🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <thomasd.64.726424237@tps.COM> thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.161516.2237@island.COM> fester@island.COM (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?  

I would have thought that obvious, even to you. It IS possible to compete
in Japan, Mr Day.

>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?  

I have also noticed the same thing in Nissan, Toyota, Nomura, etc. Read the
SF Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, etc.

>>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.

Right. Right now the limit is the US, Japan, and Europe.

>>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.

You're right, it doesn't. Harley is now the largest seller of large displacement
engine motorcycles, outselling the Japanese by a good margin.

>> (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.)

You could read the stuff off rec.motorcycles. And the definition of "large 
displacement is "over 750cc". And again, you are telling people what they
SHOULD want. And "trap", Mr Day? All you have said is that since YOU do not like
Harleys, the US company is doing it wrong.

>>Now, in little tiny words, 

>Ones you can understand?

Oh yes, please.

>>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.  

"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? You spent the last several paragraphs
explaining why Harley was making a mistake selling bikes its customers want.
As I can see below, you are going to be asking for references (though providing
none yourself). Dec 7 SF Chronicle, business section.

>>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?  

In either case, WHY would they move into a different niche? A lower profit
one at that? And Harley HAS opened up several new factories to produce 
different parts for their bikes, new painting facilities, etc, so it would 
seem to be the latter. Read the bike mags. 

>>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.

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.

>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.  

OOOOOOOOOOH! Riding THAT long and STILL don't understand how some people 
prefer non-racing bikes? Personally, I think of WAR as war, and you have yet
to demonstrate any knowledge of how the Japanese think. And I am one of the
touring bikers, Mr Day, and have been since I started riding (about 20 years
ago).

>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.  

Well apparantly so are the CUSTOMERS who are, after all, the people who keep a 
business in business.

>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.

And you don't seem to have a clue about marketting and selling. And any sort
of stuff you want to post on motorcycle engineering, feel free to post. Feel
free to post them on rec.motorcycles, or to posts your repugance of Harleys
to rec.motorcycles.harley. I'll see 'em there.

>>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?  

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?

>>(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.

You COULD read the Japanese bike magazines, you could read the SF Chronicle, or
follow the posts on rec.motorcycles; the Harley as #1 was posted several times
this year. The BMW stat was listed in the BMW News mag.

>>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?  

Let's see, now you seem to admit that they ARE doing something right (though
they're not doing it YOUR way), and your worry is "how long"? How long does
ANY company make money, Mr Day? As long as they provide a product the 
*CUSTOMER* wants, at a price s/he is willing to pay, and their management is
competent enough to take advantage of it.
 
>>??? 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.

??? You are going to have to explain this. Too many big words for me. 

As posted before (so this is only the 3rd time you might have seen it) it was
the JAPANESE manufacturers who got their OWN government to lift restrictions
on domestic sale of large displacement (> 750cc) bikes.

>>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.

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.

>>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?

None, I suppose, unless your claim that our manufacturing sector was 
disappearing had any "point". If your claim was nonsense, then there was no
point in my response.

>>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.  

I live in California, and believe me, there are going to have to be a LOT
of Japanese moving here to outnumber the Chinese. Second of all, Hawai has
had a LARGE population of people of Japanese ancestry for a long time. Third,
WHY would they move here "in droves" if we are going to be so depressed? Are
people moving in droves to (eg) India to enjoy some sort of enhanced life-style?
And as posted by a Mr Goldman several months ago, there is a quota of about
20,000 immigrants from Japan every year. That quota has gone unfilled for a
very long time. Doesn't look like they're moving here in droves.

>>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.  

Undoctored, as released last month, it was averaging between 7-9% for the
various midwestern states. California had a 12% rate. SF Chronicle. Or don't
you believe that, either?

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?

>>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.

??? 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?

>>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 clever.

>How would the opposite of your evidence help?  If we are all sinking, 

Would the opposite of evidence help? You mean blatant assertionism?

>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.  

You can read the same thing in the World Almanac. Our infant mortality rate
has dropped, our life expectancy has risen, from 90-91. It also shows our 
death rate has decreased almost every year for the last 30+, etc.

>>We're waiting.

>As usual, with your eyes closed.

Please post any DATA you may find that contradicts what I have posted. 

>>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.

And then all you have to do is show that Japan, Germany (with all those out
of work engineers from the east) do NOT have at least as large an "under-
employment" problem as does the US. 

Really Mr Day, if you've seen this all before, one would think you were better
able to respond by now.

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.