Indeed, without the state, you would not have that fancy smartphone in your pocket. Yes, really.
To dismiss the government as a bumbling slowpoke, however, won’t get us anywhere. Because it’s not the invisible hand of the market but the conspicuous hand of the state that first points the way. Government isn’t there just to administer life support to failing markets. Without the government, many of those markets would not even exist.
This twat makes Prof Murphy look borderline sane. I’ll continue to dismiss the state as a bumbling, incompetent, malicious slowpoke, for that is what it is.
State innovations…Steam power;Nope. Railways;Nope. TarMcadam roads:Nope. Telegraph, telephone, television, motor cars et fuckin cetera; Nope.
Samizdata have picked up on this one too. As you can imagine, the commentariat there are ripping it to shreds. One of the comments mentioned the complete lack of innovation from the USSR during the communist period which I thought was pretty much a killer argument. The only way the communists could produce a useable car was by buying the tooling for an obsolete western design. With the exception of the MZ, Eastern Bloc motorcycles were utterly dire and completely lacking in anything that could be described as an innovation.
Oh, God, yes, the MZ what a dire piece of crap. Much like the Jawa CZ.
Err, the mobile phone concept was first demonstrated by Motorola and I’m pretty sure they weren’t government owned. Unless I missed part of history?
MZ weren’t crap. Walter Kaaden led the world in two-stroke technology. If Ernst Degner hadn’t defected and given Suzuki the MZ secrets via stolen blueprints, the Japs would have been playing catch-up for years if not decades.
Even their utilitarian bikes were fine and I have owned four MZ250s and a 125 (on which was based the not entirely unsuccessful Bantam!)
I had the opportunity to test ride one of the 250s when they were launched. It ranks alongside the Harley Davidson badged Cagiva as one of the most vile machines I’ve ever had the misfortune to sling my leg over – the Ducati Darmah runs a close third. So, yeah, crap.
I am reminded of Eastern Bloc machines every time I come across one of the cheap and nasty Chinese machines that are currently attempting a foothold in the UK market.
I respect your views but am very surprised. Not that you didn’t like the MZ. It’s personal taste. 800cc twin better than the flat (fat?) twin that got stolen?
No surprise to me – the better bike better on paper sometimes isn’t.
The MZs componentry, the nuts and bolts, suspension, alloy castings and so forth were very high quality. No pot metal fasteners or fragile anythings. Very durable. The bikes handled well and lasted well and were easy and interesting to use and work on.
Not your cup of tea and I respect that but MZs weren”t like Chinese bikes- they weren’t copies and they weren’t cheaply made from crap components.
Not Chinese!
It surprised me that is is a better training bike. However for the long haul, I’ll take the RT every time. More stamina and more luggage capacity – especially if two-up and little comforts such as the adjustable screen do make a difference. That’s why I’ve ordered a new one and am keeping the F800. Best of both worlds.
My reference to the Chinese bikes is that they fill the same market sector once occupied by the Eastern Bloc bikes – cheap and cheerful. And with the best will in the world, the MZ offerings were not of the same calibre as the Laverdas and Yamahas I was riding at the time.
That said, the MZ even now would be a better bike than the Lex Moto GN125/250 clones. They really are dreadful with knobs on.
That is a very fair reply and well put!
I too feel the need to jump in and defend the MZ. I used one to commute on and the only time it ever let me down was when the little black box on the electronic ignition conversion failed. Since this wasn’t a standard part MZ couldn’t really be blamed. Despite its somewhat bizarre appearance it was a very sound design and was very well made. You are of course correct in saying that it was inferior to Japanese and European offerings of the time but it was a budget bike. It was certainly far superior to Cossack and Jawa/CZ products. The MZ company’s contribution to motorcycle racing is simply enormous. I’m sure that if the factory hadn’t ended up on the wrong side of the iron curtain it would have been much more successful.
Quite probably true, which does tend to go back to the original point being made here.
I’ll admit, I’ve never liked budget bikes and doubtless never will. I always look for quality and will buy the best I can afford, which is why if someone asks me about buying a new Chinese offering, I’ll advise them to buy a late, used, Japanese alternative. Better value for money.
I would suggest that it is a tad unfair to compare budget bikes to more expensive ones. Price wise, the Japanese equivalent to the MZ250 was the Honda C90. Having owned both, I can offer an informed opinion on the two. The four stroke engine on the Honda gave much better fuel economy. The MZ was better equipped, handled far better, had much better performance and was much more comfortable to ride, especially over longer distances. Better value for money? Absolutely.
The Supa5 handled better than the CB250RS Honda, I rode both, and the next incarnation, the ETZ, had a Brembo front disc and outbraked it. Plus as you know the high top gear made 60-65 very relaxing at 4000rpm and undererstressd, with an easy 80mph top speed.
They still have a race series for MZ’s!
As for the Cub, have you seen the prices they’re going for? I sold a mint one a couple of years ago for 500 quid, you can add a grand to that today.
NB: I’ve owned a Supa 5, two ETZ250s, an ETZ251 and a TS125. Plus many Jap bikes from Cubs to CBR600, a Beemer K75, a Royal Enfield and a Triumph Sprint which I still have. Bikes are great, big, small or MZ.
No experience of MZs, but first bike was a CZ 175 Trail when I was 15. Cheap? Yep, that’s why I could afford it.
Excellent beginner bike and virtually indestructible – tank, side panels etc were made from thick undentable steel.
Semi-automatic clutch was a great idea. Kick-start reveresed gear lever was bad idea.
Sold it a couple of years later for more inflation adjusted than I’d paid (two buyers turned up at same time and bid price up) as I’d bought a new KE175D3 – Lime Green.
On the subject of quality and value for money I remember the adage ‘buy cheap buy twice’ being a good one to remember. I also had a work colleague who used to say that value could be calculated by dividing how much something cost by how many times you got to use it. I have quite a few Snap-On spanners that I bought in the late seventies. My winter push bike is over 20 years old and has done 8,000 miles in the last four years, I’ve no idea how many miles it has done altogether. So I am pretty much in agreement with you about good stuff being worth paying extra for.
Which is why I never buy from the budget end of the market on anything. My riding gear is all top end with a two-year guarantee. A colleague bought some budget boots for forty quid a few months back. They fell apart within weeks. My Alt-Bergs at two hundred are starting to show their age after three years of almost daily use. Who got the best bargain?
Work it out. How much they cost divided by how often you wore them. If you wore them a thousand times that works out at 20p a time. Your colleague must have paid nearer to 50p a time for his at least. He is also going to have to buy twice.
Can anyone name one, just one single one Government IT project which has worked as intended?
Thought not.