Jeep's two-way road to China

  • Article by: ROY F. GROW
  • Updated: November 1, 2012 - 7:26 PM

The campaigns misrepresent what has been a very successful joint venture. I know because I was on the edge of the negotiations that led to AMC-Jeep becoming the first China/USA auto joint venture in the early 1980s.

  • 38
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jpcooperNov. 1, 12 7:46 PM

Roy, Thanks for clearing this up. Basically your story states that through the 70,s, 80's 90's all Jeeps sold in China through various agreements were all 100% made in the US by US labor! Now that the Jeep ownership has decided/announced to manufacture Jeeps in China tosell in China that means that the US will not manufacture any Jeeps to ship to China.......Romney was correct again!

10
63
jdlellis1Nov. 1, 12 7:53 PM

President Obama touts his success bailing out GM and Chrysler. Has anyone considered that Ford Motor Company was not part of the deal? The reason was that several years ago, Ford recognized the chaning nature of the global automative business and took the inititive, to make the necessary changes to compete. Today, Ford's market capitilization (stock price times outstanding shares) exceeds both GM and Chrysler. It's vehcile line up also exceeds that of GM and Chrysler. By the way, GM is worth less today than when the bailout occured placing additional fees in the taxpayers lap. The forced bankruptcy was government over reach at it maximum as contracts were negated as stakeholders first in line for a bankruptcy were negated. The government told a public company who would sit on their Board of Directors. Those who buy off on President Obama's great accomplishment should ask why was GM and Chrysler rewarded for poor decision making?

19
53
mwibachNov. 1, 12 8:10 PM

Wow! Real facts and real insight. Thanks for the refreshing breath of fresh air in this toxic campaign season.

33
5
choochoo12Nov. 1, 12 8:23 PM

These vehicles COULD (and many say should) be built in America and exported. But they are not. Why? Is it because of transportation costs? No. It costs hundreds of millions to build a factory overseas and it is difficult to manage operations and maintain quality from afar. Or could it be because of taxes? In China's economic development zone (where most exporters operate), taxes are much less than in the United States. So for every $1 in pre-tax profit, you can KEEP an extra 20 cents of what you earned by moving your production to China. Makes sense.

10
29
furguson11Nov. 1, 12 8:51 PM

My Cherokee has a Renault brake cylinder, Japanese auto tranny (asien -warner same as an old Toyota Tacoma), and a rambler motor. It 's half metric and half English threaded. It has a Chinese copy of a flowmaster muffler. Welcome to the international world

36
0
goferfanzNov. 1, 1210:34 PM

Alas, the only citizens eventually losing 30-50 billion in the GM bailout will be--the Americans. Or, did I miss the Chinese ponying up their money? Odious is perhaps the right word in the part of the world...............

11
30
mcjoe1Nov. 2, 12 1:19 AM

If it wasn't for the auto bailout, there would likely be no Jeep left at all. No investor in the world aside from the US government would've given Chrysler a $10.5 billion loan in the middle of a credit crunch. It's crazy for Romney to criticize Jeep's arrangements in China, where if he had it his way there would be no Jeep at all.

27
6
danadogNov. 2, 12 3:04 AM

This is some good background information, but please, it's not the "campaigns" that are making misrepresentations, it's one 'campaign,' the Romney campaign. The author states that Romney should "speak up." What, speak out against his own ads? He's running false ads that even the execs at Chrysler say are inaccurate. The author goes on to state that the president has somehow also "twisted" the story but doesn't offer any proof of that. Enough of the false equivalence.

28
7
Willy53Nov. 2, 12 5:26 AM

Don't tell me about some high minded purpose of international communication, cooperation and understanding. American Corporations go to China for two reasons: cheap labor, lax environmental regulation and low taxes. In the process they exploit as many people as possible and buy as many elected officials as they can. Anyone believing the logic in this editorial has their head in the sand. Exporting US manufacturing taking jobs, taxes and middle class futures with it, without exacting a toll when it returns is economic suicide as well as wealth redistribution. CEO's make out like bandits while workers in the US see falling wages, fewer jobs and reduced benefits. Make no mistake, we must start erecting tariffs that penalize those who take their business out of the country and expect their products to come back in without heavy taxation. This will not discourage business. This will encourage means of production to remain in the US. End of story.

18
4
Willy53Nov. 2, 12 5:30 AM

ChooChoo, you can pollute and exploit labor in China, something I know you don't care about. This should not be an option, taking business elsewhere and exporting back into the country without penalty. China's pollution is the world's rise in sea level. There is a very real cost to industrial production without regulation. Tax the crap out of products made by AMerican companies in foreign locations. They do not produce those goods in a vaccum, there is a real cost. Seen the news lately? Do you understand sea level will rise a foot in the next two decades?

17
5

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT