The Hyundai Pony was no longer produced in the 1990's.
and as i said nothing about that car was producing in korea
Hyundai had already ventured into car production by producing locally built versions of the
Ford Cortina under licence from
1968. When the company wanted to develop their own car, they hired
George Turnbull, the former managing director of
Austin Morris at
British Leyland in 1974.
[2] He in turn hired five other top British car engineers, Kenneth Barnett as body designer, engineers John Simpson and Edward Chapman,
John Crosthwaite as chassis engineer and Peter Slater as chief development engineer.
[3][4] With Turnbull's experience with the
Morris Marina,
[5] engines and transmissions from
Mitsubishi, some parts from the
Ford Cortina they were already producing, and a hatchback body styled by
Italdesign Giugiaro, they developed the Hyundai Pony.
Why dream of it when it's reality:
We're told around 50 per cent of the Sibal's engine (...) was produced in Korea
the only part that was produced in korea was the body which was made from oil drums
Iran National's 1978 purchase of a production license for engines was not the extraordinary industrial feat some would make it out to be. It involved little domestic effort and essentially boiled down to PGCC-style spending of petroleum windfall on foreign supplied services.
iran-national was a private factory not a governmental entity that have access to oil revenue. the point is in 10 year they managed to go from assembling ckd to produce all the car inside iran .
now tell me after the factory become governmental managed what achievement they had ? name just one to me ? I'll tell you one it managed to take hundreds of million of governmental budget and still not be profitable., you tell me rest .
its the difference between effective management and ineffective one
I don't actually need to, because the mere citation of wild allegations about Iran issued by the US regime, automatically disqualifies any argument based thereupon. It's been established beyond doubt that hostile powers have had a rather nasty habit of churning out manipulated reports on practically every topic related to Iran, and that they've systematically been attempting to downplay the Islamic Republic's achievements.
But just so Iranians won't be misled by the fictitious numbers put forth by the enemy, here the accurate ones:
https://www.eghtesadnews.com/بخش-اخبار-اقتصادی-67/502737-سهم-اندک-بخش-صنعت-در-رشد-اقتصادی-ایران
In other terms, by attributing roughly "80%" of Iran's industrial output to crude oil, the US regime's Energy Information Agency is arbitrarily adding an absurd 55% (!) excess share to the sector, whilst in reality it accounts for no more than 25% of total industrial manufacturing in Iran (crude oil and gas represented 7,9% of the overall Iranian economy in 1400, which amounts exactly to one third of the 23,7% made up by the non-crude oil and gas industries).
In fact the EIA's shameless piece of disinformation perfectly describes the state of Iran's industries under the US-subservient Pahlavi regime, including in the 1970's. There's propaganda and propaganda, this however truly hits rock bottom.
As for the Ahmadinejad administration it performed rather well in the economic field during its first tenure, with non-oil branches such as steel experiencing unprecedented growth.
again wrong date i bring you data from before usa sanction , but you bring me after sanction data , for that you must thank Obama and Trump for their campaign of
"Make Iran Great again" not our lazy official who were content on selling oil ,and go to the extent that come on TV and say our strategy is not building refineries , we prefer selling oil and import petroleum
Underlying these interpretations of history is a contrasting juxtaposition of faith and reason, of Islamic tradition and "progress" in the sense of the 17th-18th century theories of so-called "Enlightenment" which took shape in the west. It's the reading of the discussed episode that's questionable, as if the operative line of divide was defined by this particular set of criteria.
The reason for Islamic teachings is not to be found in profane science, for the latter does not precede human submission to the Almighty. At best can profane science serve as an additional layer to the foundations of our faith, but in this regard it can never be considered as foundational onto itself. Otherwise the door would be wide open to interpretative subversion, at a latter stage even to attempted "refutation" of din. A historic thought process observed in the freemason-dominated west as well as in other secularist polities.
i don't have those flowery languages , i knew one thing . till Safavid if you wanted to study , you'd have learned science but not only science , you learned Ethics , philosophy , Islamic teaching at the same school and that resulted to a golden age . thanjs to safavid they separated that if you wanted learn something you must go and find a workshop and start do basic works there , there was no Islamic teaching, no philosophy , no Ethics , even there was no physics and mathematics while before Safavid we were ages ahead of European in that field . on other hand if you go to schools you could only learn Hadith and ethics and sadly only reciting what the previous generation did . that lead to stagnation .
now you can spin it with those flowery words however you like
by the way even today we have the same problem
A government achieving as many milestones as the Islamic Republic is hardly the most prone to mismanagement now is it.
just look at governmental companies , tell everything . there is no need for me to say anything
No administration can make industries 'flourish' when an economy the size of Iran's is taking hits to the tune of $1000 billion.
The above quote resembles a broken window fallacy.
that 1000billion or anything was mainly of lost of opportunities not damage to production equipment
