I have marked a few paragraphs with ~~~ to highlight the frenetic pace
of development. The business model is affordable modern cars for
third world markets including China herself. The American car market
may be the biggest in the world. But it is a mature market with
cutthroat competition even the big three Detroit Iron has trouble
surviving in. Chinese car manufacturers would be silly to want to
enter this market as an independent. But with Detroit three seeking
China made cars to fill out their low end models it is possible that
this will be a very profitable partnership. When they hit US roads the
US importer will have to be responsible for quality and consumer
issues since there cars will be rebadged and sold under the aegis of a
Detroit three company.

A website with pictures is at
http://www.worldstyling.com/web/prod...il.php?id=2512
http://archive.cardesignnews.com/aut...ghts/index.php
The cars will look good on any road. Since the car market in China
itself is open to imports a crappy domestic design car that cannot
match Japanese or German models for example won't sell. The Chinese
made cars are of good quality. While you may bicker on the small
details the fact remains that they sell like hot cakes and they are
not breaking down on the roads.


Chery's millionth car 'just the beginning'
August 24, 2007
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_B.../IH24Cb03.html

WUHU, China - China's Chery Automobile Co produced its millionth car
on Wednesday, becoming the first wholly Chinese auto maker to reach
that milestone.

~~~The company, established in 1997, started production in 1999 and
made its first million cars in seven years and nine months, said a
statement from the company. It took Chery about six years to make its
first 500,000 vehicles, and only 17 months to complete the second
half-million.

The millionth car is an A3 four-door hatchback, which made its debut
at last year's Beijing auto show and is expected to go on the market
this year.

The compact model, equipped with Chery's own-brand engine, was
designed to meet environmental and safety standards in the US and
European markets, despite some industry analysts claiming that Chinese
producers lack the technology to meet the standards on their own.

In contrast with Chery, Sino-German auto maker FAW Volkswagen took 13
years to make its first million cars, while it took more than eight
years for Shanghai GM and Guangzhou Honda to build their first million
cars.

Chery, the ambitious flag-bearer of Chinese indigenous brands, is
capable of producing 400,000 cars, 400,000 engines and 300,000
transmission cases a year. Chery, now the biggest Chinese
passenger-car brand by unit sales, plans to raise its annual output to
a million cars by 2010.

A new plant, which will begin production in October, will increase
capacity by 250,000-300,000 cars a year. China has 30 sedan
manufacturers, nine of which produce more than 200,000 vehicles a
year.

Chery, based in Wuhu, Anhui province, sold 232,785 cars in the first
seven months of the year, maintaining its position as the country's
seventh-largest auto manufacturer and the fourth-largest sedan
producer.

With sales on the home market dominated by foreign auto makers such as
General Motors, Volkswagen and Toyota, Chery is eager to expand on the
global markets. Since 2001, it has exported 153,694 cars to 56
countries, making it the biggest Chinese sedan exporter for four
consecutive years. It plans to raise annual exports by 800% from last
year to 400,000 by 2010.

~~~Chery plans to have 14 overseas factories by 2010 to assemble its
own-brand cars. It now has seven plants in six foreign countries -
Iran, Russia, Ukraine, Indonesia, Egypt and Uruguay. The top Chinese
car exporter is planning new plants in other countries such as India
and Argentina, it said.

Producing autos abroad will enable Chery to avoid foreign nations'
tariffs on cars shipped from China and will allow it to source spare
parts in these countries. It said the move will help it cut costs
overseas to "reap more profits and improve price competitiveness".

~~~This month, Chery established ties with Italy's Fiat to supply
100,000 engines a year for Fiat cars made in China and abroad. Chery
has also signed a deal with Chrysler to export Chinese-made cars to
the United States and Europe. The two companies will jointly develop
new products based on Chery's small-car platforms.

Cooperating with foreign auto makers was no barrier to developing
Chery's own-brand products, said president Yin Tongyao. "It will help
Chery build indigenous cars with international competitiveness."

In his congratulatory letter to the auto maker, Chinese Vice Premier
Zeng Peiyan said Chery had distinguished itself as China's
self-developed auto brand at home and abroad.

"Taking the millionth car as a new starting point, Chery should
further innovation on technologies and management and upgrade its
products and service," Zeng said.

(Asia Pulse/Xinhua Informati

PaPaPeng wrote:
....
...The Chinese made cars are of good quality. ...

Just don't chew on the lead paint...
--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
PaPaPeng wrote:
...
...The Chinese made cars are of good quality. ...

Just don't chew on the lead paint...
How did that court suit about some of the Chery models being blatant copies
of some GM designs ever work out? Easy to save on engineers when all you are
doing is reverse-engineering somebody else's product.

Bad enough I gotta buy their computer hardware, due to lack of alternatives.
Cold day in hell before I buy their cars.

aem sends.....

aemeijers wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

PaPaPeng wrote:
...

...The Chinese made cars are of good quality. ...

Just don't chew on the lead paint...

How did that court suit about some of the Chery models being blatant copies
of some GM designs ever work out? Easy to save on engineers when all you are
doing is reverse-engineering somebody else's product.

Bad enough I gotta buy their computer hardware, due to lack of alternatives.
Cold day in hell before I buy their cars.

aem sends.....


Well, wasn't it Toyota that based their engine designs off an old Benz
straight six? And today Toyota makes a decent product.

Oh, I see what you mean.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
aemeijers wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

PaPaPeng wrote:
...

...The Chinese made cars are of good quality. ...

Just don't chew on the lead paint...

How did that court suit about some of the Chery models being blatant
copies of some GM designs ever work out? Easy to save on engineers when
all you are doing is reverse-engineering somebody else's product.

Bad enough I gotta buy their computer hardware, due to lack of
alternatives. Cold day in hell before I buy their cars.

aem sends.....

Well, wasn't it Toyota that based their engine designs off an old Benz
straight six? And today Toyota makes a decent product.

Oh, I see what you mean.

nate

Yeah, in the 50s, a lot of the Japanese products used engineering from
elsewhere- under license, in most cases. IIRC, the postwar Toyota truck
engine was based on GM stovebolt six design- already old at the time, but
simple enough for a still-crippled country to build. US govt was trying to
get the Japanese industrial base up and running ASAP, so they encouraged
Detroit to be kind to the Japanese companies.

But the morality of bootleging designs aside (since car companies in general
have become as bad as the fashion industry in ripping each other off), even
if they made and sold a perfect copy of a western design for half the money,
with good reliability and parts support, I still wouldn't buy it, at least
not until they get better on how they treat their people.

aem sends....

On Aug 23, 8:04 pm, PaPaPeng wrote:
I have marked a few paragraphs with ~~~ to highlight the frenetic pace
of development. The business model is affordable modern cars for
third world markets including China herself. The American car market
may be the biggest in the world. But it is a mature market with
cutthroat competition even the big three Detroit Iron has trouble
surviving in. Chinese car manufacturers would be silly to want to
enter this market as an independent. But with Detroit three seeking
China made cars to fill out their low end models it is possible that
this will be a very profitable partnership. When they hit US roads the
US importer will have to be responsible for quality and consumer
issues since there cars will be rebadged and sold under the aegis of a
Detroit three company.

A website with pictures is athttp://www.worldstyling.com/web/product_detail.php?id=2512http://archive.cardesignnews.com/autoshows/2005/shanghai/highlights/i...
The cars will look good on any road. Since the car market in China
itself is open to imports a crappy domestic design car that cannot
match Japanese or German models for example won't sell. The Chinese
made cars are of good quality. While you may bicker on the small
details the fact remains that they sell like hot cakes and they are
not breaking down on the roads.

Chery's millionth car 'just the beginning'
August 24, 2007http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/IH24Cb03.html

WUHU, China - China's Chery Automobile Co produced its millionth car
on Wednesday, becoming the first wholly Chinese auto maker to reach
that milestone.

~~~The company, established in 1997, started production in 1999 and
made its first million cars in seven years and nine months, said a
statement from the company. It took Chery about six years to make its
first 500,000 vehicles, and only 17 months to complete the second
half-million.

The millionth car is an A3 four-door hatchback, which made its debut
at last year's Beijing auto show and is expected to go on the market
this year.

The compact model, equipped with Chery's own-brand engine, was
designed to meet environmental and safety standards in the US and
European markets, despite some industry analysts claiming that Chinese
producers lack the technology to meet the standards on their own.

In contrast with Chery, Sino-German auto maker FAW Volkswagen took 13
years to make its first million cars, while it took more than eight
years for Shanghai GM and Guangzhou Honda to build their first million
cars.

Chery, the ambitious flag-bearer of Chinese indigenous brands, is
capable of producing 400,000 cars, 400,000 engines and 300,000
transmission cases a year. Chery, now the biggest Chinese
passenger-car brand by unit sales, plans to raise its annual output to
a million cars by 2010.

A new plant, which will begin production in October, will increase
capacity by 250,000-300,000 cars a year. China has 30 sedan
manufacturers, nine of which produce more than 200,000 vehicles a
year.

Chery, based in Wuhu, Anhui province, sold 232,785 cars in the first
seven months of the year, maintaining its position as the country's
seventh-largest auto manufacturer and the fourth-largest sedan
producer.

With sales on the home market dominated by foreign auto makers such as
General Motors, Volkswagen and Toyota, Chery is eager to expand on the
global markets. Since 2001, it has exported 153,694 cars to 56
countries, making it the biggest Chinese sedan exporter for four
consecutive years. It plans to raise annual exports by 800% from last
year to 400,000 by 2010.

~~~Chery plans to have 14 overseas factories by 2010 to assemble its
own-brand cars. It now has seven plants in six foreign countries -
Iran, Russia, Ukraine, Indonesia, Egypt and Uruguay. The top Chinese
car exporter is planning new plants in other countries such as India
and Argentina, it said.

Producing autos abroad will enable Chery to avoid foreign nations'
tariffs on cars shipped from China and will allow it to source spare
parts in these countries. It said the move will help it cut costs
overseas to "reap more profits and improve price competitiveness".

~~~This month, Chery established ties with Italy's Fiat to supply
100,000 engines a year for Fiat cars made in China and abroad. Chery
has also signed a deal with Chrysler to export Chinese-made cars to
the United States and Europe. The two companies will jointly develop
new products based on Chery's small-car platforms.

Cooperating with foreign auto makers was no barrier to developing
Chery's own-brand products, said president Yin Tongyao. "It will help
Chery build indigenous cars with international competitiveness."

In his congratulatory letter to the auto maker, Chinese Vice Premier
Zeng Peiyan said Chery had distinguished itself as China's
self-developed auto brand at home and abroad.

"Taking the millionth car as a new starting point, Chery should
further innovation on technologies and management and upgrade its
products and service," Zeng said.

(Asia Pulse/Xinhua Informati

Sorry Guy, but China and Quality just don't belong in the same
sentence.....

-paul

On Aug 23, 8:51 pm, "aemeijers" wrote:
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message

...



aemeijers wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...

PaPaPeng wrote:
...

...The Chinese made cars are of good quality. ...

Just don't chew on the lead paint...

How did that court suit about some of the Chery models being blatant
copies of some GM designs ever work out? Easy to save on engineers when
all you are doing is reverse-engineering somebody else's product.

Bad enough I gotta buy their computer hardware, due to lack of
alternatives. Cold day in hell before I buy their cars.

aem sends.....

Well, wasn't it Toyota that based their engine designs off an old Benz
straight six? And today Toyota makes a decent product.

Oh, I see what you mean.

nate

Yeah, in the 50s, a lot of the Japanese products used engineering from
elsewhere- under license, in most cases. IIRC, the postwar Toyota truck
engine was based on GM stovebolt six design- already old at the time, but
simple enough for a still-crippled country to build. US govt was trying to
get the Japanese industrial base up and running ASAP, so they encouraged
Detroit to be kind to the Japanese companies.

But the morality of bootleging designs aside (since car companies in general
have become as bad as the fashion industry in ripping each other off), even
if they made and sold a perfect copy of a western design for half the money,
with good reliability and parts support, I still wouldn't buy it, at least
not until they get better on how they treat their people.


A valid point, but mine was more along the lines of if you're going to
bootleg a design, you should at least have the discrimination to pick
a GOOD one and not a POS GM product to copy. The old VW 1.6/1.7/1.8
would be an excellent choice for a developing country - simple, small,
reliable, durable. But GM?!?!?!?!?! That doesn't speak well to the
abilities of their engineers if they can't tell a good product from a
****ty one.

The Koreans bootlegged off of the Japanese for a while, and while
Daewoo made an ungraceful exit, Kia and Hyundai seem to be doing all
right, especially Hyundai who I have to admit I'm somewhat impressed
with. If I didn't have a taste for truly good cars and just wanted
some basic transportation, I would be seriously considering a low-end
Hyundai.

nate

wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:25:59 -0700, Paul Flansburg
wrote:

Sorry Guy, but China and Quality just don't belong in the same
sentence.....


I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan.
If China ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.

I just wonder how much LEAD they have in their cars. :-0

--
Moe Jones
HVAC Service Technician
Energy Equalizers Inc.
Houston, Texas
www.EnergyEqualizers.com

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:50:22 -0400, wrote Re
Chinese Cars:

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:25:59 -0700, Paul Flansburg
wrote:

Sorry Guy, but China and Quality just don't belong in the same
sentence.....


I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan.
If China ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.

There is no "if" about it, just a matter of time.

wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:25:59 -0700, Paul Flansburg
wrote:

Sorry Guy, but China and Quality just don't belong in the same
sentence.....


I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan.
If China ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.

Same here. Right now, I would not want tires made in China, let alone
the rest of the car. Initial Japanese cars were tin cans. Now I have 2
in my garage. Competition is a good thing

Frank

"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:25:59 -0700, Paul Flansburg
wrote:

Sorry Guy, but China and Quality just don't belong in the same
sentence.....


I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan. If China
ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.

Same here. Right now, I would not want tires made in China, let alone the
rest of the car. Initial Japanese cars were tin cans. Now I have 2 in my
garage. Competition is a good thing

Frank

I keep hearing that from my own company, typically right before they
announce massive layoffs. Competition is a good thing, so long as everyone
is on equal terms. Unfortunately no Chinese company is on the same level as
any other company due to their atrocious environmental laws, non-existent
copyright enforcement laws, suicidal labor practices, and despotic and
militaristic governement that commits industrial espionage at the drop of a
hat (read it, plenty of cases out there if you google "China + industial
espionage"). China isn't competition, never has been. Japan may have been
a lot of things in the past, gruesome butchers of WWII among them, but they
raised themselves up they their own bootstraps - they didn't steal it.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:50:25 -0700, "Eigenvector"
wrote Re Chinese Cars:

I keep hearing that from my own company, typically right before they
announce massive layoffs. Competition is a good thing, so long as everyone
is on equal terms. Unfortunately no Chinese company is on the same level as
any other company due to their atrocious environmental laws, non-existent
copyright enforcement laws, suicidal labor practices, and despotic and
militaristic governement

Just like we were prior to the 1960.

"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:50:25 -0700, "Eigenvector"
wrote Re Chinese Cars:

I keep hearing that from my own company, typically right before they
announce massive layoffs. Competition is a good thing, so long as
everyone
is on equal terms. Unfortunately no Chinese company is on the same level
as
any other company due to their atrocious environmental laws, non-existent
copyright enforcement laws, suicidal labor practices, and despotic and
militaristic governement

Just like we were prior to the 1960.

No, not even the same thing and not even at the same level. But, does that
mean you are forgiving them? After all, learning from other's mistakes
costs nothing and helps you out dramatically. So what's their excuse?

I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan.
If China ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.

Buy a "foreign car" put an American out of work

Rudy wrote:

I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan.
If China ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.


Buy a "foreign car" put an American out of work


Ford, Chrysler, and GM, by insisting on making cars people don't
want, and refusing to make cars people do want, are the ones who
put Americans out of work.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"Bert Byfield" wrote in message
6.128...
Buy a "foreign car" put an American out of work

It was the same as "Buy a better mousetrap." Why couldn't we make the
best cars in the world???

When you are buying an American car, you are paying 80% for the union and
20% for the car.

To compete, the American car companies need to cut back someplace. Since the
union has the pay scale locked down the only other place to cheap out is the
quality of the cars.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:04:59 GMT, PaPaPeng wrote:

I have marked a few paragraphs with ~~~ to highlight the frenetic pace
of development. The business model is affordable modern cars for
third world markets including China herself.


I always find it very interesting the passions stirred up where China
is concerned. Do read this other story at the high end of technology
and engineering competition.

The ultimate global battle
Boeing Versus Airbus by John Newhouse
The jumbo jet is the icon of globalization; the competition between
Boeing and Airbus is the iconic rivalry. A major theme of this
excellent business book is how the US company has had to rethink and
reshape its business practices to match more closely those of Airbus.
On a larger scale, it is not unlike what the US will have to do to
compete with another upstart, China. - Benjamin A Shobert (Aug 24,
'07)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_.../IH25Dj03.html

Quote: Second, by outsourcing large portions of the 787, Boeing sent
a strong message to its workforce about what the company was prepared
to do in case it had labor problems on its hands again.

Newhouse expands on this second point when he writes, "There is no
evidence, however, that Boeing is saving much money by outsourcing the
787's wing or sections of the fuselage. Japan is not a cheap labor
market. To the contrary. Neither is Italy. But the outsourcing does
send a message to the unions that Boeing deals with. It says: 'If you
mess too hard with us, we can always outsource your job to another
place'" (p 169).

On 25 Aug 2007 08:02:29 GMT, TD wrote:

China puts poison in the cars....same as the food.


You don't get to sleep well do you?

Rudy wrote:
I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan.
If China ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.

Buy a "foreign car" put an American out of work


Not really true. You can buy plenty of foreign cars manufactured in the
USA. And, don't think, "Well, the parts are mostly foreign." because so
are those in "American" cars. But then you say, "The profits go to the
foreigners." Look at company ownership and you will see US companies
have a stake in them.

I buy what is best for me.

Frank

on 8/25/2007 7:44 AM Frank said the following:
Rudy wrote:
I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan.
If China ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.

Buy a "foreign car" put an American out of work

Not really true. You can buy plenty of foreign cars manufactured in
the USA. And, don't think, "Well, the parts are mostly foreign."
because so are those in "American" cars. But then you say, "The
profits go to the foreigners." Look at company ownership and you will
see US companies have a stake in them.

i.e. Ford. http://www.ford.com/en/default.htm
Check the 'Great Products - Our family of brands' bar.


I buy what is best for me.

Frank


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:24:34 -0700, "Eigenvector"
wrote Re Chinese Cars:


"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:50:25 -0700, "Eigenvector"
wrote Re Chinese Cars:

I keep hearing that from my own company, typically right before they
announce massive layoffs. Competition is a good thing, so long as
everyone
is on equal terms. Unfortunately no Chinese company is on the same level
as
any other company due to their atrocious environmental laws, non-existent
copyright enforcement laws, suicidal labor practices, and despotic and
militaristic governement

Just like we were prior to the 1960.

No, not even the same thing and not even at the same level. But, does that
mean you are forgiving them? After all, learning from other's mistakes
costs nothing and helps you out dramatically. So what's their excuse?

Nothing to forgive. I admire their determination and tenacity.

They'll iron out the bugs in their social & political systems as they
grow more prosperous and affluent.

Just like we did.

In article ,
Caesar Romano wrote:




They'll iron out the bugs in their social & political systems as they
grow more prosperous and affluent.

Just like we did.

When did we do that? I must've missed something.

willshak wrote:
on 8/25/2007 7:44 AM Frank said the following:
Rudy wrote:
I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan.
If China ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.

Buy a "foreign car" put an American out of work

Not really true. You can buy plenty of foreign cars manufactured in
the USA. And, don't think, "Well, the parts are mostly foreign."
because so are those in "American" cars. But then you say, "The
profits go to the foreigners." Look at company ownership and you will
see US companies have a stake in them.

i.e. Ford. http://www.ford.com/en/default.htm
Check the 'Great Products - Our family of brands' bar.


Good reference. BTW, it was a POS Ford that drove me to the Japanese.
Mercury Lynx(probably manufactured in Mexico) threw a piston before 2
year drive train warranty was up. Dealer replaced piston and head but
rest of engine was bad and block finally had to be replaced. Said it
was part my fault and would only pay half so I sued and won from dealer
and Ford to pay whole bill. This was about 20 years ago but I will
never consider buying another Ford because of poor product with shabby
treatment by dealer and Ford.

We had a Mazda that ran like a top for 95,000 miles when it was stolen
and stripped. My wife refused to consider buying another because in the
meantime, as your reference points out, Ford bought part of Mazda.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
Caesar Romano wrote:




They'll iron out the bugs in their social & political systems as they
grow more prosperous and affluent.

Just like we did.

When did we do that? I must've missed something.

Middle of the last century. I think they left a note or something.

Rudy wrote:
I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan.
If China ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.

Buy a "foreign car" put an American out of work

Sigh.

Adam Smith settled this silliness in the 18th century with his "Wealth of
Nations."

It's amazing that people STILL believe we should be doing what others can do
better instead of concentrating on what we do best.

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:04:59 GMT, PaPaPeng wrote:
....
I always find it very interesting the passions stirred up where China
is concerned. Do read this other story at the high end of technology
and engineering competition.

The ultimate global battle
Boeing Versus Airbus by John Newhouse
....
Quote: Second, by outsourcing large portions of the 787, Boeing sent
a strong message to its workforce about what the company was prepared
to do in case it had labor problems on its hands again.

Newhouse expands on this second point when he writes, "There is no
evidence, however, that Boeing is saving much money by outsourcing the
787's wing or sections of the fuselage. Japan is not a cheap labor
market. To the contrary. Neither is Italy. But the outsourcing does
send a message to the unions that Boeing deals with. It says: 'If you
mess too hard with us, we can always outsource your job to another
place'" (p 169).

Newhouse may have written it, but it doesn't necessarily mean his
interpretation is correct. Mostly these global deals for manufacturing
have been negotiated arrangements w/ the associated countries made as
part of market access deals.

--

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:48:17 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote Re Chinese Cars:

Rudy wrote:
I am old enough to remember when they said that about Japan.
If China ever even approaches the Koreans in car building quality it
will wipe out the auto industry in the rest of the world for the low
to medium priced car market.

Buy a "foreign car" put an American out of work

Sigh.

Adam Smith settled this silliness in the 18th century with his "Wealth of
Nations."

It's amazing that people STILL believe we should be doing what others can do
better instead of concentrating on what we do best.


Exactly. We need to stick to borrowing money and passing the bill to
future generations.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:51:35 -0500, dpb wrote:

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:04:59 GMT, PaPaPeng wrote:
...
I always find it very interesting the passions stirred up where China
is concerned. Do read this other story at the high end of technology
and engineering competition.

The ultimate global battle
Boeing Versus Airbus by John Newhouse
...
Quote: Second, by outsourcing large portions of the 787, Boeing sent
a strong message to its workforce about what the company was prepared
to do in case it had labor problems on its hands again.

Newhouse expands on this second point when he writes, "There is no
evidence, however, that Boeing is saving much money by outsourcing the
787's wing or sections of the fuselage. Japan is not a cheap labor
market. To the contrary. Neither is Italy. But the outsourcing does
send a message to the unions that Boeing deals with. It says: 'If you
mess too hard with us, we can always outsource your job to another
place'" (p 169).

Newhouse may have written it, but it doesn't necessarily mean his
interpretation is correct. Mostly these global deals for manufacturing
have been negotiated arrangements w/ the associated countries made as
part of market access deals.


If the posts in this thread is any indication much of your (America's)
problems is the inability to recognize that the only way to compete is
to do it better and cheaper. That is unless you have a monopoly
product like large passenger aircraft. Even then the comfort zone
didn't last too long as the Airbus vs Boeing story showed.

I would have thought by now people would have realized that patriotism
doesn't count for much when one pulls out a wallet to pay for a
purchase. Demonizing a competitor is even less effective.

Now I don't have a formula for how to become better and cheaper else I
would have practiced it myself pronto. Its when I see the same tired
old denials as appears in this thread and elsewhere I take some
comfort in that America and the EU doesn't have a plan of any
description to stop the China juggernaut.

The strategic goal of China is to improve the lives of its peoples.
At present there are at least 600 millions who have less than a dollar
a day. That is already twice the population of the US. It will take
at least 20 years if not more to lift these people out of poverty.
That is a massive task for a very modest gain. So don't expect China
to change its present course - low wages, slave work conditions,
cutting corners, etc. - on a dime because you demand that China
adopt the same factory floor conditions you have in the West. Work
conditions will improve of course, but based on realities on the
ground. If you insist on western standards now that can be easily
accommodated by setting up special sanitized zones to manufacture only
for your market. You wouldn't like the price penalties.

Its close enough to Christmas to watch how the present campaign
against Made in China will play out. My bet is that it will be like
any fad of the season and die a quiet death. On the other hand you
have a presidential election campaign season coming up. Bashing China
is a pretty safe headline getter. Well we'll have to let the monthly
trade volume and financial figures tell the real story.

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:51:35 -0500, dpb wrote:

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:04:59 GMT, PaPaPeng wrote:
...
I always find it very interesting the passions stirred up where China
is concerned. Do read this other story at the high end of technology
and engineering competition.

The ultimate global battle
Boeing Versus Airbus by John Newhouse
...
Quote: Second, by outsourcing large portions of the 787, Boeing sent
a strong message to its workforce about what the company was prepared
to do in case it had labor problems on its hands again.

Newhouse expands on this second point when he writes, "There is no
evidence, however, that Boeing is saving much money by outsourcing the
787's wing or sections of the fuselage. Japan is not a cheap labor
market. To the contrary. Neither is Italy. But the outsourcing does
send a message to the unions that Boeing deals with. It says: 'If you
mess too hard with us, we can always outsource your job to another
place'" (p 169).
Newhouse may have written it, but it doesn't necessarily mean his
interpretation is correct. Mostly these global deals for manufacturing
have been negotiated arrangements w/ the associated countries made as
part of market access deals.


If the posts in this thread is any indication much of your (America's)
problems is the inability to recognize that the only way to compete is
to do it better and cheaper. That is unless you have a monopoly
product like large passenger aircraft. Even then the comfort zone
didn't last too long as the Airbus vs Boeing story showed.

....snip mindless extolling of Chinese......

The competitive stance of Boeing vis a vis Airbus is back in favor of
Boeing at present based on sales. The aforementioned arrangements w/
various places (including China) for the parceling out of work for
Boeing products are readily available. IIRC, a similar arrangement was
reached not long ago w/ the Chinese as well...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
PaPaPeng wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:51:35 -0500, dpb wrote:

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:04:59 GMT, PaPaPeng wrote:
...
I always find it very interesting the passions stirred up where China
is concerned. Do read this other story at the high end of technology
and engineering competition.

The ultimate global battle
Boeing Versus Airbus by John Newhouse
...
Quote: Second, by outsourcing large portions of the 787, Boeing sent
a strong message to its workforce about what the company was prepared
to do in case it had labor problems on its hands again.
Newhouse expands on this second point when he writes, "There is no
evidence, however, that Boeing is saving much money by outsourcing the
787's wing or sections of the fuselage. Japan is not a cheap labor
market. To the contrary. Neither is Italy. But the outsourcing does
send a message to the unions that Boeing deals with. It says: 'If you
mess too hard with us, we can always outsource your job to another
place'" (p 169).
Newhouse may have written it, but it doesn't necessarily mean his
interpretation is correct. Mostly these global deals for manufacturing
have been negotiated arrangements w/ the associated countries made as
part of market access deals.


If the posts in this thread is any indication much of your (America's)
problems is the inability to recognize that the only way to compete is
to do it better and cheaper. That is unless you have a monopoly
product like large passenger aircraft. Even then the comfort zone
didn't last too long as the Airbus vs Boeing story showed.

...snip mindless extolling of Chinese......

The competitive stance of Boeing vis a vis Airbus is back in favor of
Boeing at present based on sales. The aforementioned arrangements w/
various places (including China) for the parceling out of work for Boeing
products are readily available. IIRC, a similar arrangement was reached
not long ago w/ the Chinese as well...

--
Both Airbus and Boeing part out manufacturing jobs like this in order to
garner sales of the final product to that company. Simple economics,
airplanes cost mucho millions and each one they sell more than makes up for
the absurd outsourcing model they employ.