From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: DOES AMERICA SAY YES TO JAPAN? - Off track!!
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:07:49 GMT

In article <thomasd.68.726769243@tps.COM> thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.212418.6483@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>I didn't intend to be saying that I believe it is impossible to compete in
>Japan.  I do believe that we are losing that war and I do believe it is
>because we aren't smart enough (as a culture) to recognize it as a war.

Fine, but I don't see that it IS a war. And even if it were, then here are some
more stats; 

The US led ALL nations in foreign investment last year.(from today's SF 
Chronicle.)

The US economy grew more rapidly than Japan's (and Germany's and France's) 
last year and is projected to do the same this year (Sunday's paper)

>>I have also noticed the same thing in Nissan, Toyota, Nomura, etc. Read the
>>SF Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, etc.
>
>True.  I don't think they are downsizing at the rate of their American 
>competitors and I don't think they are moving critical facilities out of the 
>country at the same rate, but I don't have solid stats on that.  I'd welcome
>the info if you have it.

I believe the Japanese have assembly plants for autos, TVs, and other things
here in the US. We have such things in other countries.

>>Harleys, the US company is doing it wrong.
>
>I don't get that NET location, so I can't get it from there.  The closest 
>location I have to that is something called BA.MOTORCYCLES and nothing is
>ever posted there.  

Alright, next time someone posts sales figures I'll cross-post 'em. And read
this month's CityBike for more figures on Yamaha: the US used to account
for 30% of its sales, now it accounts for about 5%.

>>>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.  
>>
>>"left forever"? Hmm. It may interest you to know that both GM and Ford outsold
>>all Japanese car makers combined in the US last year. Not too bad, but again, 
>>how can you get upset with Ford and GM? 
>
>Good point.  How many of those cars did Ford and GM build vs. the number 
>they bought?  I'm not arguing with you, I want to know.  Since both of those 
>manufacturers (specially GM) seem to be farming out their small cars and 
>small engines, it seems a little skewed to use these numbers if they are 
>mostly built by foreign manufacturers.  I know Dodge does a lot of that, I 
>suspect GM does too.  I don't think Ford is as dependent.

Well, Ford DOES own 30% of Mazda. And the only thing that GM US buys from 
Japanese in large amounts is engines for its Geo series. GM owns 37% of
Isuzu, and Isuzu asked GM to take it over entirely. GM refused, so Isuzu
is now out of the car market, and GM is out of engines for about 2 years.
Also, Ford and GM own several foreign companies. Ford owns Jaguar, and GM
owns Opel (I also read about 4 months ago that GM owns SAAB; however, I have
not been able to confirm that, so use that factoid with caution).

>>Then it would seem that CUSTOMERS (people who pay money) would have 
>different>priorities than you do, does it not? Or are merely so much more 
>intelligent>than other consumers? And they do not seem to be those ride race 
>bikes>exclusively.
>
>Sure, that's what I said in the first place.  Harley customers are buying a 
>piece of history.  Harley customers are very affluent and Harley is riding a 
>nostalga wave.  Personally, I don't think that will last.  I could be, and 
>have been often, wrong.  If it doesn't last, Harley doesn't have anything 
>but nostalga to sell.  To me, that seems short sighted.

I think most bikers would like a Harley (myself included, and I ride a K75). 
It is the high-end bike (not the most expensive) and it carries prestige, so
long as it is of a decent quality. You see the same thing in high-end autos.
There will always be a market for such vehicles, and the problems will usually
be with management.

Besides, Harley's look neat.

>Sure I understand why people prefer non-racing bikes.  Nothing I own 
>currently would be a seriously competitive racing bike.  Everything that 
>isn't a chopper isn't classified as a racing bike.  Surprise!!!!  But 
>everything that isn't a chopper or bus on two wheels isn't a Harley either.  
>I love touring, that's mostly what I do, along with commuting.  But I'd 
>never subject my 44 year old back to the beating a Harley delivers.  I'd 
>also rather have fun in the corners on PCH and in the mountains.  I also 
>like to go fast when the coast is clear.  Can't do either of those on a 
>Harley.  

The Daytona Dyna-glide (reviewed in the may '92 Citybike) has about as much
vibration as the BMW, and is pretty light in the turns.

>I think I have a grasp on the Japanese marketing tactic.  Blow the 
>competition out of the market with lower prices and high quality, they treat 
>the market fairly enough to prevent new competition.  

Yes and no. They are much better at taking niches where the competition has been
lax, where the businesses have gotten complacent, etc. *WE* had the original
technology for almost all the consumer products today, but *WE* neglected it.

>>Uh, excuse me Mr Day, but IF there is a "liability crisis that is driving 
>>everyone out of motorcycling" and a "market crash" WHY are you proposing 
>>Harley get into MORE niches in the market? In all honesty, you don't even make
>>BAD sense. Are you proposing they set out to lose money?
>
>Maybe I don't have a marketing clue, but it seems to me that if the market 
>for a product is about to undergo a severe crisis, diversification is a good 
>idea.

Perhaps, but several US companies have gotten into trouble that way. 
Diversifying is fine, but you have to pick up some expertise in the areas you
are diversifying into, or you simply become a money sink for your new area.

>>Again, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between healthy economies and
>>having one's own natural resources. Or Russia, China, Brazil, etc, would all
>>be economic giants, and Japan, Germany, France, etc, would be consigned to
>>decidedly lower status.
>
>Obviously, political climate has a lot to do with your three examples.  But 
>that doesn't rule out natural resources with the right political climate.

It certainly helps, but it is by no means incredibly important. What IS 
important is ACCESS to raw materials, and any nation with $$ can get them.

>I've not seen "undoctored" employment stats posted anywere.  SF Chronicle, 
>when?  Which stat is undoctored?  I mean what is that stat called?  As 
>opposed to the one the federal government usually posts.

The Chron lists the federal stats. Since I posted the last article, the 
most recent month's employment stats have come out; they should be in last
Friday's Chronicle.

>>And IF, in your lifetime, Indianapolis has always looked dead, and IF you have
>>been racing motorcycles since 1963 (perhaps you were 10 years old at the time)
>>then since at LEAST 1953, Indianapolis has been dead. Now, as NO ONE has yet
>>denied that we had a pretty decent economy in the 50s and early 60s (or, I can
>>post more data), HOW HAS THE JAPANESE "TAKEOVER" MENTALITY BEEN RESPONSIBLE 
>>FOR THE DEMISE OF THE MIDWEST? Or do you not mean for us to use that as one of
>>your examples?
>
>I was responding to the claim that Indiana was "getting better."  There are 
>lots of places in the Midwest that that have almost collapsed in the past 15 
>years.  Places that had fairly strong economies through the 50s and 60s.

I have a friend who just moved there from here in the Bay Area. He had heard 
horror stories about the Midwest, too. Now, he is impressed with the area, 
(He lives in Fayetteville) and says the economy is rebounding.

>>??? Why be nervous about it? Obviously, one of the world's great economies has
>>learned to live with an unemployment rate we would find unacceptable. Oh, the
>>rearming thing? As posted several times before, WHY would countries start to 
>>build up their militaries, if a similar build-up was a cause of our current
>>problems?

>Wasn't that an argument used by Mr. Chamberlain in 1936?

No, Mr Chamberlain was giving away other people's territory. Also, the economies
of the world were in much worse shape than they are now. Finally, France, the
UK, and other countries now have nuclear capabilities, so it is unlikely that
Germany would seriously contemplate making them nervous.

I noted you seem to be posting from either entrepreneurs or consumers. I will
assume you have interests in those areas. You should read Peter Drucker. He
is a management specialist who has been around for YEARS. His books deal with
management techniques, businesses and their responsibilites, etc. He is
considered by many to be the father of management science. He has been writing
about the American problems for over 40 years. He was analyzing some of the
reasons for Japanese success in the late 60's. He is very impressed with the
Japanese for what they have done, and gives them full credit where credit is
due. He does NOT claim they practice trade in the same fashion as do we, and
in fact he was the individual who coined the term "adversarial trade" to 
describe some of their practices. He is incredibly respected by the Japanese,
at least, by all the Japanese I met there. He also remains FAR more impressed 
by the US economy, its flexibility, and the energy it puts into its businesses
than he is with the Japanese (he is also more impressed with the Germans). I
recommend him highly. Email me, if you would like some individual 
recommendations.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is obviously either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally-
deficient, weak-willed, inconsequential, namby-pamby tool of some vague but
conveniently defined conspiracy, or b) my wife.
Newsgroups: misc.consumers