America loves a winner and simultaneously loathes them.
I was re-reading an old posting of mine and got to thinking. Yes, I know, that is dangerous. In that posting, I remarked that:
That, in short, is why I get a laugh out of people who believe that stupid "Tucker" movie or think the "Elio" three-wheeled car had a real shot at production. There was no "big conspiracy" against Tucker, only reality. After the war, Henry J, Kaiser, who was backed by millions of dollars of war profits and his existing shipbuilding, aluminum and steel industries, was unable to make a go of a "new" car company and himself had to fold his tent after a few years, exiting the auto business in 1955 and concentrating on the Jeep line. He eventually sold even that, to American Motors. Tucker? He didn't stand a chance - not if Henry J. couldn't make it.
It is interesting - a guy with all the money in the world and he went broke trying to sell cars. Funny thing, Henry Ford went through the same gyrations before he became successful. Before Ford Motor Company and the Model T, Ford helped start other car companies - including one that would eventually become Cadillac division of General Motors and another that would become Lincoln (which he would buy back, years later). At first, he failed, and then failed again. Even the original Ford cars (before the Model T) were not that memorable or successful.
But then he had this idea - that a small, lightweight and inexpensive car could be made in volume and sold to the masses. This went against the thinking of the time, when cars were heavy, expensive, and only the very rich could afford them. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Henry J. Kaiser, after the war, thought he could get in on this car business. After all, he had this huge steelmaking capability, Kaiser aluminum, and a host of other industries that would now be idle once war production shut down. And initially, the Kaiser and Frazer automobiles sold fairly well in the post-war boom era - despite shortages of materials and strikes (sounds like today, doesn't it?). But the "Big-3" quickly upgraded their cars - adding features like automatic transmissions, overhead-valve V-8 engines and power steering and power brakes. Smaller car companies couldn't compete with this level of technology and many in fact, bought these components from the larger makers - which meant they were at a price disadvantage.
Kaiser took a page from the Ford Model T playbook and introduced the Henry J - a car so cheap the trunk lid was welded shut (you had to access the trunk through the back seat). It sold like lead balloons. Because his production costs were higher than the Big-3 (who were in the middle of a price war) a "full-size" 6-cylinder Chevy was only a little more than the penalty box that was the four cylinder Henry J. The car was a flop and Kaiser got out of the car business.
Oddly enough, the Henry J might have made a go of it, if it came out in 1958 or so - during the recession. Studebaker chopped off the ends of its Champion automobile and introduced the Lark and jump-started the whole "compact car" movement in America. Of course, Studebaker later had its ass handed to them when the "Big-3" introduced their own line of small cars. But in 1951, bigger was better and the Henry J was answering a question no one was asking.
Two Henrys, two similar products (inexpensive, simple cars) and two radically different results. No one romanticizes about Henry J. Kaiser, of course, because he was already very wealthy. But Preston Tucker? He was shafted by the big car companies, right? Maybe, or maybe he was like Henry J. Kaiser without the millions of dollars to back him. In other words, he was doomed to fail.
There are parallels to modern business. Microsoft, one of the wealthiest companies on the planet, tried to make a smart phone - the "Windows Phone" and failed miserably, even with a wall of money behind them. It wasn't that "big phone" was out to get them, only that (like so many of their failed products) they jumped in too late with a "me too!" product that had no compelling features.
Henry Ford was successful because he came along at a time when the auto industry was infant - he was in the right place, at the right time, with the right product and the right ideas. You would think people would idolize him (and maybe some do or did) but once he became a major player in the car business, well it was fuck him - robber-baron industrialist! I wonder if the same thing would have happened if in the highly improbably event that Preston Tucker became successful and outsold even GM. Yea, fuck Preston Tucker - he's a greedy capitalist! They wouldn't be making weepy movies about him.
It is like Jeff Bezos. I was recently going through a drawer and found our old Kindles - which still work (they were clearly over-engineered) but are woefully obsolete (subject of another posting). I recall Bezos being on The Daily Show promoting the Kindle, and Jon Steward almost sucked his dick, he was so obsequious. Bezos was an internet hero back then - selling us stuff for cheap and spreading knowledge through inexpensive books. Later on - when he was successful - we would blame him for everything from the demise of Mom 'n Pop to the crises with Brick 'n Motar. Oh, yea, we also hate him for having so much money.
It is interesting but Hollywood loves making movies about "little guys" who go up against the system and then get their ass handed to them on a platter - but they "fought the good fight!" And lost. The windshield wiper guy movie is another example.
Now, granted, Hollywood makes movies about successful people, too - although there usually is a dark undertone to such films. They imply that these superstars got to where they got to, due to chicanery and sharp practice.
You see the message Hollywood (and by extension, society) is sending: Success is a bad thing. Better to fight the good fight and lose that to "sell out to the man" and be a success. A weird message if you think about it - but it must be what we want to watch or what "they"' want us to watch - if you a conspiracy nut.
Personally, I think it is the former. Since most of us are "losers" (but not by a worldwide standards, of course) we grouse that "but for" some malfeasance or obstacle, we could have invented Facebook or founded Tesla (which Musk really didn't do) or whatever. But since we can't take our eyes away from the television or the smart phone for more than ten minutes, we are destined to just be well-off by world standards and not (we think) by US standards. The tragedy! It really ain't so bad, being a plebe.
So we like (apparently) watching these "little guy goes against the system" movies and "successful guy was a jerk in real life" movies (and other media) as it plays to our inner narrative - the inner narrative of losers.
If Henry Ford had failed with his Model T, would they have made a movie about him and how he was screwed by "big business" or would he have been forgotten like so many other early carmakers who faded to obscurity. Ask Louis Chevrolet about that.
So what is the point of all of this? Well, only that maybe this is a negative mindset to get into - that the system is rotten and corrupt and that being "poor and noble" is better than tainting yourself with money. It is a mindset that smacks of loser-ism and sour grapes. "Sure, I could have been successful, but I'm not about to sell out!"
Sell out? Selling what? And to whom?
I mentioned conspiracy theories in passing, and they fall into the same category. Why bother trying when "Corporate America" and the Masons (and maybe the Amish - why not?) are all out to get you! Just do another bong hit, gulp down a beer, and watch your TeeVee show and send out for a pizza. We've all done it - wallow in our own crapulence. It's actually kind of fun.
But maybe it is also self-destructive, too.
The next time someone blathers on to you about how Preston Tucker was screwed over by "The Big-3" car companies, you might want to ask them why Henry J, Kaiser couldn't make a go of it at the same time - and he was one of the richest people in the world.
On second thought, don't bother. A better approach is to slowly back away from such folks. Success in this world isn't about being in the the secret cabal but based on hard work, luck and timing - and not hanging out with delusional people.
