The seventies make a comeback
Jan. 27th, 2006 10:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyAs is commonly known, sister and I live in poverty, so it might come as a surprise to you to learn that people often try and sell us financial services. Not of the "Sign here and get our new low credit rate of 57% for the rest of your pathetic, squalid life!" sort as so often appears from people offering loans to the poverty-stricken, but more sophisticated scammers than that, instead offering stock tips and investment advice. The other day, we received a mailshot from these people, offering us unrivalled access to stock market secrets.
Now this sort of thing tends to make me guffaw merrily before adding the letter to the recycling, but not on this occasion. On this occasion these people made two mistakes: one, they make completely wild and unreasonable statements in their literature, and two, they included a reply-paid envelope.
If you want to read a copy of the mailshot they sent us, you can do so here.
And thanks to their kindly inclusion of a reply paid envelope, we got to reply to them:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your recent letter setting out your reasons for contending that the current economic situation is similar to that prevailing in the early 1970’s.
Although in some ways I would agree that parallels can be drawn between then and now (although there are also notable differences, most obviously an independent Bank of England), one aspect of the 1970’s which I certainly don’t consider due for revival any time soon, and am surprised to see that you apparently do, is that era’s attitude to race. I refer (of course) to your subheading; “6. ASIAN MANUFACTURING IS STEALING OUR JOBS -” beneath which you allude to the problems faced by the Rover car plant in the 1970’s, and draw a present-day parallel with the Chinese manufacturing boom.
Sir, I have spoken to auto engineers working for motor and Diesel companies in Britain and Detroit, and it is the considered opinion of all these (British-born) designers that people did not want to buy Rover cars in the 1970’s because, quite simply, Rover then made a dreadful product.
By comparison, Toyota, for instance, is one of the great car manufacturers of the world. British people did not buy Toyota cars because they were conniving with evil slant-eyed pilferers of work that rightfully belonged to the decent British labourer in a conspiracy to undermine our economy. As you, by using the word ‘stealing’, imply. No. They simply bought Toyota cars because they were better value for money. There was no theft or dishonesty involved, simply global market forces. If you genuinely believe that the Japanese car manufacturers of the ‘Seventies committed some dishonest or underhand act then the British purchasers of the product are also guilty by association and you ought to be including them in your defamatory remarks, unless of course you consider them to be the witless dupes of a cunning and ingenious race, incapable of organising a boycott. In any case, I consider your observation to be distasteful in the extreme, and if this is the sort of thing you feel to have to resort to in order to attract potential customers I trust you will kindly remove my name and address from your mailing list with all due expedience.
Yours sincerely
Well, it passed an evening, anyway.
Now this sort of thing tends to make me guffaw merrily before adding the letter to the recycling, but not on this occasion. On this occasion these people made two mistakes: one, they make completely wild and unreasonable statements in their literature, and two, they included a reply-paid envelope.
If you want to read a copy of the mailshot they sent us, you can do so here.
And thanks to their kindly inclusion of a reply paid envelope, we got to reply to them:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your recent letter setting out your reasons for contending that the current economic situation is similar to that prevailing in the early 1970’s.
Although in some ways I would agree that parallels can be drawn between then and now (although there are also notable differences, most obviously an independent Bank of England), one aspect of the 1970’s which I certainly don’t consider due for revival any time soon, and am surprised to see that you apparently do, is that era’s attitude to race. I refer (of course) to your subheading; “6. ASIAN MANUFACTURING IS STEALING OUR JOBS -” beneath which you allude to the problems faced by the Rover car plant in the 1970’s, and draw a present-day parallel with the Chinese manufacturing boom.
Sir, I have spoken to auto engineers working for motor and Diesel companies in Britain and Detroit, and it is the considered opinion of all these (British-born) designers that people did not want to buy Rover cars in the 1970’s because, quite simply, Rover then made a dreadful product.
By comparison, Toyota, for instance, is one of the great car manufacturers of the world. British people did not buy Toyota cars because they were conniving with evil slant-eyed pilferers of work that rightfully belonged to the decent British labourer in a conspiracy to undermine our economy. As you, by using the word ‘stealing’, imply. No. They simply bought Toyota cars because they were better value for money. There was no theft or dishonesty involved, simply global market forces. If you genuinely believe that the Japanese car manufacturers of the ‘Seventies committed some dishonest or underhand act then the British purchasers of the product are also guilty by association and you ought to be including them in your defamatory remarks, unless of course you consider them to be the witless dupes of a cunning and ingenious race, incapable of organising a boycott. In any case, I consider your observation to be distasteful in the extreme, and if this is the sort of thing you feel to have to resort to in order to attract potential customers I trust you will kindly remove my name and address from your mailing list with all due expedience.
Yours sincerely
Well, it passed an evening, anyway.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-01-27 11:48 pm (UTC)re: New Labour - well, to each their own. I will say this though: the efficiencies of decentralization make less sense in a nation the size of Britain than it does the US. Worse, it is decentralization without genuine empowerment - something the Dutch seem to do right by comparison.
re: US manufacturing ... well, it is very very hard for me to see it surviving and thriving without the crutch of government contracts, but I suppose there are spots of light with regards to consumer electronics like the iPod. Incidentally, one more reason why I want to see Why We Fight [ http://www.whywefight.com ]
Re: Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-01-28 08:43 pm (UTC)However, less flippantly, I don't think we're going to agree, I see CAFE as political cowardice, you see light truck exemption as a lifeline. I don't think it was ever intended as such. I think light trucks at that time were not ever expected to become the closest thing to sports cars available. Clever marketing turned them from utilitarian tin cans lethal at speed into macho status symbols. In the UK they are known as 'Gay Jeeps' due to their prominent placement in homophillic drama 'Queer as Folk'
CAFE shut US builders out of the premium auto market where they had previously been players, and, as a glance up any San Francisco street will tell you, they have made no inroad at all for decades. (Seriously, it's like being in Stuttgart, not a single non-German car visible.)
The premium auto market is where the money is, and with 'emerging' economies due to eclipse the US in the next decade, unless you have product ready to sell there now, last one out please put the cat out.
I believe CAFE was intended to reduce US reliance on imported oil without fiscally disadvantaging the US taxpayer, and, because other countries were the opposite apprach to the same problem: creating fiscal pressures on auto builders to produce more economical cars by raising the cost of ownership across the board, the US measures created a market imbalance favouring a vehicle which, without special market conditions, no-one in their right mind would buy. This denied US builders the global economies of scale which VW & Toyota have used to such effect. The US builders bread and butter products were unsellable outside the US, as they made no sense unless madated by morally cowardly legislation.
Jimmy Carter did get the Israelis & Egyptians to shake hands, permanently it seems. If Dubya can do 1/10th as much, he won't have wasted his time.
Re: Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-01-28 09:06 pm (UTC)Interesting, since the SUV may be marketed as a luxury sports car in Europe, but in the US it has actually become a whole range of vehicles...from utility, to family conveyance, to luxury auto.
CAFE shut US builders out of the premium auto market where they had previously been players,
I think CAFE was only a small part of this outcome. Moreover, I'm sure more than a few GM/Ford Execs would disagree with you.
and, as a glance up any San Francisco street will tell you, they have made no inroad at all for decades. (Seriously, it's like being in Stuttgart, not a single non-German car visible.)
As one who lives in my fair city, I have to say you are actually wrong on that count. Granted, there is a higher proportion of German cars here than one would find in the MidWest, but there are all types here. Moreover, the Hummer has proven particularly popular (grrr).
unless you have product ready to sell
Credit to Jeep for opening factories in Thailand in the mid-90s...but they never took it very far.
If Dubya can do 1/10th as much, he won't have wasted his time
I rather doubt Dubya will achieve much at all - at least nothing of lasting positive value through the ages.