From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: DOES AMERICA SAY YES TO JAPAN? - Off track!!
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:15:16 GMT

In article <thomasd.59.726252693@tps.COM> thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.201248.4828@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>
>>Ever hear of Harley-Davidson? It's conveniently located (at least, 
>>corporate headquarters) right there in "the formerly strong midwest of this 
>>country".

>I really don't think using Harley as evidence that U.S. companies are 
>capable of competing is valid.  

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.

>Harley sells a marginal quality, specific 
>market motorcycle to people who have more money than sense.

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?

>  In no area is 
>Harley able to field a motorcycle that can compete with the Japanese 

True. And the Japanese cannot compete with Harley. Oh, little bit of info
here: profits on these larger displacemnt bikes (and Harley is now the #1
seller of large displacement bikes in the world) is greater than on the smaller
bikes. Now, in little tiny words, 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).

I eagerly await the enlightenment you will no doubt provide on this.

>majors.  Harley exists for its value as a keepsake, not as a motorcycle.  
>For instance, Harley makes a bike that is matched in performance and 
>function by all of the Japanese manufacturers, but Harley doesn't make a 
>sport touring bike, a dirt bike, or a multi-purpose bike.  Harley isn't 

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

>even the lowest cost, highest quality producer in their small niche.  In 

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?

>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!)

Also, Honda (that biking giant) is scaling BACK its production and model
introduction in Japan. (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.
The FACT remains that Harley IS making money, LOTS of money, and they are one 
of the few famous bike makers to do so now. And YOU are telling them "No, no,
you are doing it all wrong." You, Mr Day, should work for GM.

>Because they have been successful in finding a small niche of 
>the motorcycle market to participate in and are the sole American 
>manufacturer in that market, they are a popular benchmark for American 
>manufacturing success.  They are less of a success than is popularly 
>believed.  

??? 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.

>>Hmm. Don't universities do research as well?

>Yep, they do.  They do research for anyone who will pay the bill and they 
>educate more foreign engineers than domestic.  This wouldn't be such a crime 
>if state universities weren't doing this deed with tax money.

Or if more American students wanted to BE engineers. And BTW, many of those
"foreigners" are in fact immigrants. As were your ancestors. I would not call
them "foreigners".

>>>The Japanese can give us all jobs working for them at $7.50 and hour and
>>>end unemployment completely, and maybe they can even pay us all a bit more,
>>>but if the profit above and beyond goes back to Japan, and the ideas that
>>Excuse this (obviously irrelevant) question, but *IF* we are all going to be
>>so poor, how can Japan then continue to sell to us? Who would there be to
>>buy their products?

>The way this statement was phrased missed the point and your answer avoids 
>that same point.  As long as we have natural resources to divy up we will 
>have some money to spend on luxuries.  So for some years yet, we will have a 
>yuppie class and we will always be stuck with the ruling eliete and the 
>inherited rich.  What we are losing is the working class.  

Care to give any figures? I have posted GDP and per capita results, noted that
the US is the number 1 exporter of goods to the world (and no, Japan is NOT
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)?

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.

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?

>>Strange, is it not, that they have HIGHER unemployment than we do (in areas 
>of>Germany, that 30% figure you doctored above is an undoctored fact). And 
>that>they have similar budget deficits. 

>I'm not convinced the 30% midwestern unemployment figure is "doctored."  Our 
>published national statistics (if I remember correctly) don't include anyone 
>not on the unemployment insurance roles.  This leaves out the "terminally 
>unemployed" (people who have been out of work 6 months or more) and of 
>course people who once were middle class but are now working at McDonalds.  
>I was in Indiana for a few months last year and it certainly seemed like a 
>ruin.  Every job posting had hundreds of applicants and most of the 
>industrial facilities were abandoned.

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.

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. 
 
>>Actually, in terms of per capita income, living space, technology, etc, we
>>are, in fact, doing better. More airports, physicians, lower unemployment,
>>etc. 

>I agree with "living space" (I suppose you could group airports in this 
>category.), but this is only the result of our possessing more natural 
>resources.  Resources which are being bought up at a rapid rate.  I disagree 

Tell that to Russia.

>with the rest of your list, especially "technology."  More physicians hasn't 
>resulted in any measureable advantage in our national health statistics so 
>that point is voided.  The doc stat is skewed by the irrational distribution 

How so? And show how it is better in Europe.

>of physicians, check the rural areas for medical coverage.  Until our 

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. 

We're waiting.

>unemployment stats include every out-of-work adult, the military (they were 
>counted as unemployed until sometime in the 1970s, I believe), and the make-
>work positions in local, state, and federal government, I won't be convinced 
>that data is significant.  

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"?

(And then show us how the stats for Japan and Europe are NOT similarly 
"doctored").

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.
Xref: sparky misc.consumers:21896 sci.med:23857