 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2006Buy/Drive a new Chinese car?
Would anyone here in this newsgroup ever consider owning a new Chinese car that will be supposedly marketed in the USA come 2007? Honestly I would personaly get more information on them once they are available. It might be like the Yugo all over again. But if a chinese car similar to a Hyundai Accent for $5,000 were available I may be seriously tempted to put a new car on my driveway. Kind of a risk though considering there is no way to tell what dealer support might be during the first years. East- , <eastwardbound2003@yahoo.com> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on 23 Jan 2006 22:19:01 -0800: > Would anyone here in this newsgroup ever consider owning a new Chinese > car that will be supposedly marketed in the USA come 2007? Not for the first few years. I'd like to see if the car is going to be another Yugo (as you mentioned) before taking a chance. I'll let someone else take the risks... eastwardbound2003@yahoo.com wrote in news:1138083541.018300.120550 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Would anyone here in this newsgroup ever consider owning a new Chinese > car that will be supposedly marketed in the USA come 2007? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > though considering there is no way to tell what dealer support might be > during the first years. No way, I want a car that doesn't disintegrate in a crash. Watch the videos... http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/f1c43870dde1f8c6 > eastwardbound2003@yahoo.com wrote in news:1138083541.018300.120550 > @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > videos... > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/f1c43870dde1f8c6 I think people would be foolishly risking their lives by driving a vehicle designed and built in mainland China. While there are honest manufacturers in mainland China that build quality products, there are far too many that are corrupt and cut corners on specs to save money with disastrous results. As an example, just look at all the batteries that Apple and Nikon had to recall because their Chinese subcontractors shipped them defective batteries. Likewise, 60 Minutes did an exposé about the widespread Chinese counterfeiting problem, including the selling of bad medicine and baby formula that could kill you. Too many mainland Chinese businesses, especially those with official government or Communist Party connections are corrupt and shouldn't be trusted. Here's the link to the 60 Minutes story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/26/60minutes/main595875.shtml - Peter > there are honest manufacturers in mainland China that build quality > products, ...and they are all owned, run, staffed and/or closely babysat by Westerners. > there are far too many that are corrupt and cut corners on specs to save > money with disastrous results. That's the way China works. NPR recently had a very engaging series on it. >> there are honest manufacturers in mainland China that build quality >> products, > > ...and they are all owned, run, staffed and/or closely babysat by > Westerners. I think it is more complicated than that. When I was a kid, many years ago, I used Chinese-made fountain pens. They were *excellent*. I remember other very good Chinese goods, very carefully made and finished. That was when China was very communist, and had no Western overseers. Now, the same fountain pens are sh.t, and almost everything made in China sucks. This is when China is open to the West and 'capitalist'. What gives? > When I was a kid, many years ago, I used Chinese-made fountain pens. > They were *excellent* Well, yeah. The Chinese have been making paper and pens for several millennia. > Now, the same fountain pens are sh.t, ...because China now has MBAs who have discovered that Westerners are stupid enough to eat sh.t and say "Mmm, delicious, feed me more!". >> there are honest manufacturers in mainland China that build quality >> products, > >...and they are all owned, run, staffed and/or closely babysat by >Westerners. CIO magazine has an article about how a lot of companies are reluctant to engage chinese companies when outsourcing. Ignoring the arguments about the stupidity of outsourcing jobs, the article speaks about how you can be assured that "worries of intellectual property theft" by the chinese is unwarranted, because there are plenty of ways to prevent it. Ignoring that china steals BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of intellectual property every f.cking day, these idiots go on to explain how you can simply require the workers to leave all personal articles in lockers, and not allow them removable storage on their machines. I guess these morons never heard of E-Mailing source code. Oh, the fucktards that wrote the article live and work in china. Go figure. ************************* Dave > No way, I want a car that doesn't disintegrate in a crash. Watch the > videos... > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/f1c43870dde1f8c6 But...but...the LandWind SUV izza righ choice! Anit pass alla Chinese safey tess! Anna TUV tess is no valid because TUV dinot invi LandWind to wacha tess! > Would anyone here in this newsgroup ever consider owning a new Chinese > car that will be supposedly marketed in the USA come 2007? > > Honestly I would personaly get more information on them once they are > available. It might be like the Yugo all over again. But if a chinese > car similar to a Hyundai Accent for $5,000 were available It won't be $5000. Graham >Would anyone here in this newsgroup ever consider owning a new Chinese >car that will be supposedly marketed in the USA come 2007? Maybe in 2027, but never in 2007. A slightly used car from anyone else that currently sells here in the US would be a better buy. >Honestly I would personaly get more information on them once they are >available. It might be like the Yugo all over again. But if a chinese >car similar to a Hyundai Accent for $5,000 were available I may be >seriously tempted to put a new car on my driveway. Kind of a risk >though considering there is no way to tell what dealer support might be >during the first years. You can be sure that no car that is sold in the US new will cost $5k. Even a crappy Chinese car won't get that low in price. ---------------- Alex > Would anyone here in this newsgroup ever consider owning a new Chinese > car that will be supposedly marketed in the USA come 2007? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > East- I would be very very concerned about the first cars coming from China. Not that China isn't capable of producing a good car, but my concern is with the backers of this project. One backer in particular has a long history of partially developing a market for a new import then walking away when the going gets difficult. Over and over the buyers were left with poor quality cars for which parts were all but impossible to get. I would wait for a long history of quality and not be the guinea pig on this one. Look at how far Korean cars have come - the Hyundai Sonata now gets very good ratings and is still reasonably priced. > I would wait for a long history of quality and not be the guinea pig on > this one. Look at how far Korean cars have come - the Hyundai Sonata > now gets very good ratings and is still reasonably priced. South Korea isn't china. > > I would wait for a long history of quality and not be the guinea pig on > > this one. Look at how far Korean cars have come - the Hyundai Sonata > > now gets very good ratings and is still reasonably priced. > > South Korea isn't china. Well, yes it is certainly true that China is different from Korea culturally, geographically, politically and certainly in terms of size. But the point I was making was more on the steep learning curve for consumer products that developing countries face. Korea's early reputation for producing quality consumer goods was to say the least rather modest. But they did learn from their mistakes. I am fully confident that China will continue to learn quickly from their mistakes. That said, the real problem I have with this first round of Chinese cars is the backers...one in particular has a very poor reputation for not standing behind automotive products. Compounding that poor reputation is the good chance that early Chinese cars will not meet the high standards for quality we have come to expect from car makers like Toyota, Nissan and to a lesser extent U.S. car companies. They will probably suffer from problems not unlike those thar afflicted Toyota in the 1950's as well as Kia and Hyundai more recently. >Korea's early reputation for producing quality consumer goods was to >say the least rather modest. But they did learn from their mistakes. >I am fully confident that China will continue to learn quickly from >their mistakes. For that to happen they would have to make mistakes. That doesn't happen because the chinese are incapable of designing anything. EVERYTHING built in china comes from stolen product designs or designs given to them (from Fisher Price for example) that they later turn into their own copies. I have worked with people from all over the world. Without exception the chinese are the laziest, most incompetent of all that I have worked with. People from Pakistan and India excel in what they do. So do those from Australia, Belgium, South Africa - the list goes on. I have NEVER worked with a competent person from china. I did have a professor in college who was Chinese. I respect him, but even in my third year of college I was above his level in software development. It is kind of sad when you go to the instructor and he can't even begin to critique your work, because he has never done anything that advanced. Advanced was Windows programming. ************************* Dave > >Korea's early reputation for producing quality consumer goods was to > >say the least rather modest. But they did learn from their mistakes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > For that to happen they would have to make mistakes. That doesn't > happen because the chinese are incapable of designing anything. No, that is wrong. Poor quality happens because sellers underestimate consumers demand for high quality. Pop the cover of your PC, television or other electronic product and marvel at all the chinese goods within. > EVERYTHING built in china comes from stolen product designs or designs > given to them (from Fisher Price for example) that they later turn > into their own copies. They learned very well from every developing country from Korea to Japan to the U.S. > I have worked with people from all over the world. Without exception > the chinese are the laziest, most incompetent of all that I have > worked with. It would be a very serious mistake to believe a xenophobic statement like that. I have had the opportunity to work with people from the Peoples Bank of China (their central bank) and believe me they are motivated. > People from Pakistan and India excel in what they do. So do those > from Australia, Belgium, South Africa - the list goes on. I have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ************************* > Dave >>>Korea's early reputation for producing quality consumer goods was to >>>say the least rather modest. But they did learn from their mistakes. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > It would be a very serious mistake to believe a xenophobic statement > like that. That statement says more about DTJ's social and professional environment than about the Chinese. There are top notch Chinese academics at all of America's elite universities. >>>I have worked with people from all over the world. Without exception >>>the chinese are the laziest, most incompetent of all that I have >>>worked with. >That statement says more about DTJ's social and professional environment >than about the Chinese. There are top notch Chinese academics at all of >America's elite universities. Not in software development in the working world, and as they say, those who can't, teach. ************************* Dave > Not in software development in the working world, and as they say, > those who can't, teach. The main mission of the top universities is research, not teaching. Getting an article published, in, say, the IEEE PAMI, requires quite a bit more creativity than software development. >> Not in software development in the working world, and as they say, >> those who can't, teach. > >The main mission of the top universities is research, not teaching. >Getting an article published, in, say, the IEEE PAMI, requires quite >a bit more creativity than software development. So we pay them to teach, but they don't, and you are all for that. Get a clue - universities are NOT where leading edge research is being done. ************************* Dave >>>Not in software development in the working world, and as they say, >>>those who can't, teach. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So we pay them to teach, but they don't, and you are all for that. Sure they teach, but their main goal is research. And that's no secret. > Get a clue - universities are NOT where leading edge research is being > done. False. The era of fundamental research done at places like Bell Labs, even IBM is over. Microsoft is trying to continue that tradition (they hired a Fields medal winner) but it's just a sideshow. Universities are where 'leading edge' fundamental research is done. > They learned very well from every developing country from Korea to > Japan to the U.S. Sorry, Japan was not a 'developing' country. It has been an industrialized nation since before the 1930s. Their industry was bombed flat and had to be rebuilt. But it's not like they lost decades of technical progress intellectually. They simply had to rebuild the means of production. Comparing what is going on in China with what happened in Japan decades ago is apples and oranges. Another thing, it was japanese companies vs. US companies. Both nations with various labor and environmental protections. It came down to PRODUCT. Product quality, product features, product durability. That's competition. What is going on with regards to china is WAGE COMPETITION. US companies are relocating factories to China to save on WAGES. To avoid environmental protections, safety regs, whatever costs money here in the USA that can be avoided or reduced in China. The situations are not comparable at all. > > They learned very well from every developing country from Korea to > > Japan to the U.S. > > Sorry, Japan was not a 'developing' country. It has been an > industrialized nation since before the 1930s. It had industry, but in comparison to other industrial countries it was most assuredly developing. > Their industry was bombed > flat and had to be rebuilt. But it's not like they lost decades of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > PRODUCT. Product quality, product features, product durability. That's > competition. Pre-war Japan was not a competitor in many industries. Post War Japan became a competitor because they focused on customer needs ( and they they listened to Deming). For simple examples just look at the American and German Camera and Optics industries in the post WWII era. > What is going on with regards to china is WAGE COMPETITION. US companies > are relocating factories to China to save on WAGES. To avoid > environmental protections, safety regs, whatever costs money here in the > USA that can be avoided or reduced in China. Of course cost is the reason goods are being successfully produced elsewhere. And we found that cheaper better products (and services) could be produced in Japan after WWII. And the same thing happened in Korea, Indonesia, India, Myanmar, Puerto Rice and is set to happen in South America. Same thing happened with the U.S. during the 19th century - we became a low cost high volume producer of many products and goods. > The situations are not comparable at all. Oh, they most certainly are if you drop out the concerns about the political regime in China. I do not understand why the CCP is an issue any more than the nasty regimes that have led countries like Indonesia and Myanmar. And we have continued to buy products from and move production to those countries. >> > They learned very well from every developing country from Korea to >> > Japan to the U.S. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It had industry, but in comparison to other industrial countries it was > most assuredly developing. Let's see, state of the art aircraft, the largest battleships ever to float, etc and so forth is a "developing" industrial nation? >> Their industry was bombed >> flat and had to be rebuilt. But it's not like they lost decades of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> PRODUCT. Product quality, product features, product durability. That's >> competition. > Pre-war Japan was not a competitor in many industries. And the USA doesn't make a lot of things now. Does that make it a "developing nation"? > Post War Japan > became a competitor because they focused on customer needs ( and they > they listened to Deming). For simple examples just look at the > American and German Camera and Optics industries in the post WWII era. As if they made nothing for home consumption or military consumption before WW2. Just another piece of info, up to the end of the WW2 at the very least there was a language called 'technical Japanese' or something to that effect that was used for engineering. >> What is going on with regards to china is WAGE COMPETITION. US companies >> are relocating factories to China to save on WAGES. To avoid >> environmental protections, safety regs, whatever costs money here in the >> USA that can be avoided or reduced in China. > Of course cost is the reason goods are being successfully produced > elsewhere. And we found that cheaper better products (and services) > could be produced in Japan after WWII. And the same thing happened in > Korea, Indonesia, India, Myanmar, Puerto Rice and is set to happen in > South America. We pay 1st world prices as if they were made in the USA for the most part. Relocation is purely about profit. > Same thing happened with the U.S. during the 19th century - we became a > low cost high volume producer of many products and goods. Name the list foreign companies that relocated their manufacturing to the USA and shipped the goods home in 19th century? >> The situations are not comparable at all. > Oh, they most certainly are if you drop out the concerns about the > political regime in China. Japan and China are not comparable, even droping the conflict of interest of military / government / corporation in China. It doesn't take much time in product development to understand the vast differences. > I do not understand why the CCP is an issue > any more than the nasty regimes that have led countries like Indonesia > and Myanmar. And we have continued to buy products from and move > production to those countries. I try to avoid buying goods made in those nations as well. > >> > They learned very well from every developing country from Korea to > >> > Japan to the U.S. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Let's see, state of the art aircraft, the largest battleships ever to > float, etc and so forth is a "developing" industrial nation? An equipped military by itself signifies a developed industrial country. > >> Their industry was bombed > >> flat and had to be rebuilt. But it's not like they lost decades of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And the USA doesn't make a lot of things now. Does that make it a > "developing nation"? Hardly. > > Post War Japan > > became a competitor because they focused on customer needs ( and they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > least there was a language called 'technical Japanese' or something to > that effect that was used for engineering. You are missing the point, please gop back and reread what I wrote. > >> What is going on with regards to china is WAGE COMPETITION. US companies > >> are relocating factories to China to save on WAGES. To avoid [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > We pay 1st world prices as if they were made in the USA for the most > part. Relocation is purely about profit. Well, of course it is about making money...what is new about that. The american companies who were savvy began to outsource production to Japan after WWII. Bushnell survived by doing that very thing but many of their U.S. competitors did not and failed. > > Same thing happened with the U.S. during the 19th century - we became a > > low cost high volume producer of many products and goods. > > Name the list foreign companies that relocated their manufacturing to the > USA and shipped the goods home in 19th century? Relocation of existing U.S. production isn't the issue. An obvious example in the history of the U.S. watchmaking industry - go read up on it. We copied the products made in europe and then we made them cheaper and better and beat the tar out of the swiss and english. That is exactly what Japan did after WWII and it is exactly what Korea and Taiwan has done more recently and is what mainland China is rapidly beginning to do. If you don't believe me just look inside any electronic product or at the label of many articles of clothing. > >> The situations are not comparable at all. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of military / government / corporation in China. It doesn't take much > time in product development to understand the vast differences. Please take the time to think before making a statement like that. China is what Japan was after WWII - an emerging economic power but China is bigger by many times. And firms from countries around the world are lining up to do business in China. > > I do not understand why the CCP is an issue > > any more than the nasty regimes that have led countries like Indonesia > > and Myanmar. And we have continued to buy products from and move > > production to those countries. > > I try to avoid buying goods made in those nations as well. Good luck - it is all but impossible unless you are set up to create products from scratch. Those made in the USA Nike sneakers were likely assembled offshore in some distastefully run country. The radio in that american car has likely been made with electronic components from one or more asian countries. >> Let's see, state of the art aircraft, the largest battleships ever to >> float, etc and so forth is a "developing" industrial nation? > > An equipped military by itself signifies a developed industrial > country. Exactly. They were a developed industrial nation capable of making complex machines of sound engineering and quality of their own design and manufacture. Glad you agree. Now chinese military equipment is generally half-assed copies of soviet designs with technology gathered from the west (mostly USA) inserted where needed to improve it. >> > Pre-war Japan was not a competitor in many industries. >> And the USA doesn't make a lot of things now. Does that make it a >> "developing nation"? > Hardly. So that doesn't disqualify Japan before WW2 either. >> > Post War Japan >> > became a competitor because they focused on customer needs ( and they >> > they listened to Deming). For simple examples just look at the >> > American and German Camera and Optics industries in the post WWII era. >> As if they made nothing for home consumption or military consumption >> before WW2. Just another piece of info, up to the end of the WW2 at the very >> least there was a language called 'technical Japanese' or something to >> that effect that was used for engineering. > You are missing the point, please gop back and reread what I wrote. You are acting as if Japan came from ZERO in the 1950s which is totally untrue. And yes, japanese companies perfected and manufactured camera technology that Leica had patented but ignored and had allowed to expire. So what? That is in no way equal to the half-assed copying and ignoring of intellectual property law that goes on in China today. >> > Same thing happened with the U.S. during the 19th century - we became a >> > low cost high volume producer of many products and goods. >> >> Name the list foreign companies that relocated their manufacturing to the >> USA and shipped the goods home in 19th century? > Relocation of existing U.S. production isn't the issue. That's the very heart of the issue. Name the foreign the companies that relocated to the USA to save on labor costs in the 19th century to draw equivilence. > An obvious example in the history of the U.S. watchmaking industry - go > read up on it. We copied the products made in europe and then we made [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > beginning to do. If you don't believe me just look inside any > electronic product or at the label of many articles of clothing. No, what is happening in China is not some watchmaker immigrating from USA to china and then setting up shop. It's a US corporation that has it's people train people in China and then closes up shop in the USA. It's about corporations in China who then take what they've learned from the US corporation's now former employees making their own copy and putting on the market first in china and then later overseas. Earlier this week I saw a cheap chinese copy of the classic pentel mechanical pencil. Of course that's a japanese product, but it's the same theme. There's always the Schwinn bicycle story regarding Giant of Taiwan too.. >> >> The situations are not comparable at all. >> > Oh, they most certainly are if you drop out the concerns about the >> > political regime in China. >> Japan and China are not comparable, even droping the conflict of interest >> of military / government / corporation in China. It doesn't take much >> time in product development to understand the vast differences. > Please take the time to think before making a statement like that. > China is what Japan was after WWII - an emerging economic power but > China is bigger by many times. Who bombed china's existing manufacturing base? > And firms from countries around the > world are lining up to do business in China. Yeah, because people in the USA will pay first world prices for halfassedly made 3rd world goods. >> > I do not understand why the CCP is an issue >> > any more than the nasty regimes that have led countries like Indonesia >> > and Myanmar. And we have continued to buy products from and move >> > production to those countries. >> I try to avoid buying goods made in those nations as well. > Good luck - it is all but impossible unless you are set up to create > products from scratch. I'm doing pretty well thank-you-very-much. It's amazing what you can find made in the USA, europe, or Japan when you try. > >> Let's see, state of the art aircraft, the largest battleships ever to > >> float, etc and so forth is a "developing" industrial nation? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > what? That is in no way equal to the half-assed copying and ignoring of > intellectual property law that goes on in China today. You need to go back and reread what I said and please try to not insert what you think I might be saying. I never said they were coming from zero. But continuing the photographic comments the Japanese camera industry pre-war was producing at best average to below average quality cameras that did incorporate some german design concepts. Post war they used features developed by Zeiss, Leitz and Ihagee, then enhanced it but most importantly they looked at what customers wanted. The German and American camera companies when confronted with the storm from the east initially ignored it. When the new products became impossible to ignore they made the mistake of assuming they knew what was best for customers and continued to fiddle with outdated designs until it was too late. It is a classic response to rapid change by old line companies. > >> > Same thing happened with the U.S. during the 19th century - we became a > >> > low cost high volume producer of many products and goods. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > USA to china and then setting up shop. It's a US corporation that has > it's people train people in China and then closes up shop in the USA. Please don't minimize with simple minded statements what was then a significant part of the U.S. industrial base by 1850. Large industrial companies were turning out record numbers of above average to high quality mechanical watch movements and other components using standardized production techniques. There are numerous comparable stories in other U.S. industries during that period, but the watchmaking industry is particularly easy to comprehend. > It's about corporations in China who then take what they've learned from > the US corporation's now former employees making their own copy and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mechanical pencil. Of course that's a japanese product, but it's the same > theme. So what. During the early part of the 19th century american clock and furniture makers were well known for churning out great numbers of cheap but good quality case goods. They also developed many styles of their own, but as we all know many of those designs borrowed heavily from established concepts used in europe. Using the work of someone else is nothing new - car makers are famous for following one another lemming-like for the latest design. > There's always the Schwinn bicycle story regarding Giant of Taiwan too.. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Who bombed china's existing manufacturing base? Whether the Japanese were rightfully bombed into stopping the war or the Chinese finally decided to reverse Chairman Mao's idiotic plan for turning China backward is pretty much irrelevant. Both had to build an industrial base, redesign the structure of business ownership but they had the capability to become a known producer of quality goods. Japan went through a shakeout with many of it's early consumer goods that were absolutely abysmal - just ask the owner of a Toyopet. But they learned from those mistakes, just as the Chinese are learning. If you think that the quality of Chinese goods is typically very poor then please explain how all of our electronic wonders with chinese components keep on running. > > And firms from countries around the > > world are lining up to do business in China. > > Yeah, because people in the USA will pay first world prices for > halfassedly made 3rd world goods. Please think about what you are saying before making that statement again. > >> > I do not understand why the CCP is an issue > >> > any more than the nasty regimes that have led countries like Indonesia [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm doing pretty well thank-you-very-much. It's amazing what you can > find made in the USA, europe, or Japan when you try. You mioght be surprised at what constitutes a made-in-america product. Country of origin labels are notoriously loose. Using the Nike example they are able to plaster made-in-america labels on certain shoes because they were able to come up with enough advertising costs to meet the cost of content test. Never mind that the shoe itself was made somewhere outside the USA. The famous "Swiss Watch" that we have all been taught to love only has to have 50% of it's content from within the Swiss borders. If marketing labels like "Made in America" make you feel better about your purchase that's fine, but they don't really tell much about where the product and all it's components really came from. That Ford or Chevy you buy likely has parts and components from around the world. > You need to go back and reread what I said and please try to not insert > what you think I might be saying. I never said they were coming from > zero. Compartively china is. > But continuing the photographic comments the Japanese camera > industry pre-war was producing at best average to below average quality > cameras that did incorporate some german design concepts. Post war > they used features developed by Zeiss, Leitz and Ihagee, then enhanced > it but most importantly they looked at what customers wanted. Why don't you go baby sit a chinese supplier for awhile. Maybe you'll then understand that they aren't developing, improving, enhancing or making higher quality anything. It's about turning out tons of cheap sh.t. They'll change material and process on you to cheapen the stuff and increase their profit margins the moment you turn your back. >> No, what is happening in China is not some watchmaker immigrating from >> USA to china and then setting up shop. It's a US corporation that has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stories in other U.S. industries during that period, but the > watchmaking industry is particularly easy to comprehend. I am waiting for you to back up your statement of equivlence. Where is the list for foreign companies that shut down shop in their home nation and began production in the USA? What you are trying to do draw a parallel between US and Japanese innovation with what has been occuring with China. There isn't a parallel. China doesn't represent innovative production techniques. It's cheap labor. Labor so cheap that modern automation is considered too costly. Ever design a product for manufacture in and say europe or the US of A? I have, it's not innovative in China. It's someone sitting there with a soldering iron. In Germany it's a state of the art piece of automation. Manufacturing in China has no parallel to the advances made in the USA at that time. China is throw back to earlier forms of manufacturing because the labor is so cheap the automation, the factory effeciencies are skimped on because they would cost more money. > So what. During the early part of the 19th century american clock and > furniture makers were well known for churning out great numbers of > cheap but good quality case goods. They also developed many styles of > their own, but as we all know many of those designs borrowed heavily > from established concepts used in europe. Where is the list of companies that relocated manufacturing to the USA in the 19th century? oops... no? They were supplying the people in the USA product at the price point they could afford. Made and sold in the US of A. You might be able to draw some parallel to production for Chinese DOMESTIC consumption, but that's it. >> Who bombed china's existing manufacturing base? > Whether the Japanese were rightfully bombed into stopping the war or > the Chinese finally decided to reverse Chairman Mao's idiotic plan for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > please explain how all of our electronic wonders with chinese > components keep on running. Why don't you spend some time in product development with the components and assembly made in China. They aren't trying to learn anything. You'll be short changed the moment your back is turned. The production quality will go to sh.t the moment the engineer gets on the plane to go back to the USA. >> Yeah, because people in the USA will pay first world prices for >> halfassedly made 3rd world goods. > Please think about what you are saying before making that statement > again. You like paying full price for unauthorized material subsitutions and improper processing? > That Ford or Chevy you buy likely has parts and components from around > the world. Of course, but the more content not made in china, the better. > > You need to go back and reread what I said and please try to not insert > > what you think I might be saying. I never said they were coming from [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > Of course, but the more content not made in china, the better. You my friend are destined to end up an economic loser just like the many american companies after WWII when the Japanese were underestimated. You can keep burying your head in the sand and muttering about the chiese making sloppy poor quality goods. But if they are so bad, then why are people buying them. Don't tell me you have a secret insight into the quality of chinese goods that nobody else has. Cmon, wake up and enter the 21 century! > > > You need to go back and reread what I said and please try to not insert > > > what you think I might be saying. I never said they were coming from [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > Cmon, wake up and enter the 21 century! It's because a lot of people shop for price, not quality. And, truth be told, there's no economic benefit in buying something that costs 4x as much, lasts indefinitely, but is obsolete just as soon as the cheap product that may or may not make it to obsolescence. Even true of cars (to get back on topic) - there are very few people that still drive cars much over 10 years old; people want the latest and greatest thing, even if there's been few real technical improvements over what they have now. This makes me somewhat sad; IMHO there's intangible value to a product that's well designed and well built, and not just thrown together by the cheapest supplier. nate (whose "new" car is an '88 model; I guess I am not an average consumer.) > It's because a lot of people shop for price, not quality. Well, yes, but haven't people always looked for a bargain? Decades ago bargains used to be called sales. One of the long standing rituals of car buying has always been negotiating painfully for a better deal. > And, truth > be told, there's no economic benefit in buying something that costs 4x > as much, lasts indefinitely, but is obsolete just as soon as the cheap > product that may or may not make it to obsolescence. Whether a product becomes obsolete depends a lot on its design and style and on personal expectations for the product. I can't readily think of an expensive product that becomes obsolete as quickly as it's less expensive counterpart. An expensive conservative business suit will probably be in-style longer and wear longer than a high style Italian cheapo suit from Nordstroms Rack. > Even true of cars > (to get back on topic) - there are very few people that still drive > cars much over 10 years old; people want the latest and greatest thing, > even if there's been few real technical improvements over what they > have now. Well, take a longer view and maybe it will appear different. Some original purchasers may sell after 5 to 10 years, but there is a very active used car market, so it isn't as though the car is discarded after 5 years. It's utility gets used up by someone else, but it gets used. We've all known people who had some silly rule for trading cars: every 2 years; at 50,000 miles; when the warranty is out, etc. You and I know it makes no financial sense, but those people have no end of ways to justify their decision. Strip all the nonsense away and the real answer is that they like new cars...period! There have been very few headline worthy single technical breakthroughs in my experience, and none that by itself would justify buying a new car, advertisements notwithstanding. There have been and continue to be many small breakthroughs, some of which are derided at the time but most are ultimately appreciated. Examples might be seat belts, emissions controls, ABS, disc brakes, safer interior design, electronic engine and trans management, etc. I think we have better cars than 30 years ago, but those cars got better in small steps. > This makes me somewhat sad; IMHO there's intangible value to a product > that's well designed and well built, and not just thrown together by > the cheapest supplier. I agree, but don't we always perform some kind of balancing act before deciding on a major purchase? Trading cost against design and ,mentally reaching some sort of imprecise compromise? John, who almost always drives cars for 250,000 miles or more and has passed that genetic defect on to his children. > nate > > (whose "new" car is an '88 model; I guess I am not an average consumer.) > > It's because a lot of people shop for price, not quality. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > will probably be in-style longer and wear longer than a high style > Italian cheapo suit from Nordstroms Rack. Pretty much anything electronic; computers, digital cameras, cell phones, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. If you have a 10 year old cell phone, you're in the stone age. Likewise for that 486/66 that's sitting in your closet gathering dust, pretty much all it's good for now is running a Linux-based email server or something. > > Even true of cars > > (to get back on topic) - there are very few people that still drive [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ways to justify their decision. Strip all the nonsense away and the > real answer is that they like new cars...period! Absolutely. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of consumers seem to *like* new cars. > There have been very few headline worthy single technical breakthroughs > in my experience, and none that by itself would justify buying a new [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I think we have better cars than 30 years ago, but those cars got > better in small steps. Eh, that's debatable. My '55 coupe has a '63 model automatic transmission; I like it a hell of a lot better than the new, electronically controlled transmixer in my company car. It works very easily. Upshifts to high at somewhere between 30 and 60 MPH based on throttle position, and drops to second when you floor it. Very easy to drive. The new car... it upshifts and unlocks the torque converter whenever you let up on the gas, and relocks and drops anywhere between one and three gears whenever you put your foot back on it. Very frantic, and disconcerting in heavy highway traffic where you're constantly alternating between coasting and very light power. I also am honestly curious as to how it is even legal - there is literally no engine braking at all with the TC unlocked in OD. I thought that freewheeling had been illegal since the late 60's? Seat belts are undeniably good, but ABS quality varies widely - wide enough that I can't say whether I'd rather have it or not until we narrow the discussion down to a specific implementation. In short, I'm not 100% convinced that "new" always equals "better." > > This makes me somewhat sad; IMHO there's intangible value to a product > > that's well designed and well built, and not just thrown together by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > deciding on a major purchase? Trading cost against design and > ,mentally reaching some sort of imprecise compromise? The real problem IMHO is that for the average consumer, there is no choice. Who has the $$ to buy studio grade electronics? Or a really high-end car that's built to last? In so many market segments there is a big gaping hole between mass-market, built-to-a-price Wal-Mart crap and the actual good stuff which is priced out of reach of most people. Of course, this is mostly the consumer's doing; as so many people buy the cheap stuff whether because they figure it's good enough, or to "get them by" until they can afford to get something better, that there's no market for reasonably priced but quality goods. In the specific case of cars, the market is littered with examples of manufacturers that attempted to produce a superior product and were crushed by market forces. AMC, Studebaker, Packard, et. al. - all better than GM or Ford, and all dead. Chrysler remained, but as a shadow of its former self and now owned by Daimler. > John, who almost always drives cars for 250,000 miles or more and has > passed that genetic defect on to his children. Nothin' wrong with that, it's not a defect. nate > The real problem IMHO is that for the average consumer, there is no > choice. Who has the $$ to buy studio grade electronics? Everyone, now that unlimited track 24 bit soundcards are way below $100US. It's the talent behind the keyboard nowadays, not the gear. > > The real problem IMHO is that for the average consumer, there is no > > choice. Who has the $$ to buy studio grade electronics? > > Everyone, now that unlimited track 24 bit soundcards are way below $100US. > > It's the talent behind the keyboard nowadays, not the gear. But it's probably made-in-China shite that may or may not fail in a year. I was referring to component quality, not sound quality. nate >> It's because a lot of people shop for price, not quality. > > Well, yes, but haven't people always looked for a bargain? Decades ago > bargains used to be called sales. One of the long standing rituals of > car buying has always been negotiating painfully for a better deal. Continually buying replacements is not a bargin. It's like IL roads, often done half-assed just to be redone again. Sure it would have been more expensive than any of the redos to do it right once, but it would have been cheaper to do it once right than several times on the cheap. It's all how you define a bargin. > Well, take a longer view and maybe it will appear different. Some > original purchasers may sell after 5 to 10 years, but there is a very > active used car market, so it isn't as though the car is discarded > after 5 years. If automakers could devise something that would cause a car to fall apart the moment the new-car-buyer sold it, they'd do it. > You my friend are destined to end up an economic loser just like the > many american companies after WWII when the Japanese were > underestimated. I don't under estimate the chinese at all. But I know the product is crap. The problem is the american public doesn't know good from crap or just doesn't care because they are going to throw it out next week anyway. > You can keep burying your head in the sand and > muttering about the chiese making sloppy poor quality goods. But if > they are so bad, then why are people buying them. Don't tell me you > have a secret insight into the quality of chinese goods that nobody > else has. How many chinese vendors did you have to squeeze a quality product out of? I've had to do it many times. I had parts I designed produced in many nations. The parts from china where always the worst in except one case. (if you need good labels made in China, I know who to call) Europe was just the opposite, everyone was good except for the label vendor. > Cmon, wake up and enter the 21 century! I am very much in the 21st century. Some of us simply don't share your vision of it. >You my friend are destined to end up an economic loser just like the >many american companies after WWII when the Japanese were >underestimated. You can keep burying your head in the sand and >muttering about the chiese making sloppy poor quality goods. But if >they are so bad, then why are people buying them. Because, you retarded excuse for a human, in most cases American companies DO NOT GIVE US A CHOICE. ************************* Dave >You my friend are destined to end up an economic loser just like the >many american companies after WWII when the Japanese were >underestimated. You can keep burying your head in the sand and >muttering about the chiese making sloppy poor quality goods. But if >they are so bad, then why are people buying them. Because they're cheap. > >You my friend are destined to end up an economic loser just like the > >many american companies after WWII when the Japanese were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because they're cheap. So you apparently have an insight into not only the quality of chinese goods but the motivations that cause millions of people to buy chinese goods. Don't you find it strange that so few others hold your view? It certainly seems likely that your view doesn't really correspond to the reality most people experience. >> >You my friend are destined to end up an economic loser just like the >> >many american companies after WWII when the Japanese were [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >goods but the motivations that cause millions of people to buy chinese >goods. Yes. It's not rocket science. >> >You my friend are destined to end up an economic loser just like the >> >many american companies after WWII when the Japanese were [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It certainly seems likely that your view doesn't really correspond to > the reality most people experience. Most people haven't worked in product design, development, or other engineering and manufacturing roles and personally experienced the difference between making something in China vs. USA,Europe,and Japan. >You mioght be surprised at what constitutes a made-in-america product. >Country of origin labels are notoriously loose. Using the Nike example [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >feel better about your purchase that's fine, but they don't really tell >much about where the product and all it's components really came from. The Swiss actually are stricter than you imply. The text below is from a web site explaining use of the word Swiss in relation to watches. This law is based on a concept according to which Swiss quality depends on the amount of work actually carried out on a watch in Switzerland, even if some foreign components are used in it. It therefore requires that the assembly work on the movement (the motor of the watch) and on the watch itself (fitting the movement with the dial, hands and the various parts of the case) should be carried out in Switzerland, along with the final testing of the movement. It also requires that at least 50% of the components of the movement should be manufactured in Switzerland. So 50% Swiss content alone does not allow the word Swiss to appear on the watch. -------------- Alex > >You mioght be surprised at what constitutes a made-in-america product. > >Country of origin labels are notoriously loose. Using the Nike example [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > So 50% Swiss content alone does not allow the word Swiss to appear on the > watch. Heh... see my last post... wearing a 1950's vintage Mido today. Yeah, it's a cheap Swiss watch, but it's still a Swiss watch. Makes me a lot happier than a new digital thing, anyway... nate >Exactly. They were a developed industrial nation capable of making >complex machines of sound engineering and quality of their own design and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >designs with technology gathered from the west (mostly USA) inserted >where needed to improve it. Case in point, we sell Taiwan our oldest equipment, submarines, et cetera. We do so because the equipment we built in the 40's is superior to ANYTHING the chinese can make today. ************************* Dave >And the USA doesn't make a lot of things now. Does that make it a >"developing nation"? That is what clinton and other liberals had in mind... ************************* Dave >No, that is wrong. Poor quality happens because sellers underestimate >consumers demand for high quality. Pop the cover of your PC, >television or other electronic product and marvel at all the chinese >goods within. Hmm, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan seem to be where everything I have was made. Other than the DVD player, which I bought because it supports all kinds of burned discs. The Chinese of course would support that best. But, I don't shop at WalMart for electronics. >> EVERYTHING built in china comes from stolen product designs or designs >> given to them (from Fisher Price for example) that they later turn >> into their own copies. > >They learned very well from every developing country from Korea to >Japan to the U.S. So you're saying that making cheap clones based on designs you never paid for is okay? Do you have such blatent disregard for all intellectual property laws, or is it only okay because they're "developing"? Dave Hogan >> For that to happen they would have to make mistakes. That doesn't >> happen because the chinese are incapable of designing anything. > >No, that is wrong. Poor quality happens because sellers underestimate >consumers demand for high quality. Are you serious? Poor quality is the fault of the buyer, not the thief who STOLE A DESIGN and failed to implement it correctly. >> EVERYTHING built in china comes from stolen product designs or designs >> given to them (from Fisher Price for example) that they later turn >> into their own copies. > >They learned very well from every developing country from Korea to >Japan to the U.S. They did not learn, they stole. >> I have worked with people from all over the world. Without exception >> the chinese are the laziest, most incompetent of all that I have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Peoples Bank of China (their central bank) and believe me they are >motivated. Motivated thieves do not impress me. ************************* Dave > I have worked with people from all over the world. Without exception > the chinese are the laziest, most incompetent of all that I have > worked with. Certainly not my experience. The Indians however take the meaning of incompetent to an entirely new level. Graham > The Indians however take the meaning of incompetent to an entirely new > level. Indian PhD students tend to be better than the Chinese nowadays. And its not just that their English is better. > > The Indians however take the meaning of incompetent to an entirely new > > level. > > Indian PhD students tend to be better than the Chinese nowadays. And its not > just that their English is better. When dealing with manufacturing etc.. it's rarely PhDs you're dealing with. I have no doubt that Indian intellectuals are very good but dealing with everday Indian managers is a bit like trying to swim in treacle. Graham >> The Indians however take the meaning of incompetent to an entirely new >> level. > >Indian PhD students tend to be better than the Chinese nowadays. And its not >just that their English is better. In a college class I saw a former US Army member, born and raised in the US, argue with a teacher that Fidel Castro was the president of Iraq, and he'd know because he was in the Gulf War. Every group has it's stupid and lazy members. Trying to base it on race, nationality or anything else is going to be inaccurate. Dave Hogan > >> The Indians however take the meaning of incompetent to an entirely new > >> level. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Every group has it's stupid and lazy members. Trying to base it on > race, nationality or anything else is going to be inaccurate. Until you get to see the wider picture I guess you might say that ! I've spent too long in India to be much fooled. Actually, on a personal level, the Indians are great fun to be with. Just don't go doing business with them ! Graham > Actually, on a personal level, the Indians are great fun to be with. Except for the excessive amount of body odo(u)r. IME, most people who were born and raised in the subcontinent haven't learned the concept of daily showers coupled with deoderant/cologne usage. > > Actually, on a personal level, the Indians are great fun to be with. > > Except for the excessive amount of body odo(u)r. IME, most people who > were born and raised in the subcontinent haven't learned the concept of > daily showers coupled with deoderant/cologne usage. Not my experience in Mumbai ( Bombay ). It is quite hot there though so I expect everyone sweats quite a lot. Graham >>>Actually, on a personal level, the Indians are great fun to be with. >> >>Except for the excessive amount of body odo(u)r. IME, most people who >>were born and raised in the subcontinent haven't learned the concept of >>daily showers coupled with deoderant/cologne usage. > Not my experience in Mumbai ( Bombay ). There it is understandable to some extent. Here, in the US or the UK, it isn't (especially in the middle of winter). Keep in mind that my ethnic origin is south asian, but I was born and raised in the US. > > Actually, on a personal level, the Indians are great fun to be with. > > Except for the excessive amount of body odo(u)r. IME, most people who > were born and raised in the subcontinent haven't learned the concept of > daily showers coupled with deoderant/cologne usage. I suspect we come off in some cultures as being artificially perfumed dandies who reek of all the chemical solutions we apply to our bodies.... Hint: There are two sides to every discussion and it usually helps to try and remember both sides before pushing the send button. >> I have worked with people from all over the world. Without exception >> the chinese are the laziest, most incompetent of all that I have >> worked with. > > Certainly not my experience. It depends. Did they get degrees from US universities or universities in China? My experience has made me question exactly what the degree program for engineering of a Chinese university is like. Now, India on the other hand has excellent engineering programs from everything I've learned, and experience with people who went through it. > >> I have worked with people from all over the world. Without exception > >> the chinese are the laziest, most incompetent of all that I have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Now, India on the other hand has excellent engineering programs from > everything I've learned, and experience with people who went through it. You're assuming it seems that a good degree means so much more. My own experience has been the complete reverse of yours. The Indians are mainly lazy, slow, and devious whilst the Chinese I've met have been very efficent and focussed. The Indian *workers* and *engineers* are OK but their management is the big problem btw. Graham > You're assuming it seems that a good degree means so much more. When basic engineering concepts are lost on people, I question the program they graduated from. That's where I find the line to be, where the education was. Here or over there. >>> I have worked with people from all over the world. Without exception >>> the chinese are the laziest, most incompetent of all that I have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Now, India on the other hand has excellent engineering programs from >everything I've learned, and experience with people who went through it. And technically speaking, I have experienced superior quality educations from almost everyone I have met from a foreign country EXCEPT for those from china. That is, as long as we are talking engineering, and not liberal arts. ************************* Dave > For that to happen they would have to make mistakes. That doesn't > happen because the chinese are incapable of designing anything. > EVERYTHING built in china comes from stolen product designs or designs > given to them (from Fisher Price for example) that they later turn > into their own copies. Fatal assumtion here. > I have worked with people from all over the world. Without exception > the chinese are the laziest, most incompetent of all that I have > worked with. Have you worked with Japanese IT people on the ground in Japan? Now there's a lazy incompetent group if I ever have seen one. It is peculiar that they have somehow managed to project an aura of excellent quality and industriousness - it is simply not true. > People from Pakistan and India excel in what they do. So do those > from Australia, Belgium, South Africa - the list goes on. I have > NEVER worked with a competent person from china. I much prefer to work with Chinese than Indians. There are some very good Indians but there is often a devious political undercurrent in a project with them. Number one rule in a project with more than one Indian on a team is watch your back. > I did have a professor in college who was Chinese. I respect him, but > even in my third year of college I was above his level in software > development. It is kind of sad when you go to the instructor and he > can't even begin to critique your work, because he has never done > anything that advanced. Advanced was Windows programming. The Chinese are becoming firmware masters right now. They have already got to the same level in native VLSI design as the Japanese had in the 90s. Expect to see a lot of innovative entirely Chinese designs. Speaking as an Australian, the problem with American skills is often overspecialization which requires more complex management hierarchies which adds its own unique problems to projects. I dare say that this is also a factor in the poor performance of your military in Iraq. >> For that to happen they would have to make mistakes. That doesn't >> happen because the chinese are incapable of designing anything. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Fatal assumtion here. Nope, as I am still alive and kicking. >> I have worked with people from all over the world. Without exception >> the chinese are the laziest, most incompetent of all that I have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >have somehow managed to project an aura of excellent quality and >industriousness - it is simply not true. The Japanese I have worked with have been better than average, but not nearly as intelligent or hard working as those from Korea, Pakistan and India. >> People from Pakistan and India excel in what they do. So do those >> from Australia, Belgium, South Africa - the list goes on. I have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >with them. Number one rule in a project with more than one Indian on a team >is watch your back. Number one rule in life is to watch your back if even one chinese person is near. >> I did have a professor in college who was Chinese. I respect him, but >> even in my third year of college I was above his level in software [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The Chinese are becoming firmware masters right now. They have already got >to the same level in native VLSI design as the Japanese had in the 90s. Are you f.cking serious? They are becoming masters because they are at the level of the Japanese FROM THE f.cking 90s! >Speaking as an Australian, the problem with American skills is often >overspecialization which requires more complex management hierarchies which >adds its own unique problems to projects. I dare say that this is also a >factor in the poor performance of your military in Iraq. Yes, kicking the a.s of the world's third or fourth largest army in two days is poor performance. Maybe if we are lucky Bush will nuke australia. Nothing but kangaroos there anyhow. ************************* Dave > The Japanese I have worked with have been better than average, but not > nearly as intelligent or hard working as those from Korea, Pakistan > and India. Racial IQ? You wouldn't by any chance have a white hood and cape? > Number one rule in life is to watch your back if even one chinese > person is near. It sounds to me that you are a backwoods simpleton. > Yes, kicking the a.s of the world's third or fourth largest army in > two days is poor performance. Bwahhaaaa! Three years later and you are in a worse situation than when you started. You've got yourselves a new Vietnam style defeat in the offing. > Maybe if we are lucky Bush will nuke australia. Nothing but kangaroos > there anyhow. Bush and so many of your countrymen are so stupid he would probably push the wrong button and end up nuking Austria instead. > I did have a professor in college who was Chinese. I respect him, but > even in my third year of college I was above his level in software > development. It is kind of sad when you go to the instructor and he > can't even begin to critique your work, because he has never done > anything that advanced. Advanced was Windows programming. That only means that you went to a bad school. >> I did have a professor in college who was Chinese. I respect him, but >> even in my third year of college I was above his level in software [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That only means that you went to a bad school. Not hardly, considering places like DePaul, Loyola, U of I and a NUMBER of other universities around were using our curriculum as a guide on how to better educate students. Two points, first - I graduated before Windows programming was common place, and second, the quality of the school is not the same as the quality of the chinese instructors at that school. There were Korean, Russian, et cetera, instructors there, all of whom were very good. It was the chinese ones who were way behind the eight ball. Now, when you think about replying about how smart you are because you once wrote a VB app full of spaghetti code, and I ignore you, you will know why. ************************* Dave >>>I did have a professor in college who was Chinese. I respect him, but >>>even in my third year of college I was above his level in software [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > NUMBER of other universities around were using our curriculum as a > guide on how to better educate students. Well, the good schools in the state are Purdue, IU, Notre Dame. >> > I would wait for a long history of quality and not be the guinea pig on >> > this one. Look at how far Korean cars have come - the Hyundai Sonata [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But the point I was making was more on the steep learning curve for > consumer products that developing countries face. The learning curve is my point. > Korea's early reputation for producing quality consumer goods was to > say the least rather modest. But they did learn from their mistakes. > I am fully confident that China will continue to learn quickly from > their mistakes. Not in my experience. The moment we turned our backs the quality went to sh.t again. Most often it was the same issue repeating itself over and over. Turn over on factory floors in china is also very high. > That said, the real problem I have with this first round of Chinese > cars is the backers...one in particular has a very poor reputation for > not standing behind automotive products. My prediction is that each round will have great potentional for wonderfully spectatular failures. There will also be many reruns. > >> > I would wait for a long history of quality and not be the guinea pig on > >> > this one. Look at how far Korean cars have come - the Hyundai Sonata [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The learning curve is my point. Your point was completely missing from that 4 word sentence.... > > Korea's early reputation for producing quality consumer goods was to > > say the least rather modest. But they did learn from their mistakes. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My prediction is that each round will have great potentional for > wonderfully spectatular failures. There will also be many reruns. >> >> > I would wait for a long history of quality and not be the guinea pig on >> >> > this one. Look at how far Korean cars have come - the Hyundai Sonata >> >> > now gets very good ratings and is still reasonably priced. >> >> South Korea isn't china. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Your point was completely missing from that 4 word sentence.... It's implied by the context. >> > Korea's early reputation for producing quality consumer goods was to >> > say the least rather modest. But they did learn from their mistakes. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> My prediction is that each round will have great potentional for >> wonderfully spectatular failures. There will also be many reruns. >>> The learning curve is my point. >> >> Your point was completely missing from that 4 word sentence.... > >It's implied by the context. Obviously not something his little brain can understand. ************************* Dave >Would anyone here in this newsgroup ever consider owning a new Chinese >car that will be supposedly marketed in the USA come 2007? Sure, I have no issue giving the chinese more of my money for more defective pieces of sh.t, which are built upon stolen technology. Why should anyone care if the chinese steal our economy on one side, while idiots give them the rest. ************************* Dave |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message