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}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:21 am (UTC)That said, sending unwanted junk mail to worthy causes (such as the LACS campaign alluded to before) strikes me as also eminently worthwhile.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:22 am (UTC)HAHAHHAHAHAHA.
That's excellent.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:27 am (UTC)Still, they do say you get more right wing as you get older.
What are you, 83?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:30 am (UTC)So when you agree with me you get a bit more of your new suit made?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:40 am (UTC)=======
Since 1938 The Fleet Street Letter has been looking at events behind the news and predicting their effect on the markets. With 62 years experience of looking at stocks and shares, The Fleet Street Letter has developed the knack of anticipating peaks and troughs. 'Never buy at the top of the market nor sell at the bottom.' This simple maxim has been developed into a sophisticated contrarian approach to investment under the current editorship of Lord William Rees Mogg.
========
William Rees-Mogg, Baron Rees-Mogg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Right Honourable William Rees-Mogg, Baron Rees-Mogg (born July 14, 1928) is a journalist and politician in the United Kingdom. He began his career at The Financial Times, before moving to The Sunday Times. He was Conservative candidate for the hopeless seat of Chester-le-Street in a by-election on September 27, 1956, losing to Labour candidate Norman Pentland by 21,287 votes.
Rees-Mogg served as editor of The Times newspaper from 1967 to 1981, and still writes comment for the paper. In July 1967 Rees-Mogg wrote the famous editorial Who Breaks a Butterfly on a Wheel defending Mick Jagger following the Redlands arrests and attacking the UK laws on cannabis usage. He also was on the BBC's Board of Governors and a chairman of the Arts Council. He was made a life peer in 1988, and sits in the House of Lords as a cross-bencher. He is currently a member of the European Reform Forum.
Rees-Mogg is author of the Sovereign Individual, the Great Reckoning, and Blood in the Streets, all three co-authored with James Dale Davidson.
Rees-Mogg's stand on drugs led to him being satirised by Private Eye as 'Mogadon Man'.
====
I was just imagining the pool old octagenarian having his hand manipulated to sign this kind of thing off, as its not in keeping with his recorded politics at all.
Oh, and the 83 thing was because you are in favour of the individual, rather than the state, dictating market forces, which although not expressing support for the Ancien Regime, is commonly held to be right wing.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 12:27 pm (UTC)That's an unusual concept. Whilst at it perhaps the government could dictate the value of pi? Maybe Plancks' constant?
Does the name 'Cnut' mean anything to you?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 12:31 pm (UTC)Ah, now there was me thinking you were just going for a cheap insult!
Of course, CAP isn't merely something you get playing for England.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 12:52 pm (UTC)At least they've had to pay to read this rant
Date: 2006-01-27 12:56 pm (UTC)H
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 01:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 01:35 pm (UTC)My typo, apologies.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 01:43 pm (UTC)Incidentally, the reason why the number 3 was chosen was because the line in the Bible "Thirty cubits it was around and ten it was across", clearly indicates that the almighty made Pi 3 and not that the author didn't have a very good ruler to hand.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 01:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 01:55 pm (UTC)LACS' persecuation of hunting is purely a value judgement on their part - and yours too as in your previous comment you described them as a 'worthy cause', when all you happen to do is agree with them.
My point here being that if people I disagree with can use language in a cavlier manner then so can I - and I'm often as good, if not better at it than them. The difference between me and them being that they often use it to bilk people out of time and money on false pretenses (see the notes on Oxfam's use of the word 'poverty' as applied to the UK), and I use it to send them up.
Hurrah for the moral high ground!
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 02:03 pm (UTC)Needless to say, I don't believe technocratic 'solutions' are appropriate to chaotic problems. Since management can't control some things (and by like measure, governments) they should avoid wasting resources on trying, and let people closer to the coalface deal with whatever may come along.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 02:06 pm (UTC)BTW: no sign of Far Cry. If you haven't sent it yet, could you give it to H over the weekend as I believe you'll both be at SWM?
Do your homework first!
Date: 2006-01-27 02:12 pm (UTC)Again, your view of e.g. poverty and others' view of the matter can be down to which definition you use - that is not necessarily cavalier. Making an assumption that you are right and they are wrong is, however, pretty cavalier!
From Oxfam's website:
"How were these figures calculated?
Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01. This is the ‘poverty line’ which has been accepted recently across the European Union to measure the extent of poverty in member states; it is not the same as a comprehensive definition of poverty, which includes many other dimensions. These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid, and include the self-employed.
These figures don’t mean very much by themselves -- they only refer to low incomes relative to the rest of the population in the UK. They don’t tell us much about the many different aspects of poverty and the way people experience it.
And they are a snapshot: they don’t tell us how long people live in poverty.
How does poverty in the UK compare to poverty in other parts of the world?
Oxfam does not argue that the extent or depth of poverty in the UK is similar to that in developing countries.
But not all those living in the wealthier countries of the world fulfil the stereotype of the rich, privileged consumer. Some have been left behind, living in a parallel financial universe, often budgeting on a weekly cash basis, with no bank account, few local shops, and constantly juggling bills and debts.
Through their resilience, by making a supreme effort, and by learning from experience, people may get by.12 But every coping strategy has its costs. It is women who often take on the burden of managing the family budget, putting others’ needs before their own and undermining their physical and mental health by doing so.
Oxfam also believes that the underlying causes of poverty, and the ways poverty affects people’s lives, in the north and south of the world are very similar. Inequalities of power and wealth, and a lack of political will to put the fight against poverty top of the agenda, underpin the reality of continuing poverty in countries all over the world. And the way people living in poverty are treated by others, and often have no voice in decisions affecting their lives, is similar in the UK and elsewhere.
‘Poverty strips you of your dignity.’
‘Poverty affects your self-esteem, your confidence … You feel totally powerless.’
The United Nations Development Programme sees poverty as a lack of capabilities to live a long, healthy and creative life, to be knowledgeable, and to enjoy a decent standard of living, dignity, self-respect, and the respect of others. It sees a ‘life of respect and value’ as a key aim of human development."
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 02:16 pm (UTC)Oh- and I couldn't fit Far Cry in the post box outside my house, so it'll go tonight.
I did my homework and got an A+!
Date: 2006-01-27 02:33 pm (UTC)As for Oxfam; the Office of National Statistics (who introduced the 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01 measurement) described that as being their definition of 'low income', which is a somewhat fairer definition. It was Oxfam who (even in the light of what you say above) unilaterally and seemingly arbitarily introduced the word 'poverty' into the debate, presumably because "1 in 4 lives in poverty" scans better on the adverts than "1 in 4 are low-income". People will dig deeper into their pockets when they see the word poverty - I write adverts for a living, and it's perfectly true.
Oxfam reference the UN:The United Nations Development Programme sees poverty as a lack of capabilities to live a long, healthy and creative life, to be knowledgeable, and to enjoy a decent standard of living, dignity, self-respect, and the respect of others. It sees a ‘life of respect and value’ as a key aim of human development."
, but looking on the UNDP website I can't actually find them saying that anywhere. All I can find is a list of highly laudable goals on their millennium development website.
Personally I'm with Abraham Lincoln - "You do not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong'; and, mathematically speaking, the only realistic way in our current society to acheive Oxfam's goal of eradicating what they describe as poverty would require the strong to be significantly weakened.
Re: Do your homework first!
Date: 2006-01-27 02:41 pm (UTC)Re: Do your homework first!
Date: 2006-01-27 02:54 pm (UTC)The more I read, the more cynical I get about Oxfam, their methods and methodology.
Re: Do your homework first!
Date: 2006-01-27 02:58 pm (UTC)The European Union uses a comparative measure which sets a poverty line at 50% of the median income. This is close to that used by Oxfam.
The UK Government does use 60% as its target, so it is the same as Oxfam.
The difference is you are using the term "absolute poverty", they are using the term "relative poverty". You are, therefore, attempting to argue with Oxfam about a different issue.
As for relative poverty in the UK, it is increasing, it is really high relative to every developed country except the US. I don't believe in levelling down, but I also don't think the rich are paying anything like their share either. Levelling up should be the ultimate goal, but a minimum degree of social cohesion is also necessary too.
PS I liked your letter.
Re: Do your homework first!
Date: 2006-01-27 03:06 pm (UTC)So you will now be less cynical about Oxfam.
Re: Do your homework first!
Date: 2006-01-27 03:09 pm (UTC)As to whether what you said was or was not ambiguous, surely the fact that your audience found it so is all the evidence needed? You did present the three organisations without differentiating them, and the implication of that presentation was that the presenter accorded them equal weighting.
I could set up a poll to ask people if they agree with my reading of what you wrote if you like? I found it ambiguous and it didn't give me the message which you wanted it to; I believe that others would feel the same way.
Re: Do your homework first!
Date: 2006-01-27 03:10 pm (UTC)I shall limit myself to being incredibly cynical about their use of the word 'poverty'.
Re: Do your homework first!
Date: 2006-01-27 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 04:09 pm (UTC)Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-01-27 05:30 pm (UTC)Tangent: I find it deeply gratifying in a schadenfreude sort of way that US manufacturers like GM and Ford utterly wasted their government-sponsored "light truck" exemption 'niche' by putting in all their chips into SUVs and trucks...and are now left out in the cold wastes of failure as the market has moved on. Patricularly amusing from the standpoint that so many of those successful Toyota cars are made in the US.
As for Chinese manufacturers...it's an interesting question exactly what sort of risk they present. After all, most of their production is feeding domestic demand, under foreign ownership - and that will always necessarily be the case in any reasonable industrial development curve...one should be closer to market.
Re: Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-01-27 06:09 pm (UTC)Likewise, they manage to build perfectly acceptable cars in Britain, although British (and to a lesser extent, american, and I'm thinking niche builders like Jaguar here) can't.
So we can take a few possible causes out of the equation:
It's not the environment. (Despite occaisional rants about the parasitic brain slug Gordon Brown, a good company can still make good money making good products here)
It's not the workforce. (Seems we can screw wheels on cars okay after all)
Having worked for a variety of US & UK manufacturers, I can clearly state, It's the management. Incapable of prioritising, these micromanaging short termists are incapable of credibly challenging organisations which have a culture which listens to people who get their hands dirty, (The CEO of Toyota is required by contract to work 2 weeks a year on the assembly line, anyone else got a boss who can do a real job?)and fixes their gripes, since workforce gripes very quickly become customer gripes if you just ignore them.
It's wierd just how wrong Prescott managed to get his regional assemblies: I guess someone told him local decision making was more efficient, and in his narrow minded control freak new labour mentaility, he decided that meant we needed more politicians to make those decisions for us. Just how local was he planning to get?
Re: Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-01-27 06:37 pm (UTC)The Japanese companies were smart to concentrate on progressive improvement on their sedans, only invading the GM/Ford SUV territory fairly late, when the fuel market began to shift...bringing in their sedan-efficiency lessons to the larger truck chassis late.
Likewise, the Ford management never really knew what to do with the 90s environmentalism, and were very late in bringing in successful European models to the American market, such as the Focus class of cars.
I quite agree, the management has been the perennial problem with these companies...who, for too long, have drawn the majority of their business from government contracts, rental fleets, Congressional help...not everyday families with their car(s) in the garage.
Re: Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-01-27 07:26 pm (UTC)Governments need to raise taxes, it would not have raised the overall tax burden on the American consumer.
that's not to say US builders aren't to blame: In the late 90s / early 00s Ford were shipping 450,000 F150s a year, and making about $10,000 a unit on them, but they still didn't bother trying to re-enter the low margin car market. Too competetive. It was inevitable the Japanese would chase them into their last lucrative market segment and deliver the killing blow, the oil crisis is just hastening the all too predictable end.
If the big 3 had wanted to stay in business, they'd have fixed their products. When all is said and done, it's the value proposition of it's product which determines whether a company sinks or swims.
Whilst it's easy to be wise post facto, the failure of CAFE illustrates all too well why governments should avoid trying to micromanage society, whilst having the courage to impose unpopular but necessary reforms on the electorate.
Re: Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-01-27 08:16 pm (UTC)No, I believe the 'light truck' exemption to CAFE was a lifeline given to US manufacturers, which they grasped with both hands desperately...and worse, matched that with the sort of favoured pet lazy mismanagement that killed a diversity of automobiles and auto development that could have given those companies a better competitive position today.
It's sad-funny actually. GM does do quite a lot of R&D, but very little of this translates into their mainstream manufacturing. Just the odd concept car (e.g. Hy-Wire) or gadget (IR HUD on the Cadillac).
I think Carter did what needed doing, and the only shock was because the US companies had fallen so far behind on actually building anything genuinely innovative, and recognizing the realities of resource vulnerabilities. That the first generation of post-CAFE cars were seen as 'crappy' is a combination of both the shock to the consumers who were told "muscle cars forevah!" and the fact that GM/Ford were on the earliest step of the learning curve...one that Japanese and some European companies were much further along.
As for raising taxes? In the 70s or any era? Political suicide. Any politician worth their vote-computational salt will sooner flush the nation down the financial sewer than raise a reasonable tax. That said, fuel taxes did start in the 70s, continue to the present day, in various forms and states...though arguably these have fallen behind.
failure of CAFE illustrates all too well why governments should avoid trying to micromanage society,
I agree somewhat, but this has to come with the recognition that the likes of GM/Ford have essentially been a government-based industry since at least 1940. I feel so many of their management decisions have reflected the profitability of Congress more than the market. Up to and including the generous worker benefits well into the troubled 80s. One simply cannot expect serious technical innovation and mainstreaming from a company like that.
Re: Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-01-27 09:57 pm (UTC)With European manufacturers now making 160mph cars still capable of 40mpg, (43.5 according to official bmw figs, but they're a bit optimistic) you can have CAFE compliant performance tin, but the US builders are so far off the game they're probably out for good. BMW have stolen the cachet Cadillac once held, and I think it's game over.
As for Carter comitting political suicide had he raised fuel taxes: he was on his way out anyway, stagflation saw for him, he could've had some guts and done the right thing.
Same thing we are faced with in Britain now, a tinkering government without the guts to stand up to the electorate (or anyone else) when it's right that they do, but perfectly happy to keep loading the burden onto any cash cow without a vote.
I do agree that US industry has been a branch of the government since, ooh, God was a lad, with 'Pork Belly' contracts paying my salary all too frequently. Unless US manufacturers develop word class quality consumer products, it'll come to a sticky end though.
Re: Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-01-27 11:42 pm (UTC)Hm? I don't quite follow how that can be laid all on CAFE. Given the (long overdue) modernization effort that followed the failure of 'Buy American,' the new compromise with unions, and Iacocca's experiment with robotics, GM and Ford were as well placed as they were ever going to be to make the most of CAFE without putting all their development eggs into the SUV/light truck basket. It just happened to be that VW, Toyota, Honda were better placed than Chevy or Ford to take advantage of CAFE circa 1982. But that's no reason for US auto manufacturing to slide (as they did) on the compact & sedan challenges.
Without CAFE, US auto manufacturing would be in the position it is today a lot sooner is all. They didn't take advantage of the breathing window they were offered to either achieve parity* or leapfrog their competitors in other model areas. This is something I've been complaining about for 10 years now. What particularly erks me is that they could have used their large SUV profits on diversifying their models more...alas no.
As for no one else buying 'light trucks/SUVs' ... that's not quite true either, considering the extensive African and Asian markets for light utility trucks - in which Toyota did very well throughout the 80s and 90s. I mustn't forget Brasil and Argentina either.
*To be fair, there were reasonable model competitors in 1995, such as the Dodge Neon compact or GM's Saturn experiment (each had their cult following) - but institutional mismanagement meant they were never able to grow past the limits the central firms placed on them. That, and poor manufacturing leading to recalls.
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.
Re: Regarding Oriental manufacturers...
Date: 2006-02-24 09:09 pm (UTC)