Toyota Congressional Hearing

[jleinaweaver]

Originally Posted by a_Username

It's funny that DG mentioned having import laws, because isn't that is what is keeping GM/Ford from being competitive in Japan? It'd make it a level playing field IMO.

Not sure about today, but a couple of decades back, when Japan was making inroads here, it was GM and Fords own stupidity that played a large part in keeping them out of the Japanese market.

Showing up and saying, buy us, because we are GM just doesn't cut it. You gotta do the little things, like put the friggen steering wheel on the right side.

[Russo]

Originally Posted by jleinaweaver

Showing up and saying, buy us, because we are GM just doesn't cut it. You gotta do the little things, like put the friggen steering wheel on the right side.

one of the reason's why GM has to subsidize it's product to Vauxhall in order to sell anything in Europe...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by jleinaweaver

Not sure about today, but a couple of decades back, when Japan was making inroads here, it was GM and Fords own stupidity that played a large part in keeping them out of the Japanese market.

Showing up and saying, buy us, because we are GM just doesn't cut it. You gotta do the little things, like put the friggen steering wheel on the right side.

That is part of it. However, if I remember correctly, to sell in any volume in Japan you need to have factories in Japan. Thats fine, similar laws exist over here, different volumes and such but similar concept. But, foreign automakers have an extremely difficult time buying the land in Japan to build a new factory. Its not impossible, but the costs and requirements are ridiculous. Its cost prohibitive for anyone to seriously attempt to break into the market.

[a_Username]

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...emblies-88533/

Now they've recalled the wrong pedals?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by a_Username

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...emblies-88533/

Now they've recalled the wrong pedals?

Perhaps they should take the company to a therapy firm for being pathological liars.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Perhaps they should take the company to a therapy firm for being pathological liars.

If this is true, and from reading all the credible sources the guy has linked everyone too it appears to be, then Toyota is nothing more than pathetic IMO.

[Rallysport]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

If they did it, it would have to be as part of a trilogy with Executive Orders and Bear and the Dragon. But to stay true to the books, Japan, China, and India would have to become the enemy which just won't happen. Its one thing to do it in a thousand page novel, but in a movie you might have 30 minutes to explain why they're the bad guy before you have to tell the rest of the story. Thats why stereotypes and motifs are used so much. Nobody needs to explain why terrorists are the antagonist in a movie, but why would Japan try and cripple America?

However, Without Remorse would make a very good movie.

Hmmm...good question. Should have asked that December 7, 1941.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Rallysport

Hmmm...good question. Should have asked that December 7, 1941.

American political leaders knew that war with Japan was inevitable. It was just a question of when. But it was very clearly known at the time why they would try and cripple America's fleet, at least to military strategists. Japan had intended to declare war about 30 minutes before the first bombs and torpedoes hit. But it took too long to decrypt, translate, and deliver the message so it arrived after America was already well aware of the fact they were at war with Japan.

But onto why war was inevitable. Japan was fighting a war with the Chinese and was attempting to conquer the Eastern Pacific. To try and stop them (or at least slow them down), America had stopped supplying Japan with oil. They were somewhat successful with this, but Japan still had enough reserves and other sources to continue for several months (the embargo was enacted in mid 1941) at a reduced pace. To continue their expansion, the Japanese needed access to oil and the nearest source was American colonies/territories like the Philippines. They knew that an attack focused solely on those American possessions would be met with a swift American response with a fleet launched from Pearl Harbour. So, the first step was to cripple the American pacific fleet.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Rallysport

Hmmm...good question. Should have asked that December 7, 1941.

IRL, your thinking is a bit outdated. Japan wouldn't gain anything from weakening our economy. It would actually HURT Japan (and a good deal of the rest of the world that we buy stuff from).

From a future fictional/strategist standpoint though.... Japan may eventually get to the point where the decide they have every right to have a fully functional military again, and if the US stands in their way, that would be reason enough to set about weakening the States by any means necessary.

Personally I say let the Japanese build their military again, then we won't have to keep troops over there.

[Chronomaro]

Japan won't want a military. If they were to try to build a navy, N. Korea would be send more missiles than we could possibly defend them from. There is a very good reason we don't have much of a military presence in S. Korea or even the Sea of Japan. Just about anything sets off N. Korea. As least from all I remember from a few years ago.

Now on topic-I actually think the concerns lie in the fact that their newer generations are not looking at cars, but electronics. Their public transportation is good enough at this point that they need to sell cars in other markets in order to keep in business. Now in order to keep selling cars as of late, they are having to offer incentives similar to what GM has been doing for years. The result? Resale values are dropping. So along with reliability, that too is going out the window. All we're seeing is the result of bean counters trying to keep a lid on things and looking at the short term solutions until the media died down...only this time it didn't. Didn't Jim Press (ex-CEO of Toyota) recently come out and blame the bean counters, too?

As for the bias based on the possible government ownership - I can't say for Chrysler but I know GM is paying back the loan in just a few months. The "major" stake the gov't has in them will also be sold off bit by bit after the loan is paid off. Its not as if the gov't had any say in executive decisions anyway, it was that they had to stabilize the stocks so that GM wouldn't lose even more money from accepting the loan. Chrysler's was probably similar, but I can't say for sure.

The hearings probably would have happened anyway. There are enough cases that are now coming out into the light now since their customer service reps and dealerships can't say they were unable to duplicate the problem the owner is experiencing.