In article <2542@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >As to subsidies, one could also note that the US government subsidizes >almost ALL US industry. Don't believe me? Well consider for a >moment Investment Tax Credits, Capital Gains taxes, interest deduction, >depriciation, state & local tax deduction, expense deductions including >labor costs. I guess this means that you think businesses should be paying taxes. Perhaps the solution to competitiveness on the global market is to do away with taxes on businesses. -- "...lies, damned lies, and heuristics."
ignac@electro.UUCP (Ignac Kolenko) (01/09/89)
In article <84369@sun.uucp> mms@sun.UUCP (Michael Silverstein) writes: >As I said previously, we are now paying $10 for three dollar chips >so that as consumers we can SUBSIDIZE American industry back into ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the dram business. But the worst of many bad effects this policy has >is the message it sends to the Japanese: "Don't take all this free >market stuff too seriously. ... >Compare the price of a basic, 4 passenger Japanese economy car to >what it was before the "voluntary" quotas, and you'll see who is >really paying the bill for this policy. i'm in the mood to be flamed! and through free trade, Canada is supposed to become as "efficient" and as "competetive" as the US is in the world market. seems like american efficiency has its costs. (note: there are no smileys in the above opinion!) -- Ignac A. Kolenko watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac "Sex farm woman, don't you see my silo risin' high? Working on a sex farm, hosing down your barn door, bothering your livestock, they know what I need!" from Sex Farm by Spinal Tap
griff@intelob.intel.com (Richard Griffith) (01/10/89)
In article <18814@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> c60a-4fl@widow.berkeley.edu (Antony A. Courtney) writes: >in (Article 6832 of misc.forsale) (mms%sordid@Sun.COM (Michael Silverstein)) >writes: >>In article <7745@lanl.gov> jxdl@lanl.gov (Jerry DeLapp) writes: >>>*> >>>*> Dumping is not a natural market force! It is a concerted and >>>*> focused effort involving sale of a commodity at lower than true >>>*> value for the specific purpose of eliminating competitors from the >>>*> market. In the case of RAM, there was specific support by the gee - sounds like a wholesaler... kinda :-) >> >>So, the free market is fine until some one, other than ourselves, is >>the winner. At that point, selling high quality merchandise at low yeah, nobody likes "losing" more than I do! :-) :-) [ shortened up ] > >'Scuse me for saying so, but I think you are out of your mind. > >The Japanese Government was subsidizing Japanese companies to sell DRAMs way >below cost. As such, there was no possible way that US Companies could stay Sounds like a few American farmers I know - let's see, Uncle Sam pays farmer Brown if he doesn't raise too many pigs. Ok - HEY! Unca' Sam - I'm not raising pigs either! Pay me! [ more shortened ...] But seriously folks... No, the Japanese government should not have subsidized that market, and I think that the American government should a) shut off all hi-tech trade or b) force the Japanese government to accept free trade of all agricultural goods. At $10/orange, we could HALF their price and wipe out all Japanese farmers within the month. - griff ************************************************************************** * Richard E. Griffith * "Someday soon we'll stop to ponder - * * "griff" * What on Earth's this spell we're under? * * BiiN, Hillsboro Ore. * We made the grade, but still we wonder - * * (When are we getting * Who the Hell we are?" * * Our own Usenet node?) * - Styx "Grand Illusion" * **************************************************************************
fmcgee@cuuxb.ATT.COM (~XT6510300~Frank McGee~C23~M24~6326~) (01/10/89)
In article <6175@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> urjlew@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: > >The US embargo is a knee-jerk reaction not well thought out >and ineffective. THis is not to rule out embargoes in general, >or even an embargo against Japanese electronics if properly >coupled with other steps. I second this opinion. It's been almost a year since the price of DRAM went through the roof, and there still aren't any cheap US made chips. I'd support the action if it had actually helped US industry, but instead it has helped no one. I think it's a classic example of the US government stepping into a situation they knew nothing about, and making it much worse than it originally was. As for the situation being "dangerous" because of defense reasons (ie, DoD is dependent upon far eastern chip makers) I think that statement doesn't hold much water either. If the US couldn't re-tool to make DRAMS in an emergency in under a few months, it has a lot worse problems than chip dumping. -- Frank McGee Tier 3 Indirect Channel Sales Support attmail!fmcgee
ching@pepsi.amd.com (Mike Ching) (01/10/89)
In article <2357@cuuxb.ATT.COM> fmcgee@cuuxb.UUCP (Frank W. McGee) writes: >In article <6175@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> urjlew@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: >> >>The US embargo is a knee-jerk reaction not well thought out >>and ineffective. THis is not to rule out embargoes in general, >>or even an embargo against Japanese electronics if properly >>coupled with other steps. > >I second this opinion. It's been almost a year since the price of DRAM >went through the roof, and there still aren't any cheap US made chips. >I'd support the action if it had actually helped US industry, but >instead it has helped no one. I think it's a classic example of the US >government stepping into a situation they knew nothing about, and >making it much worse than it originally was. > >As for the situation being "dangerous" because of defense reasons (ie, >DoD is dependent upon far eastern chip makers) I think that statement >doesn't hold much water either. If the US couldn't re-tool to make >DRAMS in an emergency in under a few months, it has a lot worse >problems than chip dumping. > >-- >Frank McGee >Tier 3 Indirect Channel Sales Support >attmail!fmcgee I agree that the governments actions didn't help the DRAM situation but the action also included EPROMs which was the next target market for the Japanese. Semiconductor manufacturers lobbied for government help to protect their future, not to regain a lost market. The US has "a lot worse problems than chip dumping" by your definition because there is no way we could retool in under a few months to produce DRAMs, especially since the precision tool market is now dominated by the Japanese. We Americans are so inefficient and incompetetant that we will eventually be relegated to jobs in the service industries. mike ching Disclaimer: My opinion is probably shared by my employer.
gws@egvideo.uucp (Geoff Scully) (01/10/89)
In article <6175@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> urjlew@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: > >Oh come on now! both dumping and protectionist measures are >perfectly good natural market forces. After all, how does one >define natural? in a dog eat dog, survival of those who survive >world of real competition. Oh come on now! Both dumping (ie government subsidization to lower export prices) and protectionism are perfectly rotten intervention forces and have nothing to do with "natural" market forces. I would not dare try to define the scope of "natural market forces" but I think I am quite safe in saying government intervention of this kind is totally "unnatural" (but not unexpected). >I think that the proper question to ask is - have the protectionist >measures taken by the US government been on the whole effective >or beneficial for the US economy? >I claim that they have done more harm than good. I claim that they can do *nothing but harm*. Ever. >The US embargo is a knee-jerk reaction not well thought out >and ineffective. This is not to rule out embargoes in general, >or even an embargo against Japanese electronics if properly >coupled with other steps. Embargoes are a tool of politics, not free market economics. The two should not be (but often are) intermixed. ------------- Geoff Scully gws@egvideo.uucp ...!watmath!egvideo!gws
foo@titan.rice.edu (Mark Hall) (01/11/89)
In article <2357@cuuxb.ATT.COM> fmcgee@cuuxb.UUCP (Frank W. McGee) writes: >I second this opinion. It's been almost a year since the price of DRAM >went through the roof, and there still aren't any cheap US made chips. >I'd support the action if it had actually helped US industry, but >instead it has helped no one. Are you kidding? Have you seen the price of TI stock lately? As far as whether the government intervention is a good thing - (oops this is comp.misc, not rec.armchair.economists...) If this leads to another discussion of economics in comp groups, I hope the posters get TONS of junk-email. >attmail!fmcgee - mark
tainter@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Tainter) (01/11/89)
In article <2542@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: >You don't REALLY believe this do you? I noticed in "EE weekly" a few >days ago that the world market price of 256k DRAM is about 3 bux a chip. >Do you s'pose the Japaneese government is subsidizing the whole damn >world? Or do you maybe think that 3 bux represents the real value of >a DRAM chip manufactured with modern fab lines and techniques? I believe they go for 3 american bucks a pop world wide. When they were selling here for 1.55 they were getting dumped. The current prices are the result of an artificial shortage and price jacking. This may be retaliation for the imposed sanctions, it might also just be the next phase in the Japanese profit taking on DRAM. I am inclined to believe the latter. >As to subsidies, one could also note that the US government subsidizes >almost ALL US industry. Don't believe me? Well consider for a The Japanese gov't dosen't have to subsidize companies. All industry of any significance in Japan is directly or indirectly owned by the seven families and subsidizes new ventures. >John De Armond, WD4OQC ^^^^^^ You do quality control for spray lubricant?
desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (01/14/89)
In article <1875@egvideo.uucp> gws@egvideo.UUCP (Geoff Scully) writes: > >... dumping (ie government subsidization to lower >export prices) [is a] perfectly rotten intervention >force and has nothing to do with "natural" market forces. Dumping has nothing to do with government subsidization. It is a perfectly natural result of an imperfect market - i.e. one where the number of companies < infinity and per-company market share > 0. A farmer cannot "dump" grain on the commodity market - he would go out of business long before other farmers would notice any lowered demand. Similarly, in any perfect competitive market (one where the diffy q.s for demand/price can be proven to reach equilibrium) dumping cannot exist. Since it is obvious by inspection that dumping can exist in certain markets (to give a blatant example, look at how Bell drove many early telcos out of business) the response should be to recognize that these markets are imperfect, and look for realistic solutions rather than re-iterating the same tired neo-classical dogma. Peter Desnoyers
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/14/89)
In article <23910@apple.Apple.COM>, desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes: > > Since it is obvious by inspection that dumping can exist in certain > markets (to give a blatant example, look at how Bell drove many early > telcos out of business) the response should be to recognize that these > markets are imperfect, and look for realistic solutions rather than > re-iterating the same tired neo-classical dogma. (1) With the rampant intervention of politicians and bureaucrats into the economy, it is scarcely accurately to call current dumping a result of market forces. Besides, even if it were, why gripe? Doesn't dumping reduce prices for consumers? (2) Bell had a lot of governmental help in establishing its monopoly. I believe there were at least two cases of Uncle Sam going to court and *forcing* companies to merge with Bell. Also, Bell has been know to hit competitors with antitrust suits when they challenge too strongly. Ask GTE. (Nor is this by any means an uncommon example of the antitrust laws being used by a giant against a smaller firm.) (3) These 'realistic solutions' tend to create rampant inflation, vicious recessions, growing inequality between rich and poor, etc. Societies which move more toward 'the same tired neo-classical dogma" not only grow more propserous, but see that prosperity more evenly distributed. When one looks at the entirely of Human history, one sees that it is the authoritarians who are the conservatives and reactionaries, and the marketeers who are the radicals. Laissez faire, laissez passer. Jeff Daiell INDEPENDENCE FOR TEXAS! -- "You should see me when I'm rested." -- from "Brigadoon"
wyle@solaris.UUCP (Mitchell Wyle) (01/17/89)
>Why should we reject a gift from the Japanese taxpayer?
I don't claim to understand macro-econ better than you, but I'll bite on
this one. The argument goes as follows: MIDI, the taxpayers, and the
corporations of Japan dump drams on us until
1. small, economically efficient US companies lose their ability
to make drams,
2. The *CAPACITY* of the japs rises to the point that their dram
manufacturing infrastructure is much better,
3. Their technology base improves to the point no one can catch their
lead,
4. Their brand-loyalty, customer-contact, repeat-sales business, and
feel for client needs entrenches their own drams, and
5. They have a large enough advantage (via 1-4 above) to maintain
their very large market share.
I don't know if this answer really holds water as it violates some of
the basic principles of capitalism (your original question). I am
having (via paper snail-mail) a debate on this very issue, and am losing.
My thesis has boiled down to the concept of selling *values* as styles,
trends in a free-market system.
Cheers, -Mitch
--
-Mitchell F. Wyle wyle@ethz.uucp
Institut fuer Informationsysteme wyle@inf.ethz.ch
ETH Zentrum / 8092 Zurich, Switzerland +41 1 256 5237walker@ficc.uu.net (Walker Mangum) (01/17/89)
In article <2738@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > result of market forces. Besides, even if it were, why gripe? > Doesn't dumping reduce prices for consumers? Only temporarily! Remember, if it really is "dumping", the purpose is to remove competition from the marketplace. If the dumping is then successful and competition is removed, the prevailing supplier then rules marketplace. The consumer has no choice of supplier. As a consumer, I would much prefer freedom of choice. The problem here is that there are enough short-sighted consumers that don't realize that *they* are the real victims of dumping, so they go for the bait. And bait it is! However, I wholeheartedly agree with (what I presume would be) your position as a libertarian, that no one should be able to PREVENT me from selling ANYTHING at a loss. Although I agree with many of our laws that are based upon what's "good of the public" (for instance, the courts generally don't uphold "non-competition" agreements), I place more value on my individual right to lose my ass, if I choose. Granted, few "dumpers" lose their asses dumping products, since they usually have other means of obtaining profits. While, in the end, the public probably (IMHO) is really the victim of dumping, I believe that the public would suffer *even more* from outside interference with the free marketplace. CAVEAT EMPTOR! Economics be complex stuff. By the way, speaking of public protection, I sure am glad that the government decided to save us all from red dye #2. The number of casualties due to those pernicious red M&M's must have really been something compared to the number due to use of tobacco! -- Walker Mangum | Adytum, Incorporated phone: (713) 333-1509 | 1100 NASA Road One UUCP: uunet!ficc!walker (walker@ficc.uu.net) | Houston, TX 77058 Disclaimer: $#!+ HAPPENS
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/17/89)
In article <2759@ficc.uu.net>, walker@ficc.uu.net (Walker Mangum) writes: > In article <2738@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > > result of market forces. Besides, even if it were, why gripe? > > Doesn't dumping reduce prices for consumers? > > Only temporarily! Remember, if it really is "dumping", the purpose is > to remove competition from the marketplace. If the dumping is then > successful and competition is removed, the prevailing supplier then > rules marketplace. The consumer has no choice of supplier. As a > consumer, I would much prefer freedom of choice. The problem here is > that there are enough short-sighted consumers that don't realize that > *they* are the real victims of dumping, so they go for the bait. And > bait it is! > The lack of competition would only be temporary. First, establishing a complete monopoly, regardless of how low one sets prices, is virtually impossible -- perhaps totally impossible -- without governmental assistance. Second, it one exploited the monopoly to rake it huge profits, those profits would quickly attract new competitors. One prime example of a company realizing this took place earlier this century, when one firm had a monopoly on aluminum -- and kept *lowering* their price. That discouraged competitors, and thus saved the firm expenses on advertising and the like, thus perhaps increasing *net* profits. Jeff Daiell INDEPENDENCE FOR TEXAS! -- "You should see me when I'm rested." -- from "Brigadoon"
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/19/89)
In article <507@solaris.UUCP>, wyle@solaris.UUCP (Mitchell Wyle) writes: > >Why should we reject a gift from the Japanese taxpayer? > > I don't claim to understand macro-econ better than you, but I'll bite on > this one. The argument goes as follows: MIDI, the taxpayers, and the ^^^^ That's MITI, Ministry of International Trade. (Not to be confused with MIDI, a music interface for computers). MITI is the same smart bunch that refused to help a struggling Japanese industry -- automobiles in the 1950s -- because there was no realistic hope of selling Japanese cars abroad. MITI has done a great job of persuading people that it does a great job helping Japanese industry. It's not at all clear that they do. > corporations of Japan dump drams on us until > > 1. small, economically efficient US companies lose their ability > to make drams, Small companies are usually more efficient -- but there are sectors of the economy where significant economies of scale play a significant role. DRAMs would seem to be one of them. > 5. They have a large enough advantage (via 1-4 above) to maintain > their very large market share. There is one very effective way to break someone else's market share -- better products and better prices. But that's harder than hiring legions of lawyers to "solve" the problem of competition. > -Mitchell F. Wyle wyle@ethz.uucp -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie (01/25/89)
In article <24010@amdcad.AMD.COM>, ching@pepsi.amd.com (Mike Ching) writes: > In article <2357@cuuxb.ATT.COM> fmcgee@cuuxb.UUCP (Frank W. McGee) writes: > >In article <6175@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> urjlew@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: > >> > >>The US embargo is a knee-jerk reaction not well thought out > >>and ineffective. THis is not to rule out embargoes in general, > >>or even an embargo against Japanese electronics if properly > >>coupled with other steps. > > > >I second this opinion. It's been almost a year since the price of DRAM > >went through the roof, and there still aren't any cheap US made chips. > >I'd support the action if it had actually helped US industry, but > >instead it has helped no one. I think it's a classic example of the US > >government stepping into a situation they knew nothing about, and > >making it much worse than it originally was. > > > >As for the situation being "dangerous" because of defense reasons (ie, > >DoD is dependent upon far eastern chip makers) I think that statement > >doesn't hold much water either. If the US couldn't re-tool to make > >DRAMS in an emergency in under a few months, it has a lot worse > >problems than chip dumping. > > > >-- > >Frank McGee > >Tier 3 Indirect Channel Sales Support > >attmail!fmcgee > > > I agree that the governments actions didn't help the DRAM situation but > the action also included EPROMs which was the next target market for the > Japanese. Semiconductor manufacturers lobbied for government help to protect > their future, not to regain a lost market. The US has "a lot worse problems > than chip dumping" by your definition because there is no way we could > retool in under a few months to produce DRAMs, especially since the precision > tool market is now dominated by the Japanese. We Americans are so inefficient > and incompetetant that we will eventually be relegated to jobs in the service > industries. > > mike ching > Disclaimer: My opinion is probably shared by my employer.