Keep Holden

[SLR_dave]

There's some interesting comment here, and I realise that our community at mysandman.com gains much strength through being non-partisan. Even during the recent mammoth Federal election, I saw no party biased political comment on this site, and I reflected during that time how well done that was of all members.

It seems to me however, Australia is potentially entering a phase of dividedness framed by the idea of economic rationality against the accepted status quo, and the unexplained benefits of a future globalised economic exsistance. It would of course, be silly to get sucked in to that.

Reading through the thread, great points are made, but in my opinion, the truth is that if we had kept tariffs in, we would still have a car industry. If the government, right now, set car import tariffs at 25 percent on all vehicles that were not 50 percent manufactured in Australia, these companies would reverse their positions fairly swiftly. The business case would be different, it would end the "perfect storm" for instance. Even Ford would go 'ouch"!

It's still possible - just (I am not going to reveal my politics on this, atm, but really I don't need to, - it is fairly evident that the agenda of the federal government is to reduce wages in some award protected areas, whats the best way to break the MFSU? - Get rid of manufacturing.) Oh damn, I just did.

I also note that the big move to end tariffs in the auto industry came under the ALP - so I also acknowledge that. But what are they for? To open the country up PJK said, but yeah ok... um maybe time to stop that for a bit... I have to ask myself what the disaster will be if we simply decide to protect our manufacturing industry, and what the benefit is if we dont?

BTW. I note the facebook site doesn't seem to be accessible easily, I'll try that again, please excuse my delay.

I have currently been really busy trying to inform those from the non-engineering parts of our society why engineering and manufacturing both cooks their toast nicely and doesn't electrocute them at the same time.

The resistance from economic rationalists (friends, acquaintances, or otherwise) to date, is refreshingly, although perhaps also endearingly startling. (LOL!!)

[wbute]

Tariffs did work but we had about 1/5 the choice when it came to purchasing products. Take for example how easy it is to import US muscle cars and parts now compared to 20 years ago.
Australia's one strength on world markets lies on exporting agricultural and basic resources. We have never been able to compete with manufactured goods. Freight kills it when people can source the same product closer.
That's the black and white. Sadly it has laid is open to competing with countries with lower cost of production. So perhaps you can't have manufacturing and high wages and have a large consumer choice on the shelves in Australia anymore?
There is not much to achieve by blaming either side of politics. They are both totally run by economics. No thought for future growth these days. We are all the same though. We want it all now and can't put plans in place that will bear fruit in later years.

[Taily]

Read what is what here in relation to GDP James: Sectors as a percentage of 2012 GDP

Australia (unfortunately) no longer relies upon ag apart from domestic consumption, and even at 2.4% of GDP it isn't a big contributor in the scheme of things. From those figures and the number of job loss figures bandied about recently we are about to lose anywhere from seven to around ten percent of our manufacturing workforce. I'm tipping welfare is going to become significantly more difficult to access which some might argue is a good thing, but the strain on the public purse will be much greater in the short term compared to the previous on-going cost of keeping those people employed, if only for a few years.

Taking a long term view, I'll take 1/5 choice to see a stronger, more capable country. You yourself even admit you don't buy Australian... If the government wants out of manufacturing then that's fine. But they don't seem to have a Plan B. They've tossed out a major part of an entire industry (which is much more than just manufacturing by itself - R+D, standards, testing etc etc) but have nothing to replace it with. Apparently we're the food bowl of Asia but they're happy to let food producers, canneries and export industry fold. What's that being replaced with...? Mining? For how long do you think that will last? What careers and futures can we offer our well schooled kids with no specialist R+D or engineering work for them to do? I know, lets get a machine and dig up the countryside till there is no mineral wealth left and plant millions of square miles of country that wont sustain it? Our best arable land is of course under housing or cities.

I completely agree with the principle that companies should be able to fund themselves, but at the same time they need an environment that is sustainable and competitive on a global scale. We don't currently have that, nor will that be easy to achieve against other economies that continue to subsidise their own producers/manufacturers. To keep some perspective, the AU $2 billion the Australian government supported the industry in the preceding decade is around $6 billion less than what they spent on the ABC during the same timeframe. That's value - not! In my opinion manufacturing is more important to Australia than the sodding media...

This is going to sound feral, but I strongly believe we employ far too many people behind desks in this country with nothing better to do all day than to think up new crap to make life harder for the rest of us. If half of them were sacked the ones left might actually have to work a little harder (the cynic in me suggests introduce a system of performance reviews based upon outcomes) and things would work a little more in our favour and actually get done. We once had systems like that in years gone by which instilled a work ethic in the population, unfortunately they are not popular with many.

You seem to take great pleasure in calling the expression I used rubbish (using other words) but then you go and confirm every single point I (and others) raised! I understand your point of view (and share your affinity with the land) but there is agreat deal more to what we stand to lose as a country. This post isn't a shot at you as a person, not at all. Quite happy to discuss face to face over a brew or three...

On a side note: That collective hex that many Australian Holden owners must have sent to GM must have worked: Sink hole opens up under the National Corvette Museum

[SLR_dave]

On a side note: That collective hex that many Australian Holden owners must have sent to GM must have worked: Sink hole opens up under the National Corvette Museum

Wow! Ooops! This really deserves it's own thread, theres bound to be updates.
(btw I agree with the rest of your post as well, Taily).

[wbute]

Yeah fair enough. I am currently at work at a mine to make my farm viable. Makes sense.

The only thing that annoys me is people repeating GM propaganda like "perfect storm ". They coined a catchy phrase to hide the reality of the reason they pulled out. It's too expensive to build a car here.

Agriculture has huge potential if it just got some support.

[SLR_dave]

The only thing that annoys me is people repeating GM propaganda like "perfect storm ". They coined a catchy phrase to hide the reality of the reason they pulled out. It's too expensive to build a car here.

Agriculture has huge potential if it just got some support.

Now... ummm, agriculture gets lots and lots of support, lots and lots! But the point of this thread was not to start an industry by industry war, once, we could sustain them all. What has changed? The answer is, quite simply, nothing. Nothing except that we have a heap more money now.

Here are some catchy phrases; "cost base economy"; (Q: what is a cost base economy? A: well... its what we are moving too. Q: Why? A: Becuase we have to, its the budget, the deficit, a surplus, things must change. Q: But isnt it a fact that Australia only reached surplus once since 1945, and we still had these industries? A: You dont know what you're talking about, everyone agrees there must be a cost based economy. Q: What is a cost based economy?)

"Economic crisis"; (Q: how is there an economic crisis when Australia is currently the richest it has ever been, and in fact, is not just that, but is also amongst the richest societies that have ever exsisted since civilisation was first imagined - that is, ever in the history of the world? A; Becuase our industries are failing. Q: Why are our industries failing? A: because the government is not going to support industries which either fail, or (may) fail. Q: Why? A: Becuase that is the basis of what we are moving to - a cost based economy.)

OK, so my frustrations with bullcrapping or lilly livered politicians (or both - from wherever they place their hats) aside;

In my opinion the term 'Perfect Storm" was not GM propoganda, it was a fairly polite collequialism which avoided jingoism, but which also set out the idea that there was more than one factor in the decision. "The perfect storm" wa described by GM as being a combination of; the high $AUD, free trade agreements; cheaper wages in neighbouring overseas economies; the large selction of cars on the market from a large number of manufacturers; and, a very small population base. GM went on to state that this all added up to creating a business case which "just did not stack up".

Toyota gave pretty much the same reasons, and added that the very recent fair trade agrements made it worse.

It is worth considering that that large corporations like GM and Toyota are not generally rude to governments, they cant afford to be, their bottom line is profits, and they need government cooperation.

I am sorry to directly contradict you WB, however, and politely, I will do so here.

I feel that I have a need to dispell this ongoing silly idea that it's "too expensive to buid a car here".

If it is, then how come there are so many on the road all around us? Just look at your local carpark. How was this achieved? The truth is that it is 'too expensive' to build a car ANYWHERE. It is actually cheaper to build a car in Australia than in Germany for instance, and the cars are getting close to being as good.

The "cost based economy" is about breaking the unions, its about lowering the wages of workers in the traditionally blue collar sectors. This is why the government won't actually explain what it is!! And it just destroyed an entire industry. People have reason to be upset, and worried, and ripped off. I note the government hasn't launched a Royal Commission into whether a Federal MP really deserves 400k per annum, or whether the country might be better off if corporations limited the remuneration to their CEO's and allowed the workers to share the gains. And this is where the money is really going, for the meantime, it just cost us our manufacturing industry.

So, if another war turns up, and we cant quickly build a engine, or a troop vehicle or a tank, or even a stove, furnace or washing machine, without buying the components overseas and training and entirely unskilled workforce.....let alone rebuild an outdated stock of US aircraft to defend ourselves (as we did in WW2 in the pacific) becuase we have no skilled manufacturing workers we can say hey - "dont invade us - we've got free trade and a cost based economy". I'm sure it will go down a treat.

This is why other countries subsidise their car industries so heavily.

Anyway, scuse the rant, but really, the way that many Australians are prepared to just shrug their shoulder amazes me. We can and DO build cars in Australia and I reckon we would be in a a far better situation if it could stay that way. This is reversabile, atm, nothing is set in stone, not yet, they are still all still currently building cars here right now, and will be on Monday. A 25 percent tarriff on all cars without 50 percent local manufacturing would make GM/Toyota/Ford re-think, - it might even get other manufacturers interested. Becuase they keep manufacturing here they would then have a sales advantage for those models, otherwise, they'd have to compete with the entire sector.

[Dago]

The only country in the world without Agricultural subsidy..?

[Taily]

Yeah fair enough. I am currently at work at a mine to make my farm viable. Makes sense.

The only thing that annoys me is people repeating GM propaganda like "perfect storm ". They coined a catchy phrase to hide the reality of the reason they pulled out. It's too expensive to build a car here.

Agriculture has huge potential if it just got some support.

I didn't honestly realise they had used the expression. I do apologise if it looked as though I was regurgitating their rubbish.

Absolutely but you yourself know what the main issues are that give many forms of agribusiness a continually shifting bottom line. It is hard to come up with a solid business plan when there are so many variables in the mix.

[pj350]

Hey i agree wbute with what your saying, its just getting to hard in this country what with the unions ,government rules regulations red tape ,holiday pay , sick pay , superanuation pay,work cover pay, extra weekend pay ,overtime pay, the justify the big boss pay, of course people are going to pull there work and business out of situations like that and go for cheap labour elsewhere.

[wbute]

Well just throwing this out there....

In years gone by governments encouraged development. Railways, roads and massive projects like turning a complete river system around to provide power and irrigation water, The Snowy River Scheme.

Perhaps some big ideas like developing Northern Australian areas like Kunanurra might be a forward thinking idea. The idea of increasing population to increase money turn over is purely an economists dream. Why are we being guided by these phantasy people?