I read your point expressed, but I still disagree.
I'm unaware as-to your age, but I am old-enough to recall goods which were made in "Occupied Japan," or the 'made in Japan' label being not as-evocative of quality as you pointed-out. Because the Japanese manufacturing capacity was wiped-out in the war, they were actually at an advantage in having to replace their manufacturing capacity. Once the infrastructure was replaced, the government subsidized investments in manufacturing toolmaking, and R & D for marketing and distribution. They quickly-hit upon the need to produce manufactured goods since Japan was not a raw-materials possessor, and had to import its materials for conversion into new products. It's a good business model, if you don't have the natural resources, import (relatively) cheap raw materials and process them into in-demand consumer goods selling for much-more. With the government backing for financing and R & D, and production/distribution, they made markets for products which allowed their economy to prosper. The profits were poured into the same processes, and their gross domestic product grew immensely. Exports of things like consumer electronics, automobiles, and precision instruments such as medical equipment, with the capabilities to export finished products to any world-wide port capable of accepting their shipping fleet is what grew the Japanese economy. W. Edwards Deming's ideas were a part of a total plan to integrate state support of multiple manufacturing sites into a successful conglomerate which would result in a positive cash flow for the country. It succedded in a way that saw the growth of Japan's economy in a way that became the envy of every other country, and which has been copied by other Pacific-rim countries such-as Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore.
As to your comment about the oil crisis/embargo of 1973, and that driving the sales of smaller cars, I guess you probably weren't around for the 1950's when behemoths like the 1959 Cadillac with it's quad-bullet taillight lenses and sky-high tailfins were produced, the epitome of "longer, lower, wider, and more-chrome" that Detroit produced. Rambler had 1950's cars like the Metropolitan and the American, along with the Nash Rambler; VW was selling more-and-more Beetles, and the #1 seller in small imports for 1959 was the Renault Dauphine. For 1960, the domestic manufacturers began to release smaller cars because they saw the sales of small, economical imports steadily-growing as the 1950's drew to a close. These domestic import-beaters included the Corvair, the Falcon, the Tempest, Olds F-85, Buick Skylark, Dodge Dart, Plymouth Valiant, and later in the decade, the Mustang and the Camaro/Firebird. Compared to the 4000+ lb. 19+ ft.-long domestic cars, these were easier to drive, more-economical in operation, and sold in steadily-increasing numbers through the 1960's and the 1973 oil embargo just helped the sales trend. The Japanese cars weren't distributed nationally until the late 1960's and their reputation was not "junk," because if it was, they never would have been able to make the leap to sustained sales and continuous growth of marketplace share, spreading throughout the entire country. Remember the Yugo? It was imported by an entrepreneur who eventually produced his own boutique sports car-Malcom Bricklin. The Yugo was an Eastern European FIAT several generations-old, whose low price was attractive until the reality of its horrible fit, finish, and function drove it from the marketplace. A similar thing happened to the Bricklin sportscar. At the same time, the Japanese were producing quiet, comfortable, economical to-purchase and to-operate vehicles which continued to grab more market share. The domestics finally-began to try and produce second-and -third generation designs like the Pinto and the Vega, while Chrysler tried its hand at importing European designs as stop-gaps until their own designs could come to-market. These cars were around long-before the 1973 oil embargo, which you claim was the reason Detroit made smaller cars. The only people who classified the nationally-distributed Japanese cars beginning in the late 1960's and never-stopping as they gobbled market-share, as-'junk,' were the domestic franchise owners, who resorted to smear campaigns to try and discredit the Pacific Rim interlopers. "They're not-safe, in a collision, you'll die!" It sounds like someone, somewhere was listening to such alarmist rumors, just-not the marketplace which continued to buy Japanese cars in record numbers, decade after decade after decade. GM, which owned more-than two-thirds the domestic market, saw its share eroding as Japan sold far-more autos here than at-home. Again, that was part of the "Japan Inc." plan, to sell its domestic auto and small truck production to maintain a positive balance of trade, along with the other products of Japan's economy, being very-successfully marketed to the world. Now, almost half the domestic auto sales comes from imports.
Companies survive by producing widgets people want, that they believe they need, not because "time passes." If "time passes, and things improve in manufacturing" was the case, the English motorcycle manufacturers and Indian should never have gone out of business. Domestically, the example of AMF ownership is a business school model of failing to invest in manufacturing improvements while driving production numbers ever-higher while the buying public was still willing to spend money for the name even-as the dissatisfaction with the product cost sales, and almost caused the company to fail after 80 years of production. Only new product and a return to emphasis on build quality at the initial expense of production volume was able to return the company to marketplace share, once the corporate management members were able to purchase the company back from AMF. H-D embraced TQM, and won-back dissatisfied customers who were looking at marketplace alternatives. Sure, some 'die-hards' struggled-along cursing the indifferent build quality of the AMF products during that period of ownership and continued to repair their rides by the side of the road, or tried-to, meanwhile, Japan Inc turned out hundreds of thousands of cruisers in v-win and inline-four configurations.
So, I respect your opinion, but the marketplace has been responding in a highly-profitable fashion for Japan Inc since the 1960's because of state-sponsored investments in manufacturing, marketplace-targeted research of a highly-effective nature, while embracing TQM, and reaping the benefits of such efforts due-to economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness in their business practices. "Pride and discipline" didn't win WW II for them, but their biggest success has been the ascension of the Japanese economy beginning with the 1950's as they began to grow their manufacturing, and had the national government assisting their business model from acquiring raw materials to worldwide distribution of finished product. After-all our die-cast engine cases say, "made in Japan." Every-one of us on-here bought-in too. I love my 'junk!'
Despite all-that, I like to read what others believe, and their reasoning. I may learn something!
