It seems from the posts here that there are a lot of people who think that Jaguar sprang full-grown from Ford. Actually there used to be a substantial British automotive industry. Remember MG, Triumph, Austin-Healy, Vauxhall?

Guess what. Those car brands all died, not from US hegemony, but from incredibly bad engineering and manufacture. A relative of mine had a dealership many years ago for some of these brands. He made way more money repairing them than selling them. It used to be axiomatic that a British car would go maybe 500 miles before something broke. Couple that with the styling disasters of Rolls-Royce and the poor engineering of Land Rover, and you have the death of the British auto industry.

Ford tried to do something with the Jaguar brand; something stupid apparently. The Jaguars are more reliable than when they were British-made, but it seems that buyers at that price level are more concerned with a difficult to capture cachet than with reliability or styling (the Jag styles haven't changed that much).

The Jag dealer in Florida is doing his complaining way too late. The Jaguar decline began long before Tata was even a gleam in an Indian's eye.

Believe this person--this is quite correct. Furthermore, the U.S. industry, having refused to learn from history, is following in the British footsteps as fast as they can scurry. Like the British industry in the Sixties, our industry's executives continue their champagne and caviar lifestyle and their business as usual mentality while their Rome burns.

Jaguar never represented dependability. No company in the land of the old Lucas Electric--the company once called "the Prince of Darkness" in honor of their headlights' habit of failing inconveniently and completely--could build a solid reputation on reliability. Jaguar was about subjective traits--driveability, looks, sounds--it was about building cars that were seductive.

Ford wanted to capitalize on that but failed to maintain it. U.S. builders (except, if any and conversely, Chrysler under Daimler Benz) can't even seem to maintain what once made American cars great. Nepotism, bean-counting and a class system that rewards family and the ability to fit in more than great ideas and a passion for the product did in the British auto industry, and it is doing the same for us.

acptulsa:

... the U.S. industry, having refused to learn from history, is following in the British footsteps as fast as they can scurry. Like the British industry in the Sixties, our industry's executives continue their champagne and caviar lifestyle and their business as usual mentality while their Rome burns.

...

Ford wanted to capitalize on that but failed to maintain it. U.S. builders (except, if any and conversely, Chrysler under Daimler Benz) can't even seem to maintain what once made American cars great. Nepotism, bean-counting and a class system that rewards family and the ability to fit in more than great ideas and a passion for the product did in the British auto industry, and it is doing the same for us.

As I see it, British engineering in the 1970s suffered from two weaknesses. One was the lower prestige of engineering schools as compared to liberal arts universities, with the result that relatively few bright students went into engineering. The other was expensive and militant unionized labor.

America's philistinism, combined with the higher standard required of engineering applicants, allowed bright students to pursue engineering without feeling socially inferior to the liberal arts students. (But that's changing as bright students become more interested in attending non-engineering oriented elite Ivey League schools, and as they see non-promoted, laid-off engineers feeling like suckers.)

But really, there is nothing magical about the borders of the United States to determine that people within it will be wealthier than people elsewhere. It was our social, moral, religious and political culture that made the difference. As that culture dissipates, and as its bearers fail to reproduce themselves and are replaced by third-worlders, it only stands to reason that the U.S. will gradually become more like the Third World (even as parts of the Third World change to become more like us).

Isn't that what liberals wanted, when calling for a reduction in the disparity of wealth among the various countries of the world? That means our poor become more like their poor. (What, you thought the west's rich people would suffer the loss? Ha ha ha ha ha!)

First, thank you for filling in my oversimplification. Yes, militant labor (sorry, I meant labour) unions certainly did their part, there and here. I disagree, however, on your point about liberal arts educations taking over for engineering degrees. Auto enthusiasts will develop an interest in engineering despite, not because of, fashion.

In fact, the only thing that will discourage a real fanatic is a lack of opportunity. If there is a perception that there is no point in trying to storm the gates of the auto industry because, as a G.M. executive is once alleged to have said, "We're not in business to make cars. We're in business to make money", then there is no point in pursuing your passion at all.