Quote:
Originally Posted by peverett
|
You've got to be kidding me right? You're sampling from a paper called "Antitrust policy and the oligopoly problem". You think somebody might have had an agenda? Go through that piece and see how many times the following words/phrases are used:
according to a former Ford executive
apparently
a former Ford engineer
a representative of one of the big three automakers
Senator Nelson was told by an automotive official
the other oligopolists privately conveyed their outrage
There isn't one name or source given in that long-winded article for any of the charges cited... And I can't click on any of the footnotes.
Quote:
|
As long ago as the 1920s, for example, DuPont scientists developed a method for producing glass which, when broken, would crumble into rounded bits of rubble, rather than razor-sharp splinters. An obvious application of this new "safety" glass, DuPont officials concluded, would be in the production of automotive windshields better able to protect occupants in accidents. A high-level effort was launched by DuPont to persuade General Motors to incorporate this new safety glass in its automobiles. In the end, however, GM declined to adopt DuPont's safety glass.
|
Your author shows his lack of knowledge in the first paragraph of his urban myths by claiming GM declined to use
tempered glass in windshields... Good move, considering
safety glass came into use immediately after being invented in 1927.
Quote:
|
In the 1950s, for example, Ford abandoned an initially promising program offering safety options in its cars, including padded dashboards and seatbelts, in important part for fear of triggering a retaliatory response from General Motors. "At the time," according to a former Ford executive, "promoting safety in cars was a revolutionary act in Detroit--so much so that some of the top guys at GM apparently called Henry Ford and told him to stop it.
|
1) Henry Ford died in 1947
2) The Ford "Lifeguard" safety package was a poor seller in 1955/56, hardly anything GM would feel the need to respond to; not initially promising to anyone. Seatbelt options never went away, they just dropped the sales promotion as unsuccessful.
3) What an imaginary, wonderful world it must be where one big shot calls another big shot and says "stop it" Do you have any idea of what it takes to cancel a program and marketing, production contracts, or more so to concoct any of these conspiracy theories? I feel like I'm the guy trying to convince people the the US landed on the moon!
There is all kinds of other non-sense in this poorly written article you've cited, and honestly, I'd love to take it apart line-by-line, but I'd rather not de-rail the DTV thread. Pick it up on the Wheels and Water board if you like, because there are so many more 5th-grade level inaccuracies it's laughable...
Even more so I'd like to debate you because you've gone on to further state "GM killed it's hybrid car" Which one? The Saturn VUE SUV? Mailbu? Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade?
You've now taken this to another level, yet end with "Back to the DTV" conversation. Here, I've even started a thread for you before this trash further clutters the DTV debate...
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/sho...67#post2076467
I'll chime in when I have the time.
In the meantime, here I am championing the free market by taking apart an article written to "prove" a monopoly exists in the US auto market! You're arguing in favor of a corrupt and artificial "deadline" imposed at the will of electronics manufacturers! Do you even see the irony?