My apologies if I'm calling you on the carpet.... but this is how I feel.
Blame those that continue to buy Toyota, Honda, Mazda, and now Kia, Hyundai, and so called prestige brands.
A nation needs manufacturing for strength. Its proven.
Its not so prestigious driving your new BMW through a city like Detroit.....
Robert Richard
Why does having a city filled with lights and new buildings mean strength?
Gregory Burton
economic strength, its a measure of political clout, historically proportionate to the breadth of industry in a nation..... and industry, especially manufacturing, is synonymous with military strength and national security
buy a Kia, or Hyundai --- strengthen Korean nation
buy a Japanese product --- strengthen Japan
today, you've got to ask yourself, "what do I feel I owe others?"
in today's global market, purchases need to be scrutinized, for health in food purchases, for overall value, national security, jobs, and pensions in product choices, etc.
Robert Richard
And really come on...who needs a Lincoln or Cadillac pick-up truck? And the Aztec? Poor design and manufacturing choices on the part of the automotive industry didn't help their bottom line.
John Burton
I think the comparison of the two cities is valid and is related to their history rather than to politics. As Britain was the first nation to industrialize it also was the first nation to suffer decline in relation to other nations that did not have to repeat the mistakes she had made while inventing the whole thing. The American automobile industry was the unchallenged world leader In both innovation and profitability in the 1950,s and 1960,s – no one thought that that would change so dramatically within twenty years, but it did. Both Germany and Japan had to rebuild their industries from scratch after total defeat during WW2 and could only do so with help from the United States. In order to prevent the defeated countries from turning to the Communists during the Cold War, the US launched the Marshal Plan which helped rebuild their economies. The two defeated nations were also protected by the Western powers (including Canada) so they did not have to spend resources on defence and could concentrate totally on rebuilding their economies. Unfortunately Globalization came to mean nothing more than access to the US and Canadian markets for many countries as they continued to block imports to their own countries. The North American Status quo industries with their accepted and hard won levels of worker compensation began to decline in relation to the new and hungry industries evolving in the east. Other social issues may have also contributed to the success of Hiroshima and the decline of Detroit. Japan is a monoculture with an unchallenged hierarchy and social tensions are all but unknown. United States cities like Detroit are caldrons of seething racial and cultural dissension. Know your history or it will come back to bite you. Japan should be aware that China can supplant her and Hiroshima may yet begin to look like Detroit.
Christopher J Burton
Nope. I don't buy it. The only reason the US and Canada wanted to "protect"Japan was to keep an eye on them and make sure they didn't become a threat again. Yes the US did help with resources to rebuild their some of their cities and economies but only because they believed this would benefit Americans. Cities like Detroit are dying because they were not proactive with regard to the global economy. And yes you are right, other cities like Hiroshima could suffer the same fate if their not proactive. Nothing you have written has bitten me by the way. A big bomb killing thousands is not the same as apathetic people letting their city wither.
John Burton
Ask yourself, when in history has any nation responded to a vanquished foe with economic and military support? Look at the punitive reparations imposed on Germany after the Great War in 1918. The idea then was to reduce Germany to an impoverished backwater that was unable to fight – that worked out really well didn’t it. Look at the way Germany and Japan treated the countries they defeated during the War. The result of their occupation was mass slaughter and enslavement of the civilian populations. The Japanese were particularly brutal and are hated to this day for their actions in places like Korea, Burma, The Philippines and China. Their treatment of prisoners of war bordered on sadism with all its inhumanity. Yet the peace imposed on Japan, primarily by the United States, was one of reconciliation. For certain the Soviet Union did not want to build a new Japan – they were there for the loot. Communism could only take hold with destitution.
I don’t see how a country can be criticised for adopting policies of mutual benefit that are based on universal values. In hind site it was the right and moral thing to do. The defeat of a truly terrifying ideology, International Communism, was a goal that any individual who values their liberty could not help but support.
As for the Atomic Bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, you cannot separate the event from the context of the time. Remember that the Japanese were fighting to the death on almost every front and on Tarawa even the Japanese civilian population committed suicide rather than surrender. The people were motivated by the Bushido code that glorifies death in the name of the Emperor. I remind you that Japan did not surrender after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and they did not surrender for six days after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. They did not surrender after the fire bombing of Tokyo which killed more people that both bombs put together. If you are looking for a villain that fits the reality of the times – look to the Japanese government and its inhuman ideology.
Your point on being proactive is a good one, however, when it comes to North American industry. I think certain industries should have been deemed essential to the defence of the nation and protected behind a wall of economic sanctions. Much as Europe is doing. With the encroachment of socialism into the economy, large numbers of workers are earning their living with money extracted by force as taxes from the private sector. I would not be averse to compelling these workers to buy North American vehicles as a condition of government employment.
Christopher J BurtonIn Bob's original post, I think he was a little selective in his choice of pictures to make a point. He did not include examples like the following:
Irrespective of the choice of pictures, both Bob's and my pictures are extreme examples. The economic and political conditions prevalent in the period after the second world war have been covered in some depth. They are truly representative of the economic climate in the two Japaneses cities and that of Detroit. The Automotive industry in the post war period manifest itself in North America in uninhibited excesses. While Germany and Japan undertook the job or rebuilding their cities and industry, we in North America embarked on a automobile consumer binge of "Big is Beautiful". There were many industry successes. Unions made unprecedented demands on manufactures and got what they asked for. Substantial demands were made fore wages and pensions. Everyone was living well.
About this time Lee Iaccoca joined the Ford Motor Company and in 1960 Ford introduced the Ford Falcon. It was a very conventional design. Simple to manufacture and could be built to a price target and still produce a profit. It was a sales success. GM tried to emulate the success of Volkswagen which was just starting to get a foot hold in North America, with the Corvair. It was an interesting period in the automotive industry in North America. GM introduced a small Pontiac called the Tempest with four wheel independent suspension, rear mounted transmission and a metallic rope drive. There was great innovation at GM during this period. Unfortunately, the manufacturing execution of many of these new features left some thing to be desired.. Other than the compact product entries at Ford, GM and Chrysler during the 60s the bulk of the products were very large very heavy vehicles. There was little concern among the manufacturers to maximize fuel efficiency. Fuel was cheap. The main emphasis was on chrome and fins.
In the early 60s, the Volkswagen company was starting to make significant inroads into the low end of the car market. The car was cheap, fuel efficient and had a kind of non conformist market appeal. It also had some significant product deficiencies. At this point in time the Japaneses product were no were in sight. At Ford, we tried to combat the Volkswagen phenomena with the Fords built in England like the Anglia, Prefect and later the Cortina. It was a half hearted marketing effort and the cars were mediocre.
To my knowledge there was no recognition during this period by GM or Chrysler that imported cars were a problem. It wasn't long before the Corona and Corolla were introduced from Japan and they were written off as a fad. After all, they were small with small engines, no style and who would buy one of those?
At Ford there was a group that undertook a project to design a small car that would capitalize on the appeal of the Volkswagen without it's deficiencies. The code name for the car was Cardinal. The car would be front wheel drive. Would have a 1500cc V4 engine mounted in the front. It Would accommodate four or even five passengers in pinch and would have usable trunk space. A number of prototypes were built. I spoke personally with the engineers who did winter testing in Northern Ontario and they were ecstatic about the cars performance in Comparison to the Volkswagens which also were taken along on these test excursions. The car exhibited outstanding traction in the snow, had a heater that kept occupants warm and cleared the windshield and had trunk space far in excess of that of the Volkswagen.
What this is leading up to is that we had the engineering talent and capability to build a very competitive small car back in the mid 1960s. In Canada we undertook extensive studies as to the suitability of this product to the Canadian market place and how to integrate it into our manufacturing facility. The financial organizations and the manufacturing management in Canada were against
bringing this car to Canada. From a manufacturers view point, they already had too many products to put through the plant. They had Meteors, and Monarchs that didn't exist in the U.S. They didn't want the added complication of a new small vehicle that was totally different from what they were already building.
The financial departments position was typical of accountants. This new little car cost almost as much to build as the Falcon. If we introduce it, it will cannibalize our more profitable products that we already make. Well that was obviously a short term view. Like most financial executives, they're not in the business to make cars. They are in business to make money. In most companies the financial executives call the shots. In this case we were able to convince the president of Ford Canada, Karl Scott to take a longer term view and he approved the addition of the Cardinal to the Canadian product line. Unfortunately, the financial executives prevailed in the U.S. and the car was not available to us. All the Cardinal engineering and prototypes were packaged up and sent Germany were it became the Taunis and sold hundreds of thousands of units.
All this is to address Bob's assertion that the sorry state of the automotive industry in North America is due to the consumer's mindless purchase of off shore product to the detriment of our local industry. In our free capitalist system, the consumer is king. The consumer will buy that which suits him best. In the past, we in North America built the best products at a price consumers were willing to pay. Our industry executives failed to adapt to changing market conditions. The industry in North America lost it's drive to be competitive. It's not we consumers who have failed. The automotive industry failed itself.
Jack Burton
