NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/consumer/21111

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky misc.consumers:21111 sci.electronics:21424 soc.culture.japan:12764 misc.education:5515 misc.entrepreneurs:3724
Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!noc.msc.net!uc.msc.edu!shamash!ems!hollywood.ems.cdc.com!tbruseha
From: [e-mail] (Tom Brusehaver)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,sci.electronics,soc.culture.japan,misc.education,misc.entrepreneurs
Subject: Re: America doesn't have a clue: (was DOES AMERICA SAY YES TO JAPAN? - Off track!!)
Message-ID: <31331@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:43:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: misc.consumers
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian
Lines: 66
Nntp-Posting-Host: hollywood.ems.cdc.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Thomas Day is correct in pointing out, in effect, that free trade is not
>an ethical or moral principle, but is an economic principle we have
>been taught, based on some fundamental assumptions.
>
>Those assumptions are basically those of symmetry--each country does what
>it does best, and exports that to the others. Without those assumptions,
>free trade breaks down and is without merit.
>
>The Japanese massively and deliberately violate those assumptions, for
>their own advantage. They do so in the import, capital investment,
>patent, public bidding, ownership, and distribution areas. The facts
>are massively and incontrovertibly documented.
>
>Thus the free trade model cannot be used with Japan. Instead a
>mercantilist model must be used, hence the arguments for protectionism,
>symmetrical barriers with respect to Japan, etc. until they sign on
>to the assumptions of free trade principles.
>
Sorta.

Looking at what America, and American companies have done right in the
past, and looking at the future, there are many things to watch.  In
the past American auto manufacturers made broad line autos.  Think of
the Falcon and Mustang as good examples.  There was an entry model,
an upscale model, and a sporty model.  Today there is only an upscale
model, and maybe a sporty model (more upscale the convertible).
Remember the Datsun 240Z, it upgraded to the 260Z, then the 280Z and
the 280ZX then the Nissan 300ZX.

Look at Honda.  There are the Civic entry level models (all sizes),
the Accord (for the parents), and the Prelude (midlife crisis?).  They
also have some fringe models.  GM says the little cars don't make the
amount of profit a big car does, so it quit making them.  Maybe true,
but you need to convince the entry level buyer there is more out
there.

Todays software market is like the older auto situation.  There is a
pretty level playing field, and there are little software companies,
and there are big software companies, with prices all over the scale.
If you want an entry level software package, you can probably find one
in you price range.  But things are changing...

Symatec is buying some midsized software companies, Borland is also
buying competitors (Ashton-Tate).  If the big guys keep it up there
will only be a few software companies that have software in your
favorite software store, these big software companies will probably
focus on the major corporations for their wares, leaving a huge market
for entry level software from other (japanese?) competition.

Can we fix this before it happens?  Probably, software is much
different than autos.  You and I can mass produce software in our
basements to fill this hole created by the big guys.  Also I really
don't want any gonvernment interference.

Basically I am saying industry must'n leave gaps in their wares.  Even
if there is only big profit at the high end.  The small end also has
lots for us to worry about, and if we don fill it, someone else will.

>Everything else is noise and self-serving propaganda by the Japanese
>and their apologists.
>
Pretty overbearing.

Tommy