How do you define "studio furniture"

Re: Do I detect a bit of sarcasm here?

Thom D


>I don't think the Maloof stuff was sold as studio furniture (of course a ny number of modern galleries would love to have some to sell, now) and he is perhaps the most important wood guy from the 20th century US. It's much easier to come up with a brittle message from art school about how this relates to that, and my influences are such, and my furniture is a comment on topiery, and world injustice.

Good point, and I recall Maloof saying...

David Barnett - SW Florida


>...he's totally satisfied calling himself a woodworker.

Re: Good point, and I recall Maloof saying...

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.


>Reverse psychology, maybe, in Maloof's case?

DC

No disrespect intended

Re: Id�es pr�con�ues, mon cher ami!

Bob Hutchins in central TX


>Howdy Pam!

Your sentiments are ones I might have written a few years ago. I've owned American, British, Italian, German and Japanese cars. The best were German and Japanese - '73 Mercedes 280 that I bought in '75 for $7k and sold in '97 for $1800; '93 Honda Accord I'm still driving. Th MB was a 4-dr sedan DOHC 6-cyl weighing 4760 lbs at the curb fully gassed that handled almost like a sports car and got 22 mpg on the road and 18 in town on a 2 barrel carb. At the time I bought it, 2 new Buicks would have cost about $300 more, but I wanted the MB 'cause I'd had an Audi that I really liked and heard that the MB was better. Two Buicks wouldn't have lasted half as long nor been anywhere near the pleasure to drive that the MB was. It would hold 90 all day long but the mileage dropped to about 20 mpg. I didn't spend any more for maintenance on the MB than my American cars. The only exception to this was being held up for a Bosch carb (wanted $2500 for it in '89) but I put an adaptor plate and a Holley on it for $600, total).

In the last 10-12 years, I bought 2 new American cars -- an Explorer and a Suburban (to be politically correct on a car allowance). The Ford was decent but the Suburban was only slightly better than the crap served up by GM in the '70's and '80's. Neither would have lasted 300k plus. If Ford and GM go belly up, it will be because those companies forgot what a customer was and how to produce quality products. Bean counters were given precedence over engineers. Always a sure sign of havoc to come -- look at Enron.

(That ought to PO accountants and those who work(ed) for American carmakers, eh? At least it's an honest opinion based on decades of experience with both :>).

BobH

Re: Good point, and I recall Maloof saying...

Thom D


>I don't think so, he built out of his garage and sold to friends. It might not have been possible to go the art route at that time though I don't actually believe that, thinking of the likes of Prestini.

Maloof is a really hard worker by all accounts, while a lot of gallery stuff is really hard talking. Starting in art school to learn the language. I don't disparage it for that reason, it's just a different form of communication. A bit like the difference between being a formally trained MBA and a natural entrepreneur.

American Cars

HC Sakman @ Victoria, BC


>have always surprised me in a bad way.

A very expensive 95 Buick park Avenue Ultra was going like a rocket, but good luck trying to keep it going on a straight line. Horrible curb-to-curb turning radius and failing window seals. Back than this car was almost 50G Cdn!

Anyway, this is a fairly decent example. The worst feature of most American cars is: Overtorqued, oversize gas guzzling engines that don't produce enough horsepower. I understand the cars were heavy back then, but same thing applies to many newer ones as well.

Most German and Japanese 3.0 to 3.5 liter engines today produce 240-to-280 horses, yet American engines ranging from 3.4 to 3.9 liters produce max. 220-240 horses.

Why?

The other thing is that they fall apart much sooner, but I know that why.

Chico...

Re: Good point, and I recall Maloof saying...

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>Every discipline has its specialized language. It's necessary for practitioners to communicate concisely and precisely. The problems come when the outside world gets hold of those languages and twists them.

Pam

Re: American Cars

Norman (Ottawa, Ont.)


>Sorry, need to completely disagree with the beginning

of this American-car bashing thread.

American auto manufacturers have gone through a tumultuous period trying to understand what exactly the consumer wants. The typical N.American consumer ideally wants a maintenance free car , reliable,

and not overly expensive. They have also needed to switch from predominantly rear-wheel drive to front-wheel drive cars in this period. We had relatively cheap gas for a long time and the big boats with V-8's is what the consumer wanted. Now the trend is increasingly to small cars with 4 and 6 cylinder engines. Europe and Japan have not gone through a similar period, they have always churned out basically the same type of product (small cars, front wheel drive - 4 cyls.)

N.American auto manufacturers have come a long way in delivering on these 3 criteria.

How do I know?

I've driven nothing but N.American in the past 30 years, except

for a brief period when I owned a Jetta.

There is very little scheduled maintenance needed on N. American vehicles nowadays compared to imports. The product is excellent, it is there today, no sense in continuing to bash!

The product today is light years beyond what ws offered in the 70's,

and early 80's. Maintenance schedules are few and far betwen, reliability is up there with the Japanese, and pricing is excellent

( relatively speaking).

Many people at one time or another owned a N.Americamn built car

way back when that they either liked or disliked . What I'm saying is we cannot base decisions on the one experience many, many years ago. The Japanes were producing junk in the '50's also.

The manufacturers have listened and are producing a awesome product now. GM's problem is that they are saddled with huge unionized salaries and fat pensions that go along with this unionization.

This alone is dragging the company down, and the fact that many N.Americans continue to not believe in their own automobile product.

This is in stark contrast to tooling for example, how we worship anything made here.

'Nuf said,

Norman ( always rooting for N. Ameircan car mnfctrs.)

Re: American Cars

Bob Hutchins in central TX


>Howdy Norman!

Don't know what your motivation is in defending the American auto makers, but I must take exception to some of your points. Not nearly 'nuff' has been said to support your position or even to state a rational case.

First, the auto makers had trouble figuring out what the consumers wanted because they adopted Al Capp's old plagiarized General Bullmoose position: "If it's good for GM it's good for the USA." In other words we KNOW (paternalistically) what's best for the market. Why then did the VW Beetle take off so well in the '60's (despite having had it's origins in the mandate of a Nazi madman) and Honda and Toyota find it so easy to take much of the market away from them in the '70's and '80's? Precisely because the Big-3 bean counters were so insistent that retooling was too expensive and the American consumer would buy what they sold or nothing at all. I can find no sympathy, as a consumer, for the American auto industry on this point; for the damage was self-inflicted

As for the labor rates and retirement benefits, who forced the auto execs to grant them? Every one of those deals was negotiated and agreed to by management who felt more inclined to protect their own positions and gain a short term equity advantage despite reason and economic analysis arguing to the contrary for the longer term. In other words, "To Hell with you! I'm getting MINE now!" Their actions speak in volumes much louder than any apologists for their having been so badly put upon. Another point on which investors in the auto industry garner no sympathy from me. I won't go into the abuses, greed, and corruption rife in labor unions. It was no accident that Jimmy Hoffa disappeared in Detroit. And who chose to do business with them?

True, American politics have, in the past, demanded cheap gasoline prices. And, perhaps world demand and diminishing supply are valid reasons for its increasing dearness, but only an idiot could have failed to learn the basic lessons taught about the fact that all goods have "economic value". I well remember grade school children in the early '50's (yes, I'm that old) asking when America would run out of oil when they first learned about it's production. Even the old saw played by economics professors about air not having any economic value is being proved false in places like Southern California, Houston, Mexico City and other places that are learning that it has value beyond anyone's ability to sell it or price it. You don't have to be named "Albert" to figure out that petroleum products will eventually be totally consumed (at least to the point that anyone will bother to extract and refine them).

A more valid argument might be made that the Japanese and German auto industries' capital goods were completely decimated by WWII and rebuilt as completely modern facilities by American post-war foreign policy thereby giving those industries a leg up in the marketplace. Not to mention the cheap post-war labor costs brought about by the lack of jobs due to infrastructure destruction. But, how do you account for the adherence to basic engineering functionality and quality assurance that earmarked their rebound in the world economy? And why on earth did those poor, confused American consumers buy those products in such huge quantity despite the enormous transportation costs (both actual and virtual) necessary to deliver them to the American marketplace? And what countries have led the revolution in reduced service/maintenance costs, improved safety, useful life in automotive products? American makers have been drug along kicking and screaming. Did you ever hear of a Pinto by Ford? As I recall, quite a few people died because the gas tank was placed wrong and when the engineering defect was discovered, the bean counters decided it would cost too much to correct and sold the product anyway. Or was it the all-powerful consumer who made that decision (and how the Hell could he have acted on it without knowledge of the defect)?

I'll stop now, not because I'm out of points but because it seems unnecessarily arrogant to pummel such weak arguments further. If you're going to be a defender and an apologist, please credit those to whom you present with more perspicacity and give them more cogent arguments.

Respectfully, but in refutation.

BobH

Just a quick comment...

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.


>"And what countries have led the revolution in reduced service/maintenance costs, improved safety, useful life in automotive products?"

1. Japan

2. Sweden, then Germany

3. Japan and Germany

And something about the beancounters... I have no proof of this, I haven't checked the numbers. But I believe that much of the troubles afflicting GM and Ford these days are due in good part to higher management at these companies playing with the pension funds' parameters in the past in order to cut their liability. Now these companies end up with pendion funds to fill up (because of unrealistic assumptions that they managed to get away with, but not anymore), while those who were pilfering said pension funds are long gone to greener pastures. But they produced "good numbers" while they were there...

Corporate governance (and possibly government regulations) was way too lax...

DC

Re: Just a quick comment...

Thom D


>You can never say enough to satisfy people with "perspicacity"...

Mostly prices bug me, I guess that is what comes from keeping my cars too long.

I really think it is pointless comparing some of this stuff. I can't imagine buying a US performance car, or finding a place to drive one (Arizona? Though how interesting are the roads, never been, love to go). On the other hand I don't find the average German pick-up truck all that enthraling.

Re: American Cars

Norman (Ottawa, Ont.)


>Hi Bob,

"Don't know what your motivation is in defending the American auto makers, but I must take exception to some of your points. Not nearly 'nuff' has been said to support your position or even to state a rational case. "

I really don't have any secret agenda for defending American auto manufacturers except for the fact that they are spending hundreds of millions to develop world-class automobiles in order to satisfy the consumer in all the criteria I mentioned earlier, including fuel efficiency. I'm afraid that if we don't begin to wholeheartedly support this industry, it is lost forever. And we invented it, after all.

"First, the auto makers had trouble figuring out what the consumers wanted because they adopted Al Capp's old plagiarized General Bullmoose position: "If it's good for GM it's good for the USA." In other words we KNOW (paternalistically) what's best for the market. Why then did the VW Beetle take off so well in the '60's (despite having had it's origins in the mandate of a Nazi madman) and Honda and Toyota find it so easy to take much of the market away from them in the '70's and '80's? Precisely because the Big-3 bean counters were so insistent that retooling was too expensive and the American consumer would buy what they sold or nothing at all. I can find no sympathy, as a consumer, for the American auto industry on this point; for the damage was self-inflicted "

Consumers didn't really know what they wanted 20-30 years ago. Gas was cheap, and V-8's were de rigeur. I recall there were small pockets of people that drove 4 cylinder cars but these were few and far between. The manufacturers responded to this demand with the Pinto and Vega, rear wheel drive cars, but front-wheel drive was foreign to N.America at the time.. It isn't like it is today when all this is reversed. We need to place our mindset in that era to justify the decisions made back then.

"As for the labor rates and retirement benefits, who forced the auto execs to grant them? Every one of those deals was negotiated and agreed to by management who felt more inclined to protect their own positions and gain a short term equity advantage despite reason and economic analysis arguing to the contrary for the longer term. In other words, "To Hell with you! I'm getting MINE now!" Their actions speak in volumes much louder than any apologists for their having been so badly put upon. Another point on which investors in the auto industry garner no sympathy from me. I won't go into the abuses, greed, and corruption rife in labor unions. It was no accident that Jimmy Hoffa disappeared in Detroit. And who chose to do business with them? "

I don't know too much about the details of what went on back then with the American auto manufacturers and the unions, but it always seemed to me that the companies were at the mercy of the powerful unions. Deals were arrived at and GM,Ford, Chrysler are paying the price today, likely unjustifiably so. In that era, GM,Ford,Chrysler owned the market in N. America and sales growth was high year over year. This might have reason for them to enter into these lucrative contracts with the unions. We all know what happened since then with respect to American manufacturer market share.

"True, American politics have, in the past, demanded cheap gasoline prices. And, perhaps world demand and diminishing supply are valid reasons for its increasing dearness, but only an idiot could have failed to learn the basic lessons taught about the fact that all goods have "economic value". I well remember grade school children in the early '50's (yes, I'm that old) asking when America would run out of oil when they first learned about it's production. Even the old saw played by economics professors about air not having any economic value is being proved false in places like Southern California, Houston, Mexico City and other places that are learning that it has value beyond anyone's ability to sell it or price it. You don't have to be named "Albert" to figure out that petroleum products will eventually be totally consumed (at least to the point that anyone will bother to extract and refine them). "

Gas priced did increase in the early 70's, but dropped again to previous levels and the appetite for V-8's returned. Yes, I do agree, the manufacturers should have foreseen that it was only a matter of time that a simiar gas shortage would return, but more and more oil was also being discovered in that decade. It was a confusing time and in the late '70's the mnfctrs. decided to get serious and also develop front-wheel drive along with smaller engines. Let's not forget, this is almost 30 years ago.

"A more valid argument might be made that the Japanese and German auto industries' capital goods were completely decimated by WWII and rebuilt as completely modern facilities by American post-war foreign policy thereby giving those industries a leg up in the marketplace. Not to mention the cheap post-war labor costs brought about by the lack of jobs due to infrastructure destruction. But, how do you account for the adherence to basic engineering functionality and quality assurance that earmarked their rebound in the world economy? And why on earth did those poor, confused American consumers buy those products in such huge quantity despite the enormous transportation costs (both actual and virtual) necessary to deliver them to the American marketplace? And what countries have led the revolution in reduced service/maintenance costs, improved safety, useful life in automotive products? American makers have been drug along kicking and screaming. Did you ever hear of a Pinto by Ford? As I recall, quite a few people died because the gas tank was placed wrong and when the engineering defect was discovered, the bean counters decided it would cost too much to correct and sold the product anyway. Or was it the all-powerful consumer who made that decision (and how the Hell could he have acted on it without knowledge of the defect)? "

There were also many American cars also exported to Europe and Japan in that time. Fuel efficiency was probably the prime motivator for the surge in imports of Japanese and European cars in that time, as few American cars could equal the fuel efficiency. But again, this is due in large part to Europe and Japan having a leg up on this type of automobile technology. Gas prices there were similar to current prices over here now and it became almost necessary to make fuel efficient technology. Today most autos produced here are as fuel efficient as the imports ,,, except for a few boutique sports cars ( for which there is a demand and GM,Ford is taking advantage of a niche).

Cars produced here today are world-class and very reliable.

Our trucks are second to none.

What I am saying is that we cannot continue to bash, we are bashing and trashing our own industry. Mistakes were made along the way, manufacturers have smartened up, it is time the American consumer cut them some slack and begin to accept the product.

"I'll stop now, not because I'm out of points but because it seems unnecessarily arrogant to pummel such weak arguments further. If you're going to be a defender and an apologist, please credit those to whom you present with more perspicacity and give them more cogent arguments.

Respectfully, but in refutation. "

Sure, we have at least discussed this.

This isn't the first time I need to come to the defence of American auto manufacturers, but in fairness they have made large strides

in delivering a quality product.

Norman

Re: American Cars

Bob Hutchins in central TX


>"I really don't have any secret agenda for defending American auto manufacturers except for the fact that they are spending hundreds of millions to develop world-class automobiles in order to satisfy the consumer in all the criteria I mentioned earlier, including fuel efficiency. I'm afraid that if we don't begin to wholeheartedly support this industry, it is lost forever. And we invented it, after all."

Well, Norman, I don't know if the industry is in danger or being lost or not. And, I, too, would not want to see its total demise. Yes, they have done much to turn their market position around; but I'll feel more confident about American car makers when I see the quality of their products on a par with the Japanese and the Germans and prices competitive. Although many of the foreign makers now produce their cars in this country, it defied logic -- not to mention common sense -- when they were making their products so far away and shipped them to the States, with all the attendant costs and quality maintenance issues, and generally beat the socks off the American makers.

"Consumers didn't really know what they wanted 20-30 years ago. Gas was cheap, and V-8's were de rigeur. I recall there were small pockets of people that drove 4 cylinder cars but these were few and far between. The manufacturers responded to this demand with the Pinto and Vega, rear wheel drive cars, but front-wheel drive was foreign to N.America at the time.. It isn't like it is today when all this is reversed. We need to place our mindset in that era to justify the decisions made back then."

I must disagree. Consumers voted with their dollars when they purchased foreign products in such large numbers. I have been an automobile 'consumer' since the mid 50's (about half of the history of the industry), and I can tell you from first-hand experience that it was not lack of consumer demand that caused the Big-3 to make the crap they did for so long. It was their we-know-what-you-want-better-than-you-do mentality and their unwillingness or inability to listen and respond to the market.

"I don't know too much about the details of what went on back then with the American auto manufacturers and the unions, but it always seemed to me that the companies were at the mercy of the powerful unions. Deals were arrived at and GM,Ford, Chrysler are paying the price today, likely unjustifiably so. In that era, GM,Ford,Chrysler owned the market in N. America and sales growth was high year over year. This might have reason for them to enter into these lucrative contracts with the unions. We all know what happened since then with respect to American manufacturer market share."

Capital (management) has never been at the mercy of labor. If you truly believe that to be the case, I can only wonder how we have read and lived the same history and come to such widely disparate conclusions. Capital has frequently found it convenient to go along with labor demands as a political and short-term economic position.

One only needs to look at the major concessions that have been forced on labor in the last 25-30 years to observe the power of capital and the weakness of labor. Observe the long-term shrinkage of health benefits, wages, holidays, vacations, and retirement plans and you see the weakness of labor.

"Gas priced did increase in the early 70's, but dropped again to previous levels and the appetite for V-8's returned. Yes, I do agree, the manufacturers should have foreseen that it was only a matter of time that a simiar gas shortage would return, but more and more oil was also being discovered in that decade. It was a confusing time and in the late '70's the mnfctrs. decided to get serious and also develop front-wheel drive along with smaller engines. Let's not forget, this is almost 30 years ago."

Gas prices have not kept up with inflation over the period. I can't cite sources to confirm this. Perhaps Denis or some of our other economists can do so; however, the media have widely reported this to be the case; and personal experience could also be cited as proof. GM even bought up and removed from service many public transportation systems and used its considerable lobbying power to hold gasoline prices down. What's worse,perhaps, is that they and their confreres have actively resisted regulatory and legislative efforts to get them to invest money into alternative power sources. Even today, there is great industry resistance to ethanol which is not only a renewable resource but one that would pump money into the agricultural economy which needs it so sorely. Geologists I know who work in the exploration industry tell me that they have long known -- 30 years or more -- of the finite nature of petroleum sources and the unliklihood of major future discoveries.

"There were also many American cars also exported to Europe and Japan in that time. Fuel efficiency was probably the prime motivator for the surge in imports of Japanese and European cars in that time, as few American cars could equal the fuel efficiency. But again, this is due in large part to Europe and Japan having a leg up on this type of automobile technology. Gas prices there were similar to current prices over here now and it became almost necessary to make fuel efficient technology. Today most autos produced here are as fuel efficient as the imports ,,, except for a few boutique sports cars ( for which there is a demand and GM,Ford is taking advantage of a niche).

Cars produced here today are world-class and very reliable.

Our trucks are second to none."

Although some American automotive products have been exported to Europe and Asia, imports from those economies have far outstripped the meager exportation. To say otherwise is to ignore a major contributor to trade deficits that were in good measure the cause for foreign car makers building plants in the States. Foreign engineering and manufacture have been superior for at least the last 20 years in mainstream markets. Boutique markets are not only examples of engineering/manufacturing superiority but instead examples of those makers' superior management and marketing skills. Our Big-3 almost totally ignored product segmentation and focused instead on advertising segmentation. It's almost impossible to differentiate a Chevy from a Caddy in terms of anything but product positioning, marketing hype, and sticker price.

"What I am saying is that we cannot continue to bash, we are bashing and trashing our own industry. Mistakes were made along the way, manufacturers have smartened up, it is time the American consumer cut them some slack and begin to accept the product."

Personally, I am fearful of the global economy and the impact it has had and will continue to have on the American people. I would prefer that we have no industry segment in which America is not a superior producer and competitor. I believe this is the only way we can stay free of foreign capital and political control, but I'm not unrealistic enough to think that wishing it so will ever make it so. "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

My points have not been to 'bash' the industry but to castigate it soundly so that it might wake up and smell the coffee. The first step in improving any situation is realistically assessing it and admitting what things are wrong and what are right. IMO the American car makers have a long way to go, but are not out of the running yet.

"Sure, we have at least discussed this.

This isn't the first time I need to come to the defence of American auto manufacturers, but in fairness they have made large strides

in delivering a quality product."

My studies led to a degree in business from one of the best public university b-schools in the world. I spent a long career as a middle and senior manager thus feel myself qualified by dint of both education and experience to critique management practices. Yes, I'll give credit for effort to improve the situation. But I'm not ready to put my retirement savings on the line with those who manage that industry today. There is a great deal more pain to be endured in that industry, I fear.

Thank you for an interesting discussion. We must probably agree to disagree, but I hope I have not been too disagreeable in doing so.

Regards,

BobH

Don't want to beat this to death,

Bill Houghton, Summer fog in Sebastopol, CA


>but I've got to comment on "And we invented it, after all."

Well, depends. The first vehicle that's generally accepted as an automobile was made in Europe, and many of the advances necessary to the early years there as well (e.g., the pneumatic tire, without which cars would have been so limited in speed that we'd never have gotten to national highways). The Americans made major contributions, Henry Ford's version of the assembly line being a major one (adapting concepts developed in other industries), but it was far more of an international give-and-take than "we invented it."

Re: Don't want to beat this to death,

Norman (Metcalfe, Ont.)


>True, good point.

I haven't read up on this in the past few years,

but I do recall reading the automobile industry at the turn of

the 20th century was much like today's hi-tech industry.

There were many small players, advancements and developments were

occuring at a rapid pace.

The consolidation begain in the 1920's when American manufacturing took the next leap into mass assembly line production.

Many advancements were occuring on both sides of the pond I agree.

It must have been an exciting time if we also look at the fast-paced developments in manned flight of that era!

Norman