Big 3 blows it again, Japs eating their lunch

Doug wrote:
>
>
> My old '87 Honda Accord, while showing some rust (I keep it as a
> backup car) has an engine that runs like a watch at 180,000 miles.
> A friend's Camry is similar as are most that I know.

89 Honda Accord here, daily driver with 238,000 miles and no sign of
stopping any time soon.


>
> I hope my 2002 Caravan does as well...
>

I've had lots of Caravans that went well over 200,000 miles.

I think that this is just another case of brand loyalty and the natural
but irrational human desire to be better than the other guy. History is
full of good cars, bad cars, and in between cars. I don't think any
company or nation has a monopoly on good or bad cars. I wouldn't take a
Neon if you gave it to me because it's a piece of crap. But I like the
Caravan. So is Chrysler a bad car maker or a good one?

I think that people just like to complain.

DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:53:07 GMT, who > wrote:
>
> Don't blame the worker...he's just getting what he can get to survive,
> and GM and Ford's management were delusional enough to go along.

It would be hard to determine whether unuin labor or stupid management
is the bigger problem in the American automotive industry. I worked for
a short time in a union shop about 15 years ago. They were the laziest
bunch of worthless idiots I've ever met. Incidentally, we were not auto
workers, we were aircraft mechanics represented by the Teamsters union,
believe it or not. What a joke. I don't trust union leadership as far
as I can throw them. The hardest work they ever did was in their effort
to make sure nobody ever did any real work, and they stood in the way of
anything that was good for the company or the aircraft. In one case,
management fired an incompetent mechanic three times and the Teamsters
had him reinstated, until management finally gave up. Guess what, the
company went out of business and we all lost our jobs. Yay union! Of
course, management at that company was not without blame. They used to
throw man-hours at a job thinking that they could get it done faster
with more mechanics. They would regularly assign 6 mechanics on one
shift to put panels in the baggage bin of a 737, even though only two
men could fit in there and get any work done. That's like asking 9
women to have a baby in one month. As far as I can tell, the worst
offender was the union, which actively encouraged everybody to do only 2
hours of work in an 8 hour shift.


> And just remember this: If it weren't for the UAW and Doug Fraser
> sitting on Chrysler's board, there wouldn't be a Chrysler ANYTHING
> today. The bankers, Wall Streeters and Republipedoes in Washington
> all wanted Chrysler to go into bankruptcy and liquidatation...or don't
> you remember that part?


Who says we needed to keep Chrysler around? Did you ever wonder what
happened to the real American dream? That's the one where if you don't
like the way things are you take the initiative to build a better
company and a better product yourself. Why is it that laborers would
prefer to make rules that say somebody else has to pay them a fortune,
rather than build their own car factory and do it the way they think it
should be done? We would be better off with 20 car manufacturers rather
than just the Big 3. Figure out why it is that that doesn't happen, and
I think you'll be closer to what the real problem is in this country.
You'll likely find that it has been made impossible to get started in
heavy industry because of collusion between existing companies and
various government agencies. We would be better served by addressing
this issue rather than concerning ourselves with the ridiculous labor
agreements, management decisions, and business precedents in existing
heavy industries.

Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> >
> >
> > My old '87 Honda Accord, while showing some rust (I keep it as a
> > backup car) has an engine that runs like a watch at 180,000 miles.
> > A friend's Camry is similar as are most that I know.
>
> 89 Honda Accord here, daily driver with 238,000 miles and no sign of
> stopping any time soon.
>
>
> >
> > I hope my 2002 Caravan does as well...
> >
>
> I've had lots of Caravans that went well over 200,000 miles.
>
> I think that this is just another case of brand loyalty and the natural
> but irrational human desire to be better than the other guy. History is
> full of good cars, bad cars, and in between cars. I don't think any
> company or nation has a monopoly on good or bad cars. I wouldn't take a
> Neon if you gave it to me because it's a piece of crap. But I like the
> Caravan. So is Chrysler a bad car maker or a good one?
>
> I think that people just like to complain.

I agree. The Camry and Accord owners that I referred to in an eariler
post, got fed up with the quality problems of the American cars back in
the late 1970's and early 1980's, so they switched to Japanese and have
never given American vehicles another chance. I still see a lot of
Chrysler minivans on the road from the begining models through the
mid-1990's.

I bought a Dodge Stratus over a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry because
the price was better.

-KM

On 25 Oct 2006 12:54:53 -0700, "
> wrote:

>I agree. The Camry and Accord owners that I referred to in an eariler
>post, got fed up with the quality problems of the American cars back in
>the late 1970's and early 1980's, so they switched to Japanese and have
>never given American vehicles another chance.<snip>

Exactly. It's a maxim of marketing that a ****ed off customer
requires about nine times more expenditure in advertising and "give
backs" to win back after being treated shabbily or being sold junk
than a "new" customer. AT&T learned that the hard way, and it was
their downfall.

> I still see a lot of
>Chrysler minivans on the road from the begining models through the
>mid-1990's. <snip>

Seen yesterday while shopping: An original T115 Caravan, still
plodding along. Clear coat was almost all gone, but it was still
soldiering on and seemed to be running just fine. I see those a lot,
see K-cars much less often, and rarely see an F-body...but I see them
now and then, too.

>I bought a Dodge Stratus over a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry because
>the price was better. <snip>

Another mistaken paradigm of American buyers is that Japanese makes
cost less. They certainly do not, especially Hondas now. The
Japanese know how this customer-supplier relationship works and know
very well how customers are "programmed" (they should...we taught them
how to do it) and are riding the high price wave as long as they can.
Once Ford or GM starts to fight back in earnest, they'll engage in a
price war similar to what GM and Ford got into in the early 1950s. It
was that price war that almost killed off Chrysler then, almost killed
off Packard, drove Nash and Hudson into a protective AMC, and woke
Chrysler management up to the need for Virgil Exner's styling excesses
and their superior V8s, and it kept them afloat long enough until they
could really start to fight back in the '60s. With Toyota and Honda
being cash-rich, I don't think the current Ford or GM has the cash on
hand to win such a war of attrition without getting into serious debt,
with the attendant "junk bond" status of their short term debt rating.
GM's already there now, with Ford right behind them.

Another fly in the ointment in this type of war is the Koreans, who
are underselling everybody with dubious, but cheap, vehicles. If the
Chinese get into the act with the Chery sub-subcompact (and word is
they will), it's all over for the low end of the market, and GM and
Ford will be squeezed in the middle with no market.

Instead of concentrating on fighting this economic war front with the
Asians, our dear dyslexic moron president and his administration
preferred instead to go into Iraq to show Daddy that Junior can do
whatever he wants!

Back to the Stratus, I have a neighbor with one. His previous car was
a Honda Accord, and he couldn't justify the price of a new one over
the Stratus. So far, 125K miles, a TCM flashing, and that's been all
that he's had to do outside of normal maintenance. His Accord had, as
he put it, "body integrity problems."

"Robbie and Laura Reynolds" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> DeserTBoB wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:53:07 GMT, who > wrote:
> >
> > Don't blame the worker...he's just getting what he can get to survive,
> > and GM and Ford's management were delusional enough to go along.
>
> It would be hard to determine whether unuin labor or stupid management
> is the bigger problem in the American automotive industry. I worked for
> a short time in a union shop about 15 years ago. They were the laziest
> bunch of worthless idiots I've ever met. Incidentally, we were not auto
> workers, we were aircraft mechanics represented by the Teamsters union,
> believe it or not. What a joke. I don't trust union leadership as far
> as I can throw them. The hardest work they ever did was in their effort
> to make sure nobody ever did any real work, and they stood in the way of
> anything that was good for the company or the aircraft. In one case,
> management fired an incompetent mechanic three times and the Teamsters
> had him reinstated, until management finally gave up. Guess what, the
> company went out of business and we all lost our jobs. Yay union! Of
> course, management at that company was not without blame. They used to
> throw man-hours at a job thinking that they could get it done faster
> with more mechanics. They would regularly assign 6 mechanics on one
> shift to put panels in the baggage bin of a 737, even though only two
> men could fit in there and get any work done. That's like asking 9
> women to have a baby in one month. As far as I can tell, the worst
> offender was the union, which actively encouraged everybody to do only 2
> hours of work in an 8 hour shift.
>
>
> > And just remember this: If it weren't for the UAW and Doug Fraser
> > sitting on Chrysler's board, there wouldn't be a Chrysler ANYTHING
> > today. The bankers, Wall Streeters and Republipedoes in Washington
> > all wanted Chrysler to go into bankruptcy and liquidatation...or don't
> > you remember that part?
>

>
> Who says we needed to keep Chrysler around? Did you ever wonder what
> happened to the real American dream? That's the one where if you don't
> like the way things are you take the initiative to build a better
> company and a better product yourself. Why is it that laborers would
> prefer to make rules that say somebody else has to pay them a fortune,
> rather than build their own car factory and do it the way they think it
> should be done? We would be better off with 20 car manufacturers rather
> than just the Big 3. Figure out why it is that that doesn't happen, and
> I think you'll be closer to what the real problem is in this country.

I agree, the same problem exists in MOST industries, however I can
tell you what the real problem is.

> You'll likely find that it has been made impossible to get started in
> heavy industry because of collusion between existing companies and
> various government agencies. We would be better served by addressing
> this issue rather than concerning ourselves with the ridiculous labor
> agreements, management decisions, and business precedents in existing
> heavy industries.

No, that won't help. The single reason that we have so much
consolidation among industries is the fault of the consumer being,
in a word, ****ing stupid ignorant and happy to be that way.

Most people do not know much about how cars work and don't
want to lift a finger to educate themselves. As long as that continues
the ignorant consumers will buy the most popular sellers, figuring
that they are not going to make a mistake buying "what everyone
else buys"

If you take a look at industries where people DO actually take the
time to learn about the product, you see a radically different picture,
with very healthy competition. For example, the beer industry has
much competition because people take the time to try out different
beers until they find ones they like. The movie industry has hundred
of studios competing against each other because the consumers take
the time to learn about movies. The fitness industry had a lot of
competition because people will learn about different gyms and
workout places. There are thousands of different competing home
builders because people will take the time to learn about differences
in homes they buy. And so on and so on.

You are dead right that unhealthy industries do not have a lot
of competition. But, competition can only happen when people
are willing to spend money on products from many different
competitors, and they are only willing to do this when they are
informed consumers. And, consumers choose to be informed
or not. The majority of consumers have chosen not to be
informed about products like cars, gasoline, milk, and so on,
that is why there's not a lot of competition in those products,
and what competition there is, is heavily weighted on price.

Ted

> >I know many people that have bought Camrys for the past 20 plus years.
> >They are hard to beat for reliability. <snip>

In article >,
DeserTBoB > wrote:
>
> For around 90-100K miles, yes...then, you simply throw them away.

You know no more than the stupid mgnt of the Big 3.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:59:08 -0800, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> wrote:

>> > And just remember this: If it weren't for the UAW and Doug Fraser
>> > sitting on Chrysler's board, there wouldn't be a Chrysler ANYTHING
>> > today. The bankers, Wall Streeters and Republipedoes in Washington
>> > all wanted Chrysler to go into bankruptcy and liquidatation...or don't
>> > you remember that part?
>>
>> Who says we needed to keep Chrysler around? <snip>

Their shareholders, their employees, their customers, their
suppliers...just the fabric of society in general...had Chrysler been
allowed to go under, as the "laissez-faire" RayGun right wingtards and
their pals at GM wanted it to do, the First RayGun Recession would've
be a helluva lot worse than it was, and it was bad enough as it was,
even worse than the Nixon Recession of '74.

Why don't you read up on how RayGun handler and stock market
manipulator Donald Regan held up Chrysler back in '83 for stock
warrants? Part of that was Iacocca's fault for not catching the
warrant problem before it became a problem, something he admitted
later. However, he was rightly furious at the RayGun Rightards for
holding up a recovering corporation for $331M in windfall profits that
Regan and other no-goods in the RayGun Adminstration used to "pad"
RayGun's dizzying deficit numbers. Regan's response to Iacocca was
"We don't care about results. We're ideologically opposed to this
bailout." What an idiot, and what idiots Americans were for electing
that doddering old fool, not once, but twice.

>> You ever wonder what
>> happened to the real American dream? That's the one where if you don't
>> like the way things are you take the initiative to build a better
>> company and a better product yourself. Why is it that laborers would
>> prefer to make rules that say somebody else has to pay them a fortune,
>> rather than build their own car factory and do it the way they think it
>> should be done? <snip>

A truly stupid statement. Ever hear of "division of labor?"

>> We would be better off with 20 car manufacturers rather
>> than just the Big 3. <snip>

Obviously that doesn't work, either, as the last of the "independents"
was gobbled up by Chrysler in the '80s, and that was an amalgam of
failing smaller independents that came together at the same time that
another failing independent, Studebaker, gobbled up a failed
independent, Packard.

>> Figure out why it is that that doesn't happen, and
>> I think you'll be closer to what the real problem is in this country. <snip>

Keep deluding yourself.

>No, that won't help. The single reason that we have so much
>consolidation among industries is the fault of the consumer being,
>in a word, ****ing stupid ignorant and happy to be that way. <snip>

Much truth to that. That's why so many idiots shop for Chinese made
crap at Wally-Fart. They're stupid, and don't know any better, and
don't have the brains to improve. Also, note the big nose dive
Wally-Fart has been taking, along with the bad news on same store
sales. Reason? A lot of the 'tards who shop at Wally-Fart are tax
cheats in the "underground economy," such as unemployed eBayers. Now
that the whole eBay thing is collapsing, they've lost their tax free
income stream, and can't go buy the crap at Wally-Fart. Sweet
revenge, indeed...served cold..

>Most people do not know much about how cars work and don't
>want to lift a finger to educate themselves. As long as that continues
>the ignorant consumers will buy the most popular sellers, figuring
>that they are not going to make a mistake buying "what everyone
>else buys"
>
>If you take a look at industries where people DO actually take the
>time to learn about the product, you see a radically different picture,
>with very healthy competition. For example, the beer industry has
>much competition because people take the time to try out different
>beers until they find ones they like. The movie industry has hundred
>of studios competing against each other because the consumers take
>the time to learn about movies. The fitness industry had a lot of
>competition because people will learn about different gyms and
>workout places. There are thousands of different competing home
>builders because people will take the time to learn about differences
>in homes they buy. And so on and so on. <snip>

These are all pretty big stretches made to make a point, but the point
is well taken that of all the world's consumers en masse, Americans
are about the dumbest.
>
>You are dead right that unhealthy industries do not have a lot
>of competition. <snip>

Like the aerospace industry, but that's forcibly supported by
unwilling taxpayers beat over the head with fear by shill politicians,
like the one in the Oval Office now. If US aerospace companies
weren't on the taxpayers' tits, they'd collapse in about six months.

>But, competition can only happen when people
>are willing to spend money on products from many different
>competitors, and they are only willing to do this when they are
>informed consumers. And, consumers choose to be informed
>or not. The majority of consumers have chosen not to be
>informed about products like cars, gasoline, milk, and so on,
>that is why there's not a lot of competition in those products,
>and what competition there is, is heavily weighted on price.

Milk's milk. The only competition there is from soy products, which
ARE making a big dent in milk producers' sales due to informed
consumers. However, the same consumers who will take the time to
learn about benefits of soy won't spend the time necessary to figure
out which computer's motherboard is better than another, or which car
is better than another, because it's "too much work." Sometimes
"dumb" is just another expression of "lazy."

This is even happening among more educated, more intelligent consumers
now, due to the Korporate Amerikan drive toward abolishing the 40 hour
week, the 8 hour day, and adoption of a workaholic culture similar to
that in Japan. This is just management being greedy. Any number of
studies show that such "workaholic" behavior doesn't boost true
productivity at all, but it makes the "numbers" look good, the very
same numbers the goverment uses to hype the supposedly great
productivity gains theUS supposedly made in the last 20 years.

DeserTBoB wrote:

>> You ever wonder what
>> happened to the real American dream? That's the one where if you don't
>> like the way things are you take the initiative to build a better
>> company and a better product yourself. Why is it that laborers would
>> prefer to make rules that say somebody else has to pay them a fortune,
>> rather than build their own car factory and do it the way they think it
>> should be done? <snip>

> A truly stupid statement. Ever hear of "division of labor?"


Yeah I've heard of it. What about it? I think it's a great idea to run
one's own business. I'm starting one now myself, because I think it
would be stupid to wait for somebody else to get me where I want to go
in life. Referring to "division of labor" as if it were some treasured
way of life is stupid, in my opinion.

Here's an even more interesting take on the subject of stupidity and
division of labor. You go on and on about how stupid everybody else is,
which is an intriguing thing in itself. How did you get to be so much
smarter than the rest of us? Was it nutrition, or superior genetics, or
what? One way or another, you seem to think you're several times
smarter than everybody else in America. But you just might be
mistaken. What most hardheaded folks like you don't understand is that
those who disagree with you are not actually stupid, they just don't
agree. But back to the point at hand, regarding stupidity and the
division of labor. A division of labor promotes ignorance. People who
are so stupid that they don't know what a spark plug is are generally
very good at something else, which is generally what they do for a
living. In other words, they aren't really stupid. It is obvious to me
that a nation of renaissance men and women would be much more healthy,
wealthy and wise than a nation of drones who are all good at one thing
each. Naturally, I have done my share of single specialty jobs, but I
wouldn't want to stay with any of them for more than a few years.
Division of labor and specializing has given rise to our current
culture, wherein you are not supposed to question "experts". Hence, a
silly bureaucrat at the DFS can take your children away from you based
on their assessment of your parenting qualifications, many otherwise
intelligent people are at the mercy of the car mechanic and his $60/hr
shop rate, we're not supposed to question our expert "leaders" in the
White House (funny how they used to be called public servants), and
you're not supposed to be able to get a good job unless you cough up
thousands of dollars to give to the expert intellectuals at the
university for a diploma. Just do your job and don't ask any
questions. That's what the division of labor is all about. Or would
you rather people be better informed? Generally it doesn't tend to
happen both ways at the same time.

Now I suppose it's your turn to quote some drivel about Iaccoca from his
book, unless you have me in your killfile, in which case you'll have to
wait until somebody replies to me, and then you can tell me how stupid I
am.

Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:
> DeserTBoB wrote:
>
>
>>>You ever wonder what
>>>happened to the real American dream? That's the one where if you don't
>>>like the way things are you take the initiative to build a better
>>>company and a better product yourself. Why is it that laborers would
>>>prefer to make rules that say somebody else has to pay them a fortune,
>>>rather than build their own car factory and do it the way they think it
>>>should be done? <snip>
>
>
>>A truly stupid statement. Ever hear of "division of labor?"
>
>
>
> Yeah I've heard of it. What about it? I think it's a great idea to run
> one's own business. I'm starting one now myself, because I think it
> would be stupid to wait for somebody else to get me where I want to go
> in life. Referring to "division of labor" as if it were some treasured
> way of life is stupid, in my opinion.
>
> Here's an even more interesting take on the subject of stupidity and
> division of labor. You go on and on about how stupid everybody else is,
> which is an intriguing thing in itself. How did you get to be so much
> smarter than the rest of us? Was it nutrition, or superior genetics, or
> what? One way or another, you seem to think you're several times
> smarter than everybody else in America. But you just might be
> mistaken. What most hardheaded folks like you don't understand is that
> those who disagree with you are not actually stupid, they just don't
> agree. But back to the point at hand, regarding stupidity and the
> division of labor. A division of labor promotes ignorance. People who
> are so stupid that they don't know what a spark plug is are generally
> very good at something else, which is generally what they do for a
> living. In other words, they aren't really stupid. It is obvious to me
> that a nation of renaissance men and women would be much more healthy,
> wealthy and wise than a nation of drones who are all good at one thing
> each. Naturally, I have done my share of single specialty jobs, but I
> wouldn't want to stay with any of them for more than a few years.
> Division of labor and specializing has given rise to our current
> culture, wherein you are not supposed to question "experts". Hence, a
> silly bureaucrat at the DFS can take your children away from you based
> on their assessment of your parenting qualifications, many otherwise
> intelligent people are at the mercy of the car mechanic and his $60/hr
> shop rate, we're not supposed to question our expert "leaders" in the
> White House (funny how they used to be called public servants), and
> you're not supposed to be able to get a good job unless you cough up
> thousands of dollars to give to the expert intellectuals at the
> university for a diploma. Just do your job and don't ask any
> questions. That's what the division of labor is all about. Or would
> you rather people be better informed? Generally it doesn't tend to
> happen both ways at the same time.
>
> Now I suppose it's your turn to quote some drivel about Iaccoca from his
> book, unless you have me in your killfile, in which case you'll have to
> wait until somebody replies to me, and then you can tell me how stupid I
> am.


GO ROBBIE!!

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:
> DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> >> You ever wonder what
> >> happened to the real American dream? That's the one where if you don't
> >> like the way things are you take the initiative to build a better
> >> company and a better product yourself. Why is it that laborers would
> >> prefer to make rules that say somebody else has to pay them a fortune,
> >> rather than build their own car factory and do it the way they think it
> >> should be done? <snip>
>
> > A truly stupid statement. Ever hear of "division of labor?"
>
>
> Yeah I've heard of it. What about it? I think it's a great idea to run
> one's own business. I'm starting one now myself, because I think it
> would be stupid to wait for somebody else to get me where I want to go
> in life. Referring to "division of labor" as if it were some treasured
> way of life is stupid, in my opinion.
>
> Here's an even more interesting take on the subject of stupidity and
> division of labor. You go on and on about how stupid everybody else is,
> which is an intriguing thing in itself. How did you get to be so much
> smarter than the rest of us? Was it nutrition, or superior genetics, or
> what? One way or another, you seem to think you're several times
> smarter than everybody else in America. But you just might be
> mistaken. What most hardheaded folks like you don't understand is that
> those who disagree with you are not actually stupid, they just don't
> agree. But back to the point at hand, regarding stupidity and the
> division of labor. A division of labor promotes ignorance. People who
> are so stupid that they don't know what a spark plug is are generally
> very good at something else, which is generally what they do for a
> living. In other words, they aren't really stupid. It is obvious to me
> that a nation of renaissance men and women would be much more healthy,
> wealthy and wise than a nation of drones who are all good at one thing
> each. Naturally, I have done my share of single specialty jobs, but I
> wouldn't want to stay with any of them for more than a few years.
> Division of labor and specializing has given rise to our current
> culture, wherein you are not supposed to question "experts". Hence, a
> silly bureaucrat at the DFS can take your children away from you based
> on their assessment of your parenting qualifications, many otherwise
> intelligent people are at the mercy of the car mechanic and his $60/hr
> shop rate, we're not supposed to question our expert "leaders" in the
> White House (funny how they used to be called public servants), and
> you're not supposed to be able to get a good job unless you cough up
> thousands of dollars to give to the expert intellectuals at the
> university for a diploma. Just do your job and don't ask any
> questions. That's what the division of labor is all about. Or would
> you rather people be better informed? Generally it doesn't tend to
> happen both ways at the same time.
>
> Now I suppose it's your turn to quote some drivel about Iaccoca from his
> book, unless you have me in your killfile, in which case you'll have to
> wait until somebody replies to me, and then you can tell me how stupid I
> am.

excellent reply Robbie- keep in mind, "DeserTBob" is an unemployed
liberal democrat on SSI, after his job was axed, and outsourced by Bell
Telephone. He was a loser "phone guy" you'd call, when you had no dial
tone and your phone didn't work. So instead of paying his leech
benefits and wages, they axed him. He deserved it, because in reality,
HE'S stupid. But notice how he twists it to be the system's fault.
the Boob has a degree from UCLA, in what we'll never know, perhaps in
Gay Sex Technology- but there's not much call for that in the paying
economy. So he sits and waits for his monthly checks, and trolls the
net. Boob is the textbook idiot extraordinaire.