you think chery is next honda?

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> "TeGGeR®" > wrote:
>
>> > that simply doesn't
>> > matter.
>> >
>>
>>
>> It does. Japan eventually figured out how to make stuff really well.
>> The Commies never figured out how to make a good Yugo or Trabant.
>
> That's because they didn't have the US as a market before.
>
> If you think China is nothing but communist and that they don't play
> in the capitalist game, you're naive. They are in the capitalist game
> to stay, and to win.
>
>



I disagree. You cannot have a centrally-controlled economy that is a free
economy. People get rich when an economy is free.

Centrally controlled economies are poor economies. China is poor and will
stay poor forever so long as their government insists on central control.
WE are the ones who benefit on on the backs of the Chinese people. Our
dollar goes farther, and their the ones subsisting on a cup of rice a day.

See my other most recent post.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"TeGGeR®" wrote:
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > "TeGGeR®" > wrote:
> >
> >> > that simply doesn't
> >> > matter.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> It does. Japan eventually figured out how to make stuff really well.
> >> The Commies never figured out how to make a good Yugo or Trabant.
> >
> > That's because they didn't have the US as a market before.
> >
> > If you think China is nothing but communist and that they don't play
> > in the capitalist game, you're naive. They are in the capitalist game
> > to stay, and to win.
> >
> >
>
> I disagree. You cannot have a centrally-controlled economy that is a free
> economy. People get rich when an economy is free.
>
> Centrally controlled economies are poor economies. China is poor and will
> stay poor forever so long as their government insists on central control.
> WE are the ones who benefit on on the backs of the Chinese people. Our
> dollar goes farther, and their the ones subsisting on a cup of rice a day.
>
> See my other most recent post.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
>
>



Up to a few years ago, I was a frequent traveler to the orient and can
assure you that the region of southern China adjoining Hong Kong/Taiwan
is indeed capitalist infested.

The real danger from China is its unprecedented military buildup (being
financed by the sale of consumer goods to western economies).

While the central government in Beijing has a tight reign on the
military and defense, it is content to let the capitalist based
businesses carry on in the big picture...

JT

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "TeGGeR®" > wrote:
>
> > > If you think China is nothing but communist and that they don't play
> > > in the capitalist game, you're naive. They are in the capitalist game
> > > to stay, and to win.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I disagree. You cannot have a centrally-controlled economy that is a free
> > economy. People get rich when an economy is free.
>
> Nobody said they were going to play the capitalist game by our rules.
>
> But make no mistake: the central government is going to flex its
> economic powers in a very capitalistic way. In some ways, they'll be
> like Japan where economic power is managed very centrally (MITI).



The weakest part of the Japanese and Chinese economies is their banking systems.

In Japan, the central bank's continuous policy of maintaining low
interest rates allows little wiggle room for flexing economic conditions worldwide.

China, OTOH, maintains an artificially low currency value which sooner
or later will have to be resolved and along with that will come a (maybe
temporary) setback to their economy.

JT

Grumpy AuContraire > wrote in
:


>
>
> Up to a few years ago, I was a frequent traveler to the orient and can
> assure you that the region of southern China adjoining Hong
> Kong/Taiwan is indeed capitalist infested.



China monkeys FAR more heavily in industry than MITI ever did. China may
have what appears to be a free economy, but it does not. The region of
China near Hong Kong is granted official privileges not readily available
to other areas of China.



>
> The real danger from China is its unprecedented military buildup
> (being financed by the sale of consumer goods to western economies).



They don't need low-profit consumer goods to make money. The Soviets, for
example, built their military on sales of gold, oil and diamonds.

Wouldn't surprise me to find out the Chinese have been selling heroin and
other drugs to us. The profit on that stuff dwarfs consumer goods. That's
how Al-Qaeda finances itself, as do all the urban North American gangs.



>
> While the central government in Beijing has a tight reign on the
> military and defense, it is content to let the capitalist based
> businesses carry on in the big picture...
>



China also gives companies a subsidy for each worker hired, which
discourages automation. This, along with highly restrictive internal
immigration policy, ensures that Chinese productivity will remain very,
very low for the foreseeable future. Japan never did those things.

Gains in wealth come with gains in productivity. The Chinese people will
remain low-wage serfs to North American importers. Forever.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:55:14 GMT, "Nasty"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"TeGGeR®" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Chinacarforums" > wrote in
>>> ps.com:
>>>
>>>> hondas are amazing cars...but what do you think about chinese cars like
>>>> zhonghua and chery....china will eventually create better engines and
>>>> styling methods than japanese..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No they won't. Red China couldn't wipe its own ass if they didn't have
>>> somebody to copy.
>>
>>The Japanese are the same way. The last original idea they had was the
>>attack on Pearl Harbor, and we all know how THAT turned out.
>>
>
> How about inexpensive cars that don't break. That was pretty
> original. (Also invented expensive cars that don't break.)

The point is they were not Japanese original ideas. I have great respect for
the Japanese knack for copying something, cars, trucks, motorcycles, TV's...
and making them better and easier to use. But that was not the issue. Japan
is a nation of robots. They take someone else's idea and usually improve on
it. THAT was my point.

TeGGeR® wrote:
> China is a right royal mess and will continue to be so for the foreseeable
> future. Which is to our benefit. Much of the stuff that's made over there
> would simply never be made at all if manufacturers had to pay our labor
> rates.

sure. theres a lot of stuff i own that would have been/was prohibitively
expensive not that long ago.


an aluminum 18" lift, 25lb racing jack, $100 at harbor freight.
something i wouldnt have even considered years ago. $40 harbor freight
electric 1/2" impact wrench... basically a black and decker bulldog ripoff.

Nasty wrote:
> is a nation of robots. They take someone else's idea and usually improve on
> it. THAT was my point.

even then it took a full TEN YEARS for japan to build a minivan on a FWD
car platform, like chrysler did.

they kept using pickup truck frames, like ford did with the aerostar,
and GM with the astro.

now daimler/chrysler is making bentley/rolls "look alikes"

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> snip
It wasn't until 1999

1998 Toyota Sienna.

> witness all those
> small, ugly, relatively speaking crummy vans).

Actually, the Toyota Previa was pretty big but suffered with an
underpowered engine and high price tag. It was also clear that the
Previa wasn't going to pass any frontal crash test.
>
> The Japanese sometimes can't--or rather, won't--even copy something
> that's wildly successful, because they're too busy looking at the other
> Japanese companies and waiting for someone else in their world to blink.

Or perhaps they're so risk adverse that until they're assured success
they tend not to engage.

On 25 May 2006 04:09:44 -0700, wrote:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> snip
> It wasn't until 1999
>
>1998 Toyota Sienna.
>
>> witness all those
>> small, ugly, relatively speaking crummy vans).
>
>Actually, the Toyota Previa was pretty big but suffered with an
>underpowered engine and high price tag. It was also clear that the
>Previa wasn't going to pass any frontal crash test.
>>
>> The Japanese sometimes can't--or rather, won't--even copy something
>> that's wildly successful, because they're too busy looking at the other
>> Japanese companies and waiting for someone else in their world to blink.
>
>Or perhaps they're so risk adverse that until they're assured success
>they tend not to engage.

That doesn't sound like Honda.

I think that in Honda's case, they were following an orderly expansion
plan. When Chrysler introduced the minivans there were quotas on
Japanese vehicles. Trucks (which includes minivans) still have a 25%
tariff. Honda was spending money building US factories and selling
all the cars they could make. They had no engines or transmissions
suitable for use in a minivan. And this kind of vehicle wasn't likely
to big seller outside of NA. In all, it just wasn't the right vehicle
for Honda to make at that time.

Ten years later, Honda had more factory capacity in NA. The US had
become its most important market. The Accord had grown large enough
that it could form the basis for a minivan. Honda built the G1
Odyssey. Not a bad vehicle (I own one) but a little small for most
buyers (just right for me). There were some things they could have
done better, but it was a valuable learning experience.

Five years later they were ready to commit to a larger truck line so
the G2 Odyssey could share a drive train with MDX and Pilot. Now
Honda had the top rated minivan. And it is still at the top although
the Sienna is pretty much even. Why it took Toyota so long is another
question.

Gordon McGrew wrote:

> >
> >Or perhaps they're so risk adverse that until they're assured success
> >they tend not to engage.
>
> That doesn't sound like Honda.
>
> I think that in Honda's case, they were following an orderly expansion
> plan.

Risk adverse vs. orderly expansion plan.
Maybe "orderly expansion" is just an effort to decrease risk.
What do you think?