NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/misc/consumer/21664

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-07 | 9.9 KB

Xref: sparky misc.consumers:21664 soc.culture.japan:13276 sci.electronics:22189 soc.culture.african.american:13554 misc.education:5681 misc.entrepreneurs:3872
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,soc.culture.japan,sci.electronics,soc.culture.african.american,misc.education,misc.entrepreneurs
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!csn!tpsrd!tps.COM!thomasd
From: [e-mail] (Thomas W. Day)
Subject: Re: DOES AMERICA SAY YES TO JAPAN? - Off track!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Software)
Organization: TPS
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:30:37 GMT
Lines: 195

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Fester) writes:

>Well, then you could have responded to the earlier Pampers, MacDonalds, Toys-
>R-Us, Coca-Cola, Dow-Corning, etc, examples. Then there's Sun, Microsoft,
>Apple-MacIntosh, Boeing, Hughes (they make satellites, Mr Day), and all those
>other "low tech" things that the Japanese buy just because they pity us.

I could have if I had seen those examples.  How does anyone buy Toys-R-Us,
isn't that a retail outlet selling mostly Japanese made toys?  What's your
point?  Do you think the whole country is going to exist on those examples?
Haven't you noticed the down sizing of even Microsoft, let alone IBM, GM,
Ford, Dodge, and the non-existence of companies that were giants just a few
decades ago?

>Harley owners (I am not one myself) report some of the highest levels of
>satisfaction in the industry (next to BMWs). So, are you now going to start
>telling customers what they SHOULD want? Isn't that how American businesses
>got into trouble in the first place, and how the Japanese companies took so
>much of our markets; by telling customers what they SHOULD want?

That's one of the ways.  The other way "American businesses got into
trouble" was by ignoring all of the markets they didn't have the skills to
participate in, like small cars.  I'm not saying that Harley should ignore
their present business, but they are seriously trapped in a yuppie market
that has limits.

>True. And the Japanese cannot compete with Harley.

Not true, all of the Japanese manufacturers have bikes competitive with
Harleys products and they do take some market share from Harley.  That
doesn't go both ways.

> (and Harley is now the #1 seller of large displacement bikes in the
>world)

Do *you* have a source for that statistic and what is the definition of
"large displacement bikes?  Remember that a 600/750cc Honda/Yamaha/Kawasaki
can produce more horsepower/torque than a 1200cc Harley.  That is one of the
pits Harley fell into when they conned Congress into protecting them in the
80s, by adding a tarrif to bikes with more than 700ccs.  Japan began making
big bikes from small displacements, bikes that produced more performance
with less engine displacement (In words as "little tiny" as I can come by
for big difficult issues.)

>Now, in little tiny words,

Ones you can understand?

>please explain WHY a company should move into
>an area with LOWER profits, when they cannot keep up with market demand in
>their particular niche (which they dominate).

That is exactly the attitude of the American auto manufacturers in 1958 when
Volkswagon came to town.  If/when the market shifts what will they sell?
This is what happened to Detroit in the 70s, the market they claimed would
come back to them left forever.

>This is true; they make none of those things. They can't keep up with the
>demand for what they DO make.

Is that because of limited manufacturing ability/resources or because huge
growth in those areas still can't keep up with demand?

>Please back-up your repeated references to quality aspersions. The Harley
>owners I know seem quite pleased with the quality of bike Harley is producing.
>As for existing merely for "keepsake" value, why doesn't some marketting
>genius get the rights to Indian, and make a bundle selling those?

By quality, I mean a bike that can go for miles with minimal
maintenance, Harley has never had that kind of reputation.  I mean a
bike that is competitive on the track.  Harley has to limit
participation in the few races they are able to compete in.  I mean a
bike that is reasonably priced for the delivered performance.  It is easy to
find a similar machine for significantly less money than a Harley, $3-4k
less.

Indian might live again except for start up costs, probably.  I'd
suspect they would sell a "bundle" of bikes if they could produce the
product.  The problem would be the same as Harley will face, if they only
produce "replicas of the past" their lifetime is limited.

>>effect, they are making the same bike they have been making for 50 years
>>with minor "improvements."  They are in the same status vehicle group as
>>Rolls Royce.

>Spoken like a non-biker! Now, Mr Day, in itty-bitty words, why is this BAD, and
>how does it mean that Harley is not REALLY competing? (Did Harley REALLY make
>belt-drive, Daytona Specials 50 years ago? Gee whiz!)

A non-biker who has been riding bikes since 1963, the last decade Harley
was competitive on any track in America.  Would you like to race, pal?  Be
warned that I think of racing as war, the same attitude Japan applies to
manufacturing.

Ooh wee!  A belt drive.  Wow, what a major achievement!  The motor
vibrates so badly that they need a shock absorbing drive system to provide
a miniscule amount of rear wheel control.  I'm impressed.

I don't think you want to get into the engineering aspect of motorcycling.
You don't seem to have a clue.  So I'm off of that tack from here out.

>Also, Honda (that biking giant) is scaling BACK its production and model
>introduction in Japan.

Because of a market crash in the early 80s and liability crisis that is
driving everyone out of motorcycling, they have been scaling back their
American motorcycle sales projections since at least 1983.  All of the
Japanese companies are doing that.  Why do you think they got into cars?

>(In fact, Kawasaki is aggressively attacking them, and
>Honda has reported losses in its biking section.) BMW has lost money (not a
>lot) on its bikes the past couple years. Harley has made money and is
>expanding.

Would you mind telling me where you got your statistics?  I'm not doubting
them, it's just hard to get specific data on Japanese manufacturing
quantities and profitability.

>The FACT remains that Harley IS making money, LOTS of money

The point is, for how long?  Or are they just another American company that
doesn't even have a 5 year plan?

>??? Then explain why they are a) the #1 seller of large displacement bikes
>in the world and b) they got the Japanese to change THEIR internal restrictions.

There's that stat again.  They got Japan to change internal restrictions by
offering to lower ours.

>number 2). And why is it that WE have money to spend on luxeries, due to
>our natural resources, but other places with natural resources do NOT (with the
>exception of the Middle East)?

Our ancestors use their natural resources well.  We are living off of the
fruits of their efforts.  But now, we are spending our resources in similar
ways as the Middle East.

>And finally, we STILL have the largest manufacturing section in the world.
>OK, not quite true. Mainland China has more people employed in the
>manufacturing section. Ours is simply the most productive.

What is the "largest manufacturing section in the world?"  Does that mean we
have the most people employed in manufacturing?  The most productive people
in manufacturing?  What is the point of a claim like that?

>And please get back to THE POINT, Mr Day. IF WE ARE GOING TO BE DRIVEN OUT
>OF EXISTENCE AND INTO SUCH A BLEAK FUTURE, WHO WILL THE JAPANESE SELL THEIR
>GOODS TO, THEN?

One possiblity might be themselves here.  As they buy up our real estate and
profitable business, they are moving here in droves.  Take a look at Hawaii
and California and the midwestern ranching areas.


>News flash: 30% was what the national average was in the Great Depression. Now,
>if you have EVIDENCE that the 30% figure is correct, please post it. In the
>spirit of the little anecdote you present above, my sister in Illinois and
>one of my best friends in Indiana both say things are getting better.

The Great Depression figure was mostly undoctored.  I only said I don't
believe the current figures are reliable and explained why.  If you know
what the undoctored figure is, print it.  Better than what?  It looks like a
war zone in Chicago, in my lifetime Indianapolis has always looked dead,
North Bend is on federal relief holiday.

>And completely OUT of the spirit of your little anecdotes, the unemployment
>rates in parts of (esp the former East) Germany exceed 30%. Even before
>reunification, 10 -12% unemployment was the norm in West Germany.

I hope you are smart enough to be nervous about that.


>Now please post how this is better in Europe, or we shall be sorely tempted
>to "void" your points. Show us how France, Germany, Britain, and any other
>European nations of your choosing have it better.

What company are you queen of?  "We," right.
How would the opposite of your evidence help?  If we are all sinking,
that won't make for any happier a future than if only America drops.  If
you haven't seen statistics listing America standings in infant
mortality, life expectancy, emergency care, and general health.  I will
watch the New England Journal of Medicine for their next posting.

>We're waiting.

As usual, with your eyes closed.

>I see. So, people who ARE working are not really working? Well, this IS
>irrefutable. Please post any DATA you feel IS relevant. Or do you simply "know
>what you know"?

You really don't believe in under-employment, do you?  I've seen you fight
this battle on the NET before.  I'll watch for the next post on that for you
too.