Re: Perception

[John McEwen <moparrr@xxxxxxx>]

While it's nice to blame the big companies and we know that there are 
many reasons to blame them, they are not solely to blame for the 
current mess.

The seeds of the problem lie back in the '60s and were begun (rightly 
so) by Ralph Nader and what he represented.  The root of the problem 
lies in LA and So. Cal. generally.

The flower power movement germinated in part due to the 
military-industrial complex which was outed at that time, brought 
emphasis and recognition to the cause of the environment - which up 
to that time had been simply something to plunder.  Add in the 
"Smoggy Day in LA Town" and the ravages of war on the economy, 
followed by the gas crises of the '70s and you have the beginnings of 
the end of the American auto industry and the American economy.

The manufacturers could not do everything at once.  They could not 
design and produce anti-pollution measures, meet the influx of 
quality, inexpensive cars from Japan, and develop brilliant new 
engine and chassis technology to meet the CAFE standards imposed 
during the same decade - all the while  building attractive modern 
designs.

The costs were enormous and the assistance minimal.  Instead of 
recognizing the problems and helping to overcome them, the American 
people passed more laws then went out and bought Hondas, Toyotas and 
Datsuns.  They voted with their check books and US Cars Inc. lost the 
battle.  The enthusiast car magazines savaged the domestics and 
shovelled praise on anything foreign which was easy when they 
couldn't contribute to the solution.

AMC collapsed, Chrysler went to the wall while GM and Ford built 
crappy - desperately down-sized, unattractive lumps with poor 
performance and economy but clean tail pipes.  Japan offered 
reliability, economy and performance while General Bullmoose offered 
"Colonnade Hardtops", Opera Windows and Mustang II..

Europe and Japan went right on building cars in homelands where 
environmental protection was unheard of.  How many of you realize 
that Britain has only just recently abandoned leaded fuel?  How many 
of you realize that in Europe at least 60% of all new cars are sold 
with diesel engines - and they're not slow, noisy or smelly - or 
could be sold in California?  North America responsibly encourages 
hybrids while Europe has only recently discovered the environment. 
British car enthusiasts flutter about paying for "lead-free" cylinder 
heads while we worry about meeting the CAFE standards for 2010.

While we were fussing with bumper standards, the Euro/Japanese 
complex was making money shoving the same old technology out the 
doors everywhere but in NA.  Instead of meeting the challenge, we 
paid them to build factories here so that they could avoid paying 
import duties.  The payoff was jobs for small-town USA, Mexico and 
Canada.  Remember when Flint and Buick meant the same thing? 
Remember Oldsmobile?

While the US manufacturers were inventing catalytic convertors, 
exhaust gas recycling, electronically-controlled carburetors, and a 
myriad of other gadgets, the rest of the world was spending a much 
higher proportion of their larger profit on making their vehicles 
more reliable and of higher quality.  They then built those cars in 
the US using US-developed solutions to meet US laws.

As sales of Japanese cars rose dramatically, spurred by pricing and 
quality, all the US manufacturers could offer was size, boring style, 
lack of performance, poor economy and even poorer reliability - 
created by the great amount of new technology required to meet a 
problem which didn't affect the part of the car the owner was 
concerned with. except in a negative way..

When the US tried to build small economy cars, what they produced was 
scaled-down big cars - still using the out-of-scale components from 
those big cars.  Let's not forget Pinto and Vega.  They sold millions 
of them, but the only real feature they offered was price and a kind 
of dubious economy.  Compare a Vega to a Datsun 510.  A Toyota 
Corolla to a Pinto.  No contest.  But don't blame the manufacturers - 
forced to keep investors happy with endless profit figures.

I could go on, but you get the picture.  We have advanced 30 years in 
time.  As the US auto manufacturers fail, can the US economy be far 
behind?  As long as trillion dollar debts continue to build to keep 
money sliding into the desert sands on far off shores, who's going to 
help solve the problems which began over 40 years ago?

How can the health of workers be a liability?  How can an economy 
grow when the great majority of its productivity has been 
out-sourced, while the remaining dollars pay to haul resources from 
far away?  Why should a poorly-educated and poorly-motivated worker 
expect to live like a king, compared with his forbears, by doing work 
which any machine can be built to do?

Solve that one and you'll be reaching for a solution.

Why are their lakes and fountains and giant luxury buildings in the 
middle of a desert where water and power are in short supply?  Why is 
cotton grown in Nevada?  Why is the Colorado River the size of a 
small creek when it reaches Yuma?

Why are the southwestern deserts and arid areas of the US 
experiencing the fastest population growth given the amount of energy 
necessary to support life?

Why indeed?  Don't blame the US car makers for all of it but their 
success or failure is a symptom of something far more difficult to 
accept or comprehend.



John


> " From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
> "
> "
> " Ford and Chevy are burning the furniture to heat the house --
> " []
> "
> " We're screwed.
>
> well said.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
> internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
>
> adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought