A company that deserves HATE
 

{Warning: this contains much history and current news - it will be about 190 lines):

Michelin is an American patriotic company - even though this French company was not doing buiness in the US when it advanced mankind. They developed the radial tire in 1948 - a major example of what defines an Amerian patriot.

But anti-Americans ran all major American tire companies. Anti-Americans fear increase costs of innovation - and the radial tire - because of their business school training. A traditional bias belted tire lasted 10,000 miles whereas radials would exceed 40,000 miles. This was blasphemy, according to neoclassical economists, to sell a product that lasted longer. That would only lower profits. So Firestone, America's largest tire manufacturer, and all other American tire companies, ran to Congress for protection - to install large tarrifs on imported tires. They intentionly and blatantly kept the radial tire out of America for over 25 years.

The purpose of a business is to take a profit - not to advance the world with better products. We also call this the 'status quo'. Business school mentality, a fundamental concept found even in the mafia, is still stupidly entrenched in too many teenagers and twenty somethings even though history has long demonstrated the evils of such thinking. Anti-Americans believe a business's primary object is to take a profit - the world be damned. Below is an example of how evil that MBA school concept is - the idea that a murder can be called an accident. The idea that people should be killed to protect profits. The idea that there is plenty of blame to go around. The fear of this biblical commandment - 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

Note what a buisness school mentality does after innovation was stifled. They blame everyone else, then run to government for protection. In those days, we were all so anti-American that we believed lies about lower wage earners taking American jobs. Today we know that if a lower wage earner takes an American job, then that American company was anti-American - had so stifled innnovation that the job should not exist in America. Where American industries are not productive, the best thing for America is to let those anti-innovation companies go bankrupt - or remove the reason for those problems - top management. Either way, patriotic Americans believe in free markets - they always purchase innovative products from better run companies - no matter where in the world that company is located. Patriotic Americans solve the problem - they vote against the anti-American management by purchasing elsewhere.

However we did not do that in the 1940/50s. We encouraged Congress to protect anti-Americans - anti-innovators - in all major American tire companies. This continued until 1975 when Michelin opened plants in Nova Scotia and Georgia - plants that circumvented those anti-American tarrifs. By 1960, the radial tire was everywhere in the world - except America. Sears sold the first radials in American in 1975 - 27 years after the innovation was created.

Suddenly MBA American tire companies had to do something. They all rushed forward with ill conceived radial tire designs - combined with a 27 year universal ignorance of how radials worked. And so we have the famous Firestone 500 - a tire that was creating paraplegics and quadraplegics throughout America for over four years. Firestone settled quietly out of court with thousands of Firestone created cripples if they did not reveal the details of the settlement. I personally met one who told me the story from his hospital bed in 1978. It is why I became so sensitive to the story and began noticing how many cars around me had prematurely failing tires. You could see the tire tread weaving full inches back and forth as the tire prepared to disintegrate - and the owner was not aware.

By the late 1970s, the NHTSB had so many complaints of tire failure that they did a study - and discovered premature American radial tire failures were greater than 60%! It was (and still remains) the largest tire recall in the country. But not after these anti-American tire companies still banded together to sue the government in quashing the NHTSB report. Instead, the report mysteriously fell into the hands of Time Magazine - and was reported there before 1980. The lawsuit quietly ended. Lawsuit? Yes, just another tool so excessively used by MBA trained, anti-American management.

To solve their public relations problem, Firestone quickly began a series of TV commercials promoting its replacement tire - where a young, quirky genius is credited with developing this new tire - the 721. Too little too late. Firestone was bankrupt (good) - because American patriots stopped buying from an anti-American company. For example, American Patriots purchased French Michelin tires. Firestone, once the world's largest tire manufacturer, was sold to a much smaller company called Bridgestone. This is what happened to all major American tire manufacturers except Goodyear. Since they all were anti-innovation, then they either had to be bankrupted or sold to foreign competition. The Italians, French, Japanese, etc all purchased these failed American companies for percentage of their former value.

Some claimed that foreigner paid too much for these anti-American tire companies that were purchased much above book value. But product oriented management realized how much more these companies were worth if they only had a standard technology product to sell. MBAs looked at the book value. Product oriented management saw the real value was in manufactureing innovative products.

Bridgestone had a problem. Firestone was massive whereas Bridgestone was but a percentage the size. Bridgestone had to teach MBA trained mentalities how to run a business - and did not have sufficient management to do so. They tried to explain, by fax, how to restructure operations. Classic example is quality as taught to Japan by the famous American W. E. Deming. Deming was so important that the Japanese highest award - the Japanese equivalent to the Congressional Metal of Honor - is named the Deming Award - in honor of an American - not a Japanese. But Americans worshipped business school concepts that destroy innovation. Ironic that American business - and still most American today - don't know who William Edward Deming is.

When a door arrives in Toyota, is goes immediately to production line without delay to be installed on a car. There is no time for Quality Control inspections. The door is inspected when it is installed by the installer. American business school mentalities cringe because if the door is defective, then the car will be assembled onto the defective part. But these are business school trained Americans. That door never arrives with a defect. How can this be - there is always a percentage of defects? Yes, if the supplier is also trained in an American business school. But since the manufacturer spent 10 years earning the 'right' to be a Toyota supplier - since he does not get the right to provide that door on lower cost - then Toyota never gets a single defective door. Patriotic suppliers use product people - not accountants - to design and manufacturer the door. Instead of trying to lower costs, a patriotic manufacturer concentrates on making every door accurately. Ironically both manufacturer and supplier have lower costs because they don't try to lower costs. Instead they concentrate on the product. Toyota has the legendary Toyota quality because of this American developed concept, brought to Japan by W. E. Deming, and ignored by Harvard Buisness School trained mentalities.

Most important, Toyota has no quality control inspectors. Any company, even today, that has a quality control inspector has no quality products. That is another commandment to replace those obsolete concepts of the bible. Higher quality means no quality control inspectors.

Firestone management was so MBA brainwashed as to not comprehend the Toyota examples. In response to the fax, Firestone local officials hired 300 more quality control inspectors. This was a painful time for Bridgestone - trying to break American managers of their MBA brainwashing.

Flash ahead to the 1990s. Bridgestone Firestone was developing a new tire for S/UVs. To cut costs, they no longer installed a belt between the steel belt and tread. Also if the tread was not installed immediately, a solvent would be required resoften the glue. This seemed to work - except if the tire was exposed to prolong temperature. Six years ago, this design was failing so prematurely in South America that Firestone ordered a recall. It is not clear if Ford World Wide operations was fully aware of the reasons for the recall. Apparently they thought it was only a bad batch of tires - not a totally defective design. But when this tire fails on S/UVs, such as Explorer, the consequences are catastrophic. One in four serious crashes of S/UVs cause turnovers. One in four turnovers kill humans. But since S/UVs were trucks, then this was acceptable.

Of course the public used emotion rather than fact to decide. The Explorer looks tough - therefore it must be safer. Damn the facts and make that emotional conclusion. S/UVs are inheritanty more dangerous to both occupants and all other vehicles. Firestone hope to count on a public that concludes without using logic.

Maybe the problem was or was not known to Ford. But when Ford did acknowledge the problem, they addressed it full force in joint cooperation with their 100 year partner, Firestone. But Ford did not understand that Firestone still was dominated by an anti-American MBA mentality. Firestone knew far more about these tire failures than they admitted and were not willing to admit that the tires were defective - by "design". Instead, in classic MBA style, Firestone wanted to share blame onto everyone else.

Bridgestone Firestone blamed owners for not inflating their tires to proper pressure - even though vehicle owners do that same thing on all other tires without tire disintegration. They blamed the vehicle - even though other manufacturer tires don't fail on Explorer. They obfuscate the issue by comparing tire failures on Explorer vs Ranger - forgetting to mention that those failures don't occur on either vehicle when they are non-Firestone tires. They blame the Decatur IL plant for the defects (the classic MBA technique of blaming Union labor) even though those S American tires, and probably many other premature tires came from other plants.

Most damning is last summer's USA Today report where pictures of documents reporting on the tire failure over 4 years ago had the initials of the Firestone president - who insisted he knew nothing of the problem until year 2000. Classic example of MBA trained corporate management. Deny. Deny. Deny. And made more striking by Ford's patriot attitude of solving the problem full force - even at the expense of profits.

Ford all but dragged Firestone, kicking and screaming, into a 6.5 million tire recall. Ford, without Firestone's cooperation, got other tire manufacturers to supply products to expedite the recall. Ford discovered that Firestone continued to withhold statistical information. (Is penis loving Ken Starr a Firestone lawyer? This is classic Ken Starr tactics.) Ford executives even visited victims of tire failure even after Firestone refused to send their corporate executives. Firestone only apologized after Ford's apologies made Firestone look bad. Looking bad might hurt profits - the victims be damned. Classic comparison of a product oriented vs MBA trained management teams.

In a quality organization, the supplier routinely shares confidential information with the manufacturer. Firestone was not doing that. Ford started doing a confidential statistical study that was only recently completed. Ford was shocked how much worse the tire problem was. But Firestone heard about the study and demanded access to the information. Why? Firestone had stonewalled Ford. The only reason Firestone would want that documentation - so that they could deflect blame on anyone else. Ford, in retaliation (and good for them), stonewalled Firestone's phone calls. Do you see what the devil is called - Bridgesone Firestone - management from the MBA schools.

In response to new facts, Ford ordered another 13 million Explorer tires recalled - as any patriotic company would do. Firestone now completely blames the Explorer for all tire failures, and decided to stop selling tires to Ford - an end of a 100 year relationship dating back to when Henry Ford met Harvey Firestone to make Firestone the only tire on Fords. You should be doing same. Openly confront anyone who would purchase from the devil - Bridgestone Firestone - a company that may have killed more Americans than a communist Kremlin.

Look at how patriotic Ford is being. They are paying for the entire recall themselves without the cooperation or reinbursement from a bloody thirsty, profiteering Firestone. $2billion are GM's profits in a good year. Ford will spend $2.1billion just on this latest 13 million tire recall. Furthermore Ford will take additional loses as they shutdown all related assembly plants for at least 2 weeks to address Firestone tire problems in current production lines.

But this is even more revealing. Firestone said the problem was only with 15 inch tires. Only 15 inch tires were recalled the first time. Ford has discovered the problem exists in 15, 16, and 17 inch tires - and must recall all three sizes! No, this is not an isolated problem. Firestone by design, made defective tires and Firstone MBAs would kill Americans, in order to not admit guilt. You would be logical to emotionally advocate prision for all top Firestone executives. They killed more people than Timothy McVeigh. That emotion is based upon logical conclusions - Firestone designed a defective tire, knew the tire was defective, continued to manufacturer and the defective tires, and then deny, deny, deny - just like the Firestone 500.

History repeats itself?

How anti-American can Bridgestone Firestone be? They replaced their MBA trained top executive. The new guy is featured in TV commercials talking about how important a customer is to Firestone. And now we learn that the new guy is also hiding facts - while blaming the Explorer for tire failures - in classic MBA school tradition. It is as if Firestone was throwing tires over the wall and only just recently discovered that Ford was putting them on Explorers. Bull. A responsible supplier to a quality oriented company (Quality is Job 1) is fully informed as to how the product will be used - so that there is no need for quality control inspectors. Firestone is a classic example of a Company every reader should DESPISE. Do you hate all the world - like Milosevik or dichead Ariel Sharon? Then buy Firestone tires and remain quiet when you neighbor also buys advocates MBA school philosophies. We are talking about a company with an MBA mentality - that would create genocide if it meant higher profits. Firestone is THE company you HATE.

BTW who still makes superior tires? Remember that partiotic company at the start of this long story? Michelin. Michelin has been continuously developing new tire processes including one that makes new tired (not recaps) from old tires. Innovators are what we call partriotic American companies - the reason you purchase their products and not the products of MBA school graduates.


[Edited by tw on 05-22-2001 at 06:55 PM]

How very true, but I will say a few things.
First is that I find it hard to believe Ford did not know what was going on, in fact I find it impossible, they just are better at PR and know that by admitting guilt and doing the recall etc they'd move most of the blame to Firestone, who I will admit deserve it, but Ford are still guilt of not doing anything about it.

ALL major companies today seem to take an attitude of screw the customer, we see thousands of examples of this, they think they are big enough to tell people what they want, and on what terms they get it.

I hope in the end those that listen to the consumer will win but I still fear, from wonderful 'innovations' like content controlled monitors accounted recently, to plans of placing GPS trackers in consumer good so they only work in the country they were bought, companies have proven all they care about is their bottom line, and this is why I have a BIG problem with these companies have such a large role in politics, particularly in America with huge campaign donations.

There are many example of companies putting safety second, or third, recently in Australia there have been numerous incidents involving grounded aircraft, forced landings and even an entire fleet grounded due to them not being airworthy, in all cases this has been traced back to cost-cutting for maintenance, it was merely luck none of these resulted in a major air disaster.

Re: A company that deserves HATE
 

You are assuming that Ford monitors all the Lisa Thomas Laurie car crash reports throughout the world. The number of tread separation crashes was quite limited - on the order of 100 deaths - compared to 20,000 other car deaths per year just in America. How, from those 100,000 crashes, does one see a trend when only 100 die over many years? Point 1: Ford cannot be expected to have seen the trend.

Furthermore, why would Ford ever be told by crash investigators? If the crash occurs because of tire tread separation, then the 'powers that be' would only be telling Firestone - not Ford. We now know that Bridgestone Firestone routinely quashed that information - much like Mitsubishi did with their failure reports. Point 2: a second reason why Ford would have not known.

It appears that Ford only began suspecting something when casual conversations with dealers kept bringing up this rare crash, limited mostly to TX and FL. From the definition of quality, Ford would have asked their trusted supplier, Firestone. We know that Firestone repeatedly assured Ford that these failures were isolated events - not a design problem. Point 3: in quality oriented companies - where both manufacturer and supplier share confidential information - those reassurances would have been enough. Ford failed to understand that Firestone was now an 'MBA mentality' company - worried only in profits rather than the product. Firestone was violating the basic principals of quality.

Ford had every reason to believe what Firestone said was correct. Ford is probably furious after conducting a secret study - but in the principals of quality will not openly sue Firestone. Ford has every good reason to sue Firestone big time. Ford discovered even after the last recall, that Firestone had lied to Ford both previously and now AGAIN! Ford discovered that it was not just 6.5 million 15" tires that were at fault. Ford discovered, by doing their own private and secret survey, that all 15", 16" and 17" tires are failing prematurely AND that the 15" tire problems were worse than Firestone had reported. That's two openly, blantant lies by Firestone at the highest levels - lies even by their new "customer oriented" management.

No wonder Firestone was so upset that Ford did statistial analysis without Firestone's knowledge. Firestone was caught in but another lie - because profits were more importanat than the product - a fundamental violation of the principals of quality. Thanks to Ford, we can now rank Firestone up there with gangs and terrorists.

Ford's mistake is that they did as required in a "Quality is Job 1" system. After becoming suspicious too late, we all now know how evil is Bridgestone Firestone - where deaths are 100% attributed to Firestone management decisions and coverup. These managers are so evil as to even blame the union workers in Decatuer IL! Even before making more bad tires - and trying to blame others, Firestone must have known that all 18.5 million tires were defective by design - and lied even to trusted partner Ford.

Thank god that Ford is a classic example of a patriotic American operation. Although all the facts are not public, we can rightly suspect that Firestone in 1996, as in the 1975-1980 Firestone 500 murders, was making defective tires, knew it, and did nothing during production or after those tires were killing humans. Ford's mistake was probably and simply that they trusted Firestone.

How evil is Firestone? Once Ford told Firestone that ALL tires would be recalled, then Firestone decided to stop all future business with Ford. Why? CNN says it best. ***This demonstrates the evil in Firestone***. Firestone would not have to participate in the 13million, $2.1billion recall if they stopped all future business with Ford. Read that last sentence!!!!!!!!! Again - just another reason to campaign loud and openly for the bankrupcy of Firestone - a company that operates on principals of the mafia.

Where is Timothy McVeigh when we really need to advance mankind? And you thought China was a threat to human life? ;) Do you think Firestone will now tell me any truths?


[Edited by tw on 05-23-2001 at 02:10 AM]

Hmm, ok, I just wonder if there was any previous conversation between firestone and Ford that we don't know about, I would suspect there is, but I’m sure by now those documents have been shredded.

With danger of being overly cynical I find all the patriotic American stuff a bit funny, in a country that seem to worship all almighty buck over everything else I would have thought making as much money as possible was about as patriotic as you could get ;)I know there still are allot of good Americans, its just hard to find them.

And yes, they are indirectly responsible for those deaths, but when it comes to negligence, they don't stand alone.
Although the fact I can directly compare corrupt Chinese officials making fireworks in dangerous conditions in schools to major American corporations makes me kinda sick.

Re: Another company that deserves HATE
 

Most Philly readers have seen the building adjacent to the PA Turnpike in the Fort Washington Industrial Park - located just east of CD-Now. That was Beechnut. They intentionally sold baby formula overseas that was only powder - no nutrition. But Consumers Reports then told the story of apple juice.

A Beechnut senoir researcher had determined that a Brooklyn supplier of this apple juice was only filling with colored sugar water. It is difficult to chemically differentiate between both. This researcher went to corporate officers who said they would look into it. Nothing happened. But at a corporate social function, the researcher overheard some corporate officers joking how they were making big profits by selling sugar water as apple juice for babies.

The researcher went to the FDA that determined that was exactly what Beechnut was doing. It is detailed in a Consumer Report article - was that well known. How many here know the story? Joan Lunden remained a spokesperson for this company?

Public image, not the facts, are what determine a corporate image when too many people read fiction. In a society that was concerned for public safety - instead of hype - Beechnut products would have been avoided by all. Gerber, BTW, has a long reputation as being a responsible company.

The Beechnut company no longer is HQed in Fort Washington PA. The building eventually was stripped all the way down to its I-beams - and rebuilt. But again - Beechnut would be bankrupt if people - especially young mothers - would learn facts and ignore hype.

Having said all that, I grew up from income based upon that hype. My father was a copyrighter who did many of those hypes. Crest toothpaste and the 40% fewer cavities - a teammate and close friend was featured in those commercials. After quiting, one day he noted the FTA took the fun out of the business - they required that commercials tell the truth. Well.... yeah - half truths.

I dunno, Tom...
 

Yeah, we know that Firestone more than likely bears the brunt of responsibility for this debacle. I'll buy a Western Auto tire over a Firestone. (As a rule, I generally buy Goodyears.)

But realistically, I can't help but point the finger at Ford to a degree. The balance of weight in an SUV is at a different center than that of a standard passenger car, which gives them more a chance of tipping over. (Remember the original SUV tipover? The Suzuki Samurai?) I believe the SUV to be a flawed vehicle to begin with (minus the old Chevy Blazers, Jeep Wagoneers, and Suburbans--they seem more sturdy IMO). Adding some shitty Firestone tires made poorly in Decatur, Illinois was the death blow.

The SUV is the Gremlin or Corvair of our time. It is a gas guzzler, not very sturdy, intimidating on small streets in large cities, a poor parker, and gives some folks the ultimate delusion of being a badass. I don't want to take away from responsible SUV drivers...but most SUVs serve absolutely no point other than being big.

Re: I dunno, Tom...
 

SUV turnover study, pioneered by a Villanova professor, listed Explorer, in particular, and Fords, in general, as a more stable S/UV. The complete list is 2 or 3 Aug 2000 in USA Today, I believe. Fords are the safer S/UVs - BTW along with a Honda - I don't think Toyota was tested.

Blazers have had a long reputation for instablity (not as bad as GM's partner Suzuki), and for higher failure rates (such as 4 wheel drives with axles not bolted down) and higher passenger fatality rates. Chevy Suburbans suffer higher driver loss of control so often that a safety study recommended special training for those larger vehicles. To blame Explorer, especially compared to the more dangerous GM and Suzuki vehicles, is just wrong.

Firestone's 1.5 failures per million makes Ford appear to be wrong - but that is based only on appearance; not fact. Faced with a trusted partner that was criminally negligent and that openly lied, Ford then did well beyond what any responsible company must do - $2.1+billion worth of honesty - a voluntary massive recall of all those tires. Firestone then responded (as noted by CNN) by a "screw America, we will not recall" response AND by blaming Ford - so that *you* might also blame Ford. Next Firestone will blame the victim for being inside a Firestone equipped vehicle? When does this 'blame everyone else' reasoning end? Only Firestone is playing that card game. Blame goes to the original source of every of 12 problems - Firestone management - both the old and new management - once one is educated in the fundamental concepts of quality.

Firestone is apparently 100% criminally negligent - regardless of what you think of anyone else - including the Federal government for permitting S/UVs on the road.

Even if at fault, Ford took responsibility despite a lying, MBA dominated, criminally negligence Firestone - who also has history of doing this exact same crime 25 years before. What did Firestone do this time?

Firestone even has a previous history of murdering American by this same method of poor design and corporate management coverup. But still one would partially blame Ford for designing safer what other companies also sell? Why not blame all auto deaths on all car manufacturers because all victims were in dangerous cars? Why not blame government for building highways that people died on? Why not just blame a power plant because they may have created CO2 polluted air that might have hindered the driver's mental abilities?

Ford 1) is not criminally negligent, 2) has demonstrated in engineering facts that they are the more responsible of S/UV manufacturers, and 3) responded well beyond what was required by a $2.1billion response to a Firestone created problem. Firestone is accused in *12* counts of killing Americans - including an outright refusal to recall their now 'documented' defective products. Who documented it? A responsible Ford Motor. And yet you would partially blame Ford? Where is the logic?

1) Firestone did this same thing - including a previous management coverup - in the late 1970s - and therefore should have learned from their mistakes. But nnooo...
2) They created a defective design, missing that ply between belt and tread, knowing full well what the tire was intended for and how it would be used.
3) They covered up failure rates on 15" tires - even when asked by news reporters AND their trusted partner, Ford, for further information.
4) They blamed unions for defective tires in one factory when they knew problems existed in all these 15" tire factories.
5) They blamed owners for not properly inflating tires even though they admitted that underinflated tires operation is common on all vehicles.
6) They blamed Ford for recommending a lower tire pressure when they knew this problem was only unique to their tires. Knowning full well what Ford recommended, Firestone stayed silent.
7) They continued to manufacture defective tires after learning of the problem.
8) They refused to participate in a 6.5 million tire recall until dragged into it by Ford.
9) Lied to Ford about the full extent of the problem in other 15", 16" and 17" tires.
10) Accused Ford of violating a 'trust' relationship (can you believe Firestone even had to balls to say this!) by performing a analysis without Firestone's knowledge - a study that discovered the second Firestone lie.
11) Cancelled all future Ford contracts only to avoid any future tire recalls - because Firestone's MBA mentality (that make Pinochet of Chile look lilly clean) are only interested in short term profits even at the expense of human life.
12) Now change their tune and ONLY blame the Explorer for all problems even though their tire failures also appears on other vehicles - including Ranger.

Firestone does point 12 so that Sycamore, et al will at least partially blame Ford.

Any Three Points are damning. Those are ***12*** damning points all blaming Firestone!!!

Sycamore. I was raised on this propagand shit. To place any blame on Ford is to say that Bosnia concentration camp victims were responsible for their own starvation - because they should not have been there. A few OJ Simpson lawyers may want you in their jury. There are 12 points against Firestone and not one action (cooperatively) by Firestone to correct the problem. Ford OTOH had to force Firestone, kicking and screaming, to be partially responsible.

Considering the facts posted above, where is there any blame on Ford? To have put any blame on Ford, you must then blame all other S/UV manufacturers, all highways, all people who sit in S/UVs, all vehicle operators .... where does the blame sharing end? Exactly the kind of thinking that a criminal Firestone wants you to use.

Welcome to the world of quality. There is no blame sharing. The problems are directly traceable at the source - a concept that makes me a hard ass, no excuses, superior conservative to any purchased Republican Congressional leader. Even if others are partially to blame, 100% blame goes directly to the company accused of all 12 points.

Those are 12 damning points - and Firestone did not do one single thing to compensate for *any* of those problems. Instead they used OJ Simpson lawyer tactics to lay blame elsewhere. Is the LAPD also responsible for those Firestone deaths? :) Maybe it was racism - after all those tires were black. I wonder how many Republican's Firestone will bribe this year. Maybe Firestone will also be running some Phillip Morris 'we are responsible' TV commericals?

How many times can a Firestone executive lie before Congress? ;) Only depends on how quickly those Firestone tires kill Congressmen - S/UVs being the vehicle of choice to Republicans who say we don't need conservation.

Well, I can't find anything to argue with there, that’s a first ;)

Though I must say the world would be a safer and cleaner place without SUV's altogether.
Here it I the same with 4Wheel Drives, these huge diesel belching motherfuckers, usually driven by one woman, in a car that could carry a ton of bricks, shits me up the wall. For a start, while you may be safer the chances are you will kill someone else, and yes, the belch out more crap than the liberal party in election week.

Time to change transport systems, at least inside cities RADICALLY

I couldn'thelp adding (after my sleep-deprived brain had time to process everything) somthing.

All media is biased, and i do mean all. Everything u read, in every paper has a slant, from the tabloid bullshit to the economist, and you must always intpret what you read, whcih sadly people don't do any more, they read the opinion sections in the paper and adapt them to themselves without much more thought, it is hard to find much debate about many topics any more, there isjsut so much apathy. Even in my own school, which is considered ot have slightly more inteligent students (enterance examination only entry) i find so many simply do not nwat to know' or do not care... If we do not critisise and watch the media, we are in danger of losing our biggest remaining regualter, for only the media will take the time, and have the power to bring the truth to light.

Re: Re: I dunno, Tom...
 

I don't doubt your knowledge or facts on this, but I would still argue against the SUV as a whole. Personally, if you ain't going off roading, then you don't really need the damned thing. Buy a nice wagon or something. ;-)

Quote:

Firestone's 1.5 failures per million makes Ford appear to be wrong - but that is based only on appearance; not fact. Faced with a trusted partner that was criminally negligent and that openly lied, Ford then did well beyond what any responsible company must do - $2.1+billion worth of honesty - a voluntary massive recall of all those tires.

But after how long? A year? Did Ford have to wait over a year to do "studies" before they reacted in this manner? I could understand the passing of SOME months...but if they were finding problems with other sizes of Firestones, then they should have been announced as they were being found.

Quote:

Firestone then responded (as noted by CNN) by a "screw America, we will not recall" response AND by blaming Ford - so that *you* might also blame Ford. Next Firestone will blame the victim for being inside a Firestone equipped vehicle? When does this 'blame everyone else' reasoning end? Only Firestone is playing that card game. Blame goes to the original source of every of 12 problems - Firestone management - both the old and new management - once one is educated in the fundamental concepts of quality. Firestone is apparently 100% criminally negligent - regardless of what you think of anyone else - including the Federal government for permitting S/UVs on the road.

I don't mind giving Ford some credit for making this massive recall, as from what I see, it will effectively wipe out any profits for this year (and maybe longer). But Ford will most likely be found negligent along with Firestone at any trials that come up as a result of deaths. You make a compelling argument, but it still appears that Ford did some dragging of its feet, which makes it LOOK bad in the eyes of many.

Re: I dunno, Tom...
 

Its worse than that. Even William Clay Ford back in Aug noted the S/UV is wastes too much energy, is too unsafe, and is environmentally unfriendly. He said that Ford will address those problems in future designs. However GM, in the same news report, instead insist that S/UVs will account for as much as 90% of future sales and GM will be selling many new models in the future. Previously, an auto spokesman (company not mentioned) is reported to say that the higher deaths in autos attributed to S/UVs should be solved by making cars heavier. S/UVs are not about need. And they even use obsolete tech 1960, low performance engines. They even have lower safety standards and lower MPG requirements - neither makes sense.

Having said this, we have an exception. The next year Chevy Envoy has a 60 Hp/liter engine - doing what Japanese S/UVs have also done in the past year - put an average performance engine in S/UVs. Keep your ears tuned. Every so often you will hear an average performance Japanese S/UV. That is progress - allbeit grossly too slow and argueably towards the wrong final objective.


Appreciate the fundamentals that make quality work. If you have tire problems, then your trusted supplier does the investigation. There are too many other things to study - especially when the failure rates were only 1.5 per million. If Ford only did a study after a year - then they were excessively fast. Again you must look at everything in perspective. Look at those numbers. It is why people make so many emotinal conclusions - they see trends but don't see numbers.

Outrage would be properly cited when Ford had no quality - pre-1981 under Henry Ford. Back then they inspected everything and trusted no one. But quality is why Walmart eats Sears. Walmart never checks or even counts products that arrive on the shipping dock. Those products go right to the shelves, uncounted, unverified, and 'trusted'. Quality is trust of your trusted supplier. It is only recently that Ford finally decided that Firestone was not trusted - that the information that even government investigators also trusted was not accurate. So Ford did a major study - before the government even considered it. The study had to be quite large because of the numbers - 1.5 per million. As soon as Ford learned facts, then those facts were reported. One could argueably say that Ford trusted too long.

However fact remain that Firestone - just like GPU in 3 Mile Island - lied or stonewalled to everyone including the Feds. Only Firestone had sufficient information to see the problem. One might also conclude that government and the press trusted too long. This is a story that dates back to early 1990s. Why did the NHTSB and the press remain quiet so long? Were they also criminally negligent - or do those numbers - 1.5 per million - indicate that only Firestone could have seen the problem earlier?


What you call foot dragging is normal procedure everywhere - especially when "look at the numbers - 1.5 failures per million". IOW we should also be blaming and suing the American and other S American government for having these numbers and remaining quiet? Why did they remain quiet? Were they also co-conspirators? Look at the numbers. This lookes like insignificant statistical anomolies attributed to many different sources - that was until we realized Firestone's response. Only Firestone could have known all crashes were attributed to one source - them. Those 1.5 per million failures, at first, did not all point directly to Firestone - at least not until other facts were known. And Firsteone hide those other facts - and did not fix the tire design.

Those 1.5 failures would each appear as from different possible sources - that was until someone finally was able to put together enough case studies to see a trend. Only then are 1.5 per million problems are coming from the same source.

This common source was not apparent until we starting hearing Firestone's response and learned, from leaks, that Firestones manufacturing process had flaws known to top Firestone management. Again - look at the numbers. 1.5 per million is a difficult failure rate to identify to only one source.

Unfortunately blame will fall on Ford - not because Ford is negligent - but because Ford has deep pockets. Honesty among lawyers? Why do you think GM hired Ken Starr to coverup murder - people burning to death in 1990s Chevy Malibus?

The real meaning of SUV...
 

<u>S</u>illy
<u>U</u>seless
<u>V</u>ehicle

Seriously, the closest the vast majority of these monsters get to ever going off-road is when people park them in driveways.

Bloody yuppiemobiles,
Z

Satirewire
 

I couldn't help posting this very funny article about firestone off satirewire.
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/firestone.shtml

I was just browsing through and couldn't help but to address this topic of apathy that jaguar brought about.

"there isjsut so much apathy. Even in my own school, which is considered ot have slightly more inteligent students (enterance examination only entry) i find so many simply do not nwat to know' or do not care..."

It seems that apathy has very little to do with intelligence. I don't notice that very many people are too stupid to care. More often the case is that people are too nihilistic to care. These things go hand and hand, as is natural.

I would venture to say that for my generation, who has grown up with no cause to fight for, no religion to be saved by, and nothing that truely matters staring them in the face, nihilism is the most natural conclusion to reach.

You can all see the trends i'm sure. Teen suicide is on the rise i do believe (some don't even value their own existance). School shootings are creaping up in every portion of the united states (if you believe in nothing, why would you value someone elses life?). Drugs, hard drugs, are working their way into lifestyles as we seek meaning in anything we can.

Nietsche warned us of this. Nihilism is the destructor of society. It breeds chaos, apathy, cruelty, and greed.

What is the solution you say? There is none. Nihilism seems to be somewhat of a pandora's box. Our innocence can't be put back in again.

Hi Justin, which generation are you in? Gen-X is roughly 1962-1982, Gen-Y or "Millenials" are born since 1982.

I am Gen X and I feel that we got the worst of it all, with the worst schools, the worst parenting approaches (for many, not for all), etc.

The attitude today is that "something must be done" but nobody knows what. Although this is way off topic. This is a recipe for massive change but also for massive pain and confusion.

Dag, you're so dead right that it actually hurts. These days everyone is floundering about trying to find something to fight, but this Creeping Nihilism(c), along with a generally apathetic short-sightedness, prevents people from either knowing what to do, or having the balls to make the big changes we need to save the world. Stop abortions, not unwanted preganancies, guns, not murder, drugs, not addiction, violence in the media, not violence in the real world. Everyone wants it to end, but no one is willing to admit that they're clueless, take a step back, and really see the big picture. It's like there's a culprit in a crowd of people who needs to die, and we're standing on the outisde edge of the crowd, stabbing randomly into it with our legislative knives, and hoping we hit him, without caring who else is ruined or killed in the process.

although i don't like the title, i guess i would fit into generation y.

I think it's quite ironic that not only are we a useless generation (thus termed generation x), but we are also an utterly unoriginal generation.

It was the baby boomers that stuck us with that tag, as well as the term "slackers". Let's just say they don't have a very high opinion of us. That's okay; we don't have a high opinion of them either. What a bunch of stinking, whining hypocrites -- oh, I forgot, are there any here?

This book I read on generations called gen-X "13th Generation" or "13ers" instead, as we are the 13th identifiable generation in America. They were the ones to say that you guys, Gen-Y, are really "Millenials". I like that term.

I also being of GenX (1975), feel that we proved the critics wrong. When the whole Grunge era was engulfing the US, there was all the talk--the GenXers are slackers, they won't make it...blah blah blah. My personal opinion is that Generation X will clean up the crap of the Baby Boomers. I'm not saying that the Baby Boomers were bad--I'm willing to accept that many of them simply knew no better. I do worry about the dot-com generation though. I have never seen such a lack of work ethic among them. I hope I, being a critic of today, will be proven wrong in 5-10 years.

"Everyone wants it to end, but no one is willing to admit that they're clueless, take a step back, and really see the big picture"

Alpha, i believe the trend you're describing really has little to do with the nihilism and apathy inherent in our generation. People that scream and shout about how this or that is wrong and how we need to do this or that with little knowledge of the situation are lazy. There is a very big difference.

actually, i'm pretty sure that gen-x was coined by Douglas Coupland, a man of your generation. He generally wrote about the tech worker of the 80's and 90's.

sycamore, generally when people speak of lack of work ethic they speak of the lack of "want to" in some people. I feel that my generation is rife with "want to" but i see in myself and my compatriots some questions luming over our heads: "what?", "why?".

these questions remain unanswered.

"Generation X" is just something convenient for the Inky (and other companies pandering to Boomers) to shit on. It's safe mainly because generation X is _small_ in comparison to the Boomers or the later generations.

A company that deserves HATE
 

{In continuation of the original post, this more detailed history, demonstrates how some never change. Warning, it is again long - 24 paragraphs}

Radial tire technology was sold as the Michelin X in 1949. So successful was the design that, by 1965, all other European manufacturers had to also sell radial tires - or quit the tire business. Rather than convert their factories and pay patent royalties, American tire manufacturers petitioned the US government to raise tariffs on imported tires. According to Forbes in Dec 1976, "The French invented the radial and Akron has never taken kindly to it."

In 1967, Goodrich introduced a radial for the American market. But since American automakers did not appreciate the tire's advantage, and since Goodrich had limited retail outlets, then the tire was not widely available. Goodrich failed to prosper from their innovation. By 1970, no tire company produced radials in America except Goodrich - and it is not clear whether Goodrich tires were even made in America also being as basic components for radials were not even available in America.

Goodyear had a choice in 1967 - to go with radials or to promote a new technology called Polyglas bias ply. Goodyear made outrageous claims for their new 'innovation' which was actually developed by an independent tire company better known as the chief supplier to Sears - Armstrong Rubber Co. Goodyear spent massively to recapitalize all its factories for Polyglas - a tire that only cost 8% more to build but was sold at 25% to 35% higher price - compared to the obsolete rayon based and bias ply tires. Furthermore, they were estimated to spend between $20 and $45million to promote this new tire. Ironically, a 1971 Consumers Report noted that most polyester / fiberglas tires (from Firestone, Goodyear, Goodrich, Uniroyal, and General Tire) failed prematurely (although how they did not fail is interesting). All this while Michelin's radial was kicking ass in Europe - and all but banned in America.

Radials were sold in 1971 America, but only as imports. Michelin alone had sold 1 million radials through Sears by the start of 1970. Sears sold two radials. One from Michelin, and one under their Roadmaster brand name produced by Armstrong Tire in conjunction with Michelin. Still American tire manufacturers were not producing radial tires in America - instead choosing what an MBA does best - don't innovate. Goodyear invested heavily in an upgraded version of long since obsoleted bias ply tires.

A Michelin X sold for about $47 whereas the Sear's radial for about $44. The Goodyear, an imported radial product (unknown who made this tire for Goodyear) cost about $65. Bias ply tires sold for about $28 to $40. Put this into perspective. That 1 Goodyear radial tire cost about $325 in Year 2000 dollars; being priced higher also due to tariffs demanded by the American tire industry.

Interesting is a story provided, in part, by another. To avoid tariffs, Michelin sold partially completed tires to a Sears domestic supplier who in turn finished manufacturing a tire they sold to Sears. As a result, Sears sales increased, without tariff penalties, so great as to get everyone's attention including GM's - a company then still lead by 'car guys'. Suddenly all those silly reason why Americans don't want radials made little sense - although those reasons were still promoted publicly by American tire manufacturers.

Curiously, Sears was nationwide, first in domestic polyglass tire sales and then nationwide first in domestic radial tire sales - which suggests how the American tire industry overall feared to innovate (and how spottyl Goodrich's retail markets were). Business Week discussed Michelin in July 1965 only as a successful company that was secretive and innovative - not once mentioning reasons why radials were so superior tires and, again, promoting those American tire company 'reasons' for not selling radials in America.

The US press was full of reasons why radials could not be successful such as "if wrongly inflated, badly aligned, or roughly driven, the radial tire will ... cause excessive vibration, fail to last the 40,000 miles ... and in many cases even through off tread or blow out its thinner sidewalls". Today we have the advantage of understanding that to be a lie. Tread separation cannot be permitted since all vehicles - S/UVs and passenger cars - can be overturned by such failures. But the 1960s were a time where corporations never lied (cough); Ralph Nader and consumerism was evil; and the consumer, by today's standards, expected failure as 'situation normal'.

Goodyear could have moved into radial technology in 1967. Instead they moved to make safe, predictable bias belted tires. By 1970, everyone else domestically was making the same obsolete technology, polyglas, bias belted tire. No one in the American tire industry really wanted to innovate. According to Forbes magazine in 1978, "Around Goodyear today, the word is that the money spent prior to 1974 was largely wasted". That includes money spend on Goodyear's first American radials.

By 1970 with profits again falling, they attempted to get into the radial business. Goodyear attempted a hostile takeover of Vredestein, a Dutch company that was a Goodrich partner for radial tires. Goodyear wanted Goodrich radial tire technology; but the takeover failed. Goodyear had already spent heavily on polyglas tire technology and decided they could not afford to recapitalize or design from scratch for radial tires. That cost control (anti-innovation) mentality continued in Goodyear for most of the 1970s.

About 1972, American automakers, especially GM, demanded nothing but radials for future products - as they had warned would happens years previous. In fact both Ford and GM expected to have only radials on every car (except Pinto) manufactured in 1975. American tire manufacturers scrambled to build a radial at all costs.

In 1972, Firestone sold their first American radial when engineers developed a process to make steel belted radials on existing equipment. The Firestone 500 used steel belts vulcanized in rubber, with a tread glued to that belt. Only Michelin also made radials with steel belts. Steel cord still was not produced in America because American tire manufacturers feared to produce radial tires until all but forced to do so. Therefore many later domestic radials used polyglas or nylon - not steel.

But in November 1972, "Development Chief Robertson wrote ... "We are badly in need of an improvement in belt separation performance, particularly at General Motors, where we are in danger of being cut off by Chevrolet because of separation failures." Firestone 500 failures were common and well known that early. All Firestone top management had detailed reports throughout the 1970s of tire failures (according to Time of June 1979) and said nothing - often denying those reports existed. In fact, Firestone 500 failure pictures look just like the current Firestone ATX and Wilderness tire failures - with the same tread disintegration / separation that causes vehicle roll over. Curious that Bridgestone Firestone management today has a response so similar to management of the 1970s.

Previously noted in the 1971 Consumer Reports analysis also was the unacceptable failure rate of obsolete technology belted bias tires. But these failure did not result in tread separation. Firestone 500 tread separation caused passenger cars to overturn - creating paraplegics, quadriplegics, and death throughout the nation. The actual number is still not known since Firestone settlements were routinely secret and publicly denied.

Do you see the similarity between 1970s Firestone and 1990s Firestone? They denied the failures even happened. They even used same excuses; as from Aug 1978 Newsweek: "Firestone maintained at the NHTSA hearing last week that many of the problems with the 500s can be traced to other causes, such as failure to inflate the tires properly". Another excuse was quoted by the Akron Beacon Journal as quality control difficulties that cause the tread and sidewall splices to come apart - IOW blame union workers. Blame everyone else - both in 1978 and 2001.

Firestone knew they had a serious tire problem in the first year of production - 1972. And yet in 1978 still was blaming others, and still was selling the tires. Even non-radial, steel belted Firestone 500s had tread separation- but those were quickly discontinued the same year when Consumer Reports reported those failures in Oct 1974.

Firestone limited radial recalls to tires manufactured between Sept 1975 and Dec 1976, or between Sept 1975 and April 1976, depending on the Firestone 500 model. Other older 500s could be replaced during a limited few months IF the owner paid half the cost of a new Firestone tire. Tires after 1976 were excluded even though they too had the same design failures. This is responsibility to a consumer? Yes, in the 1960 mentality, Firestone was also blaming the Center for Auto Safety and Joan Claybrook of NHTSA for lies and distributing false information. Blame everyone else.

Firestone claimed that only 7.5% of their tires were failing. However documents from retailers, Atlas Tires, Shell, Montgomery Ward, et al indicated failure rates exceeding 17.5%. Firestone's own internal documents claimed a failure rate of 27%.

Notice the same attitude. Ford demanded that all Wilderness 15, 16 and 17 inch tires be replaced. Instead Firestone stopped all future business. This is a company more interested in their profits than in their products - then and now.

NHTSA was prodded in 1977 by both Consumers Union and Ralph Nader to study radial tire failures. In a survey of 87,000 owners, NHTSA discovered a 46% failure rate for Firestone, and a 33% failure rate for most other American radial tire manufacturers. Michelin, as expected, was only 2%.

Tire manufacturers could not afford the public to know this fact, so filed with a friendly Federal District Judge Manos to suppress the survey. Of course the Center for Auto Safety had distributed photocopies of the March 1978 survey to the press. But only Time Magazine (May 1978) and the NY Times (June 1978) had the balls to report these facts- although both buried the articles as small columns well inside the publication. US News, Newsweek, and most other American news publications don't even mention survey's existence. Of course this was the attitude toward consumer responsibility of that era. Firestone, et al certainly could not be lying.

However John Estes, a engineer, and President of GM heard a short TV story of the survey, and ordered all Firestone 500s removed from all GM products the next day - NY Times June 1978. (Estes was the last 'car guy' to lead GM).

By Sept 1978, a subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee issued a report of the obvious. However Firestone's response was, "To the best of our knowledge, there have not been any proven cases where accidents, injuries, or deaths have been caused a by a defect in the tire itself" - Firestone's Robert Troyer quoted by the NY Times. Furthermore Firestone claimed that they had started phasing out the tire in 1976. Ironically, the NY Times still found it for sale in June 1978. 23.6 million Firestone 500 tires were sold. Firestone even refused to recall 12 million. This entire paragraph could almost be reprinted for year 2001 Firestone.

Congress had passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 that required Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG). Instead domestic tire companies again united to sue and stifle tire standards for 13 years. After a 1979 Congressional Committee report, the UTQG was to begin, but only for bias ply tires. Rate obsolete technology tires? Eventually the UTQG standards were reduced by the Reagan administration to a manufacturer's self test rather than submitting tires to a standards test circuit in San Angelo, TX. One retailer who claimed to have extensive knowledge of UTQG called the standards only relevant to a company's products and invalid for comparing tires from different companies.

Since 1949, there is one benchmark for consumer responsibility here - Michelin - and one benchmark for corporate corruption - Firestone.

Wow, seems i missed a bit of discussion here...

I find peopel in my generation (Y) (ii'm born 1985) seem to fit into 3 o so catagories

The we-want-to-do-somthing: People who actaully do give a damn, resposible for the recent sociality/green uprising, i guess i fit into this catagory more than any, although i don't see pure socialisim as the answer i feel its better than the soulless capatilist system we have at the moment, small changes have an impact, im' not for the whole fuck-the-system thing.

The lets-go-back-to-the-1950s: I find this highly disturbing, large number of scared individauls feeling a distinct lack of security who are being draged into this kind of hardcore-christian group that seem to think everything was perfect in the 1950s when everything jsut wasent' talked about, coz obviously if we don't talk about its not there......

THe I-don't-care: By far the biggest, they refuse to ahve nayhting to do iwht the future, they refuse to see, they refuse to aknowledge were thigns are going, jsut close thier eyes, bury their heads in the sand and become MBA's......

Yea, i'm young, bitter, cynical and acidic but goddamn, there is a good reason for it, i think things CAN get better but it requires people to actually give a damn in large numbers, in the last 2 biggest elevctions(US and Britan) around 50% bothered to turn up, that is just.....scary that HALF the population jsut DO NOT CARE who runs the country, what happens......

I was there at the S11 protest, because it was for a dman good cause, the WTO is a virtual oligarchy, a incredible concentration of power and wealth into an organsiation that is neither transparant or open, and it must be stopped.

</rant>

You have the right idea - just applied an idea to the wrong organization. You have described the US Supreme Court but have erroneously used the letters WTO. The WTO is a transparent organization - except to those who have been reading the Daily News or watching the local gossip - Action News.

Last time i checked the WTO does not allow any outsiders in on its meetings, and does not publish any minutes, that’s as good as closed in my book.

Before anyone points out the bleeding obvious, some organizations do have to have to operate to a degree without public scrutiny, particularly military, police and in some cases, justice systems. A good example of this was the French courts just before the French Revolution, they were so transparent they got little done, most time was spent sorting out inter-personal disputes between members of staff, comments, and answering to various other officials. But at the same time any authority containing elected officials that has any significant power or any jurisdiction must be open, and in my honest opinion any dealings between our elected officials and any business entity.

For this particular dealing i see as our greatest failure of democracy. We continually question countries with corrupt systems, often refusing them aid on such a basis, how bloody hypocritical when the same thing happens LEGALLY inside our own nations. If anyone can prove to me that there is some kind of significant difference between campaign donations from a major company in the millions and for example bribery of customs officials in Vietnam ill is damn surprised, in both cases you’re giving them money, and expecting something in return. Yes, they do expect something in return, you cannot tell me that these companies give this money on either some kind of ideological ground (the only ideology most companies have is the ideology of maximizing their bottom line at the expense of anything (just take a look at the company this thread was about)) or out of the kindness of their hearts.

While we allow such open bribery, we cannot expect unbiased elected officials and are in no position to look down apron other nations because they make such dealings illegal.

P.S: Yes there are differences between bribery of officials and campaign donations but in reality, they are pretty damn small when you think about it.