39 replies to this topic

[Tyre biter]

My, we did get out of bed on the wrong side this morning didn't we.

I agree with your proposition re: The Inventors, but when it comes to the ABC they are the exception rather than the rule. Maybe 'Rural" ABC is a letter less biased than the Sydney version.

Where did I make a "ubiquitous comment as to government workers". All I said was that it was a bit rich for her to call the auto industry "rubbish" because it need subsidising (which she did twice) while she is working for an entirely subsidised entity. Nowhere did I state that I had any beef with the efficiency (or otherwise) of public servants in general.

Dr Terry

No Doc - just having a chat is all - nothing terse intended.
And let's be honest with the sentiment - the words I used regarding your commentary as to government workers merely summarised what you were saying in couched terms. Notwithstanding this, I do very much get your point that her job and indeed our national broadcaster is derrived solely from government support but how else would you have it? I suggest were are better off for having 'Aunty' about than not. But so is your child's education, your medicine, your health care, etc, etc, etc.

And sorry, I'll have to disagree; she didn't rubbish the industry but posed the following;
"So why is everybody so rubbish at making them?" and "...In some respects, this debate is happening because of our national suspicion that we are so rubbish at making cars that we would be unable to continue to do so, should the humidicrib of Government support suddenly be disabled. But look around the world. Everybody is rubbish at making cars!"

Its the context that is important here - she suggests the auto manufacturing industry can't be good at making cars (the whole business of conceiving, designing, manufacturing, testing, selling, warrantying, servicing and supporting their product) if it needs assistance from government to do so. She may have it arse about - perhaps umpteen industries about the world rely similarly on government/tax payer concessions, but she hasn't in fact said our domestic products are sub-par (rubbish). Indeed she says the opposite and essentially quells the popularist view that 'our' cars are no good and therefore the Australian car making industry is no good - she is saying it is the same everywhere and therefore our cars are as good as it gets.

Again doc, nothing terse intended - just a discussion is all.

Cheers, TB

[Tyre biter]

Yeah - what ever happened to the FTA?
Did it die in the arse or because of GFC and/or other national interests, did others in the sand pit decide not to play anymore?
Or did 'we' jump into it before things were levelled out not unlike the Carbon issue?
Cheers, TB

[Tyre biter]

Far from it Sloper - far, far from it
Cheers, TB

[Dr Terry]

Yeah - what ever happened to the FTA?
Did it die in the arse or because of GFC and/or other national interests, did others in the sand pit decide not to play anymore?
Or did 'we' jump into it before things were levelled out not unlike the Carbon issue?
Cheers, TB

FTAs are alive & well & I believe we have one with our largest automotive trading partner, Thailand. Yes, that's correct Thailand !! AFIAK we import more cars from Thailand than any other country by far.

So the normal 5% import duty which say the Korean or Japanese makers have to pay is reduced to zero for Thai-built cars. But does it work both ways, well sort of yes. We can send them our cars & there is no import duty applied, but they have very severe levies in place for larger cars or cars over a certain engine capacity. Not much fare trade going on there, eh !!

So it is the level playing field which is not so level & if you throw in the idiotic Carbon Dioxide tax, then it becomes a very steep slope indeed.

Dr Terry

[Dr Terry]

The most important item Holden got from the Button Plan was the Export Credit scheme. The export of the Family II emgine enabled Holden to offset local content imports against the exported engines. Without this Holden would have ceased as a manufacturer in about 86.
In the 3 years to '84 Holden lost all the previous years profits ($250million) and 85 did not improve. The ability to increase imported content meant Holden could look at the Nissan engine in the VL, so indirectly the Button Plan did support the VL. The other side to Holden surviving was the Rationalisation program, closing A/Ridge, Pagewood, D'nong and most of F'Bend manufacturing. It took 10 years but in 1997 Holden announced a profit of $172 million.

Some more figures
Tarrifs Aust 5%, India 30%, Korea 10%, Europe 10-22%, USA 25%, China 15-25% and Thailand (where all our utes come from) up to 40%. So much for the level playing field.

Hi Norm.

As per my previous comments, I can't see how the Button plan (late 1985) had any effect on the VL engine deal (1983) or the Export Credit Scheme, which I believe began in the late 70s, but was certainly well in place for the opening of the Family II engine in 1981/82 (before JB anyway). Having said that, it certainly helped with the imported cost of the RB30 engine from Japan. By 1988 of course, Holden got caught yet again because the Yen exchange rate blew out to the point where they were almost loosing money on every VL6 vehicle they sold. AFIAK the original plan was for VN to carry on with the 3.0, but by then it was just too costly.

Dr Terry

[xu2308]

Lucky the Germans dident Win WW2. as we would all be Driving VW's, Adolf's Fave Car to the World the Bug, Holden should be getting Big Discounts from our Goverment its the First Aussie Car, its a Aussie Icon.

[xu2308]

Aussie Built VW's
well they be Built by the Best lol

[EunUCh]

Not 100% that it is ABC eliteizm but the reporter who wrote this obviously is obviously trained
in attempting to "steer" publik opinion by writting such articles.
Either that or She needs a promotion.
Nevertheless,the news is that we the enslaved will perhaps foot the bill for keeping
GMH productive,,,well that may be so, but GMH did announce that If the farsicle co2 rip off
came into effect that they would consider "pulling out" of Oz produced cars (whatever that means).
I do agree with the statement that there are other buisness's that are struggling and they dont get a big fat
taxpayers payout to stay "viable".
As much as we all hopefully want to see our homegrown industries survive,,the only way to do it
is to piss off all the XS so called competition(competition only causes wars) and get ourselves doing what we want,the way want it.
I remember not to long ago someone (govt) going "gaurantor" for the banks after they froze pentioner accounts,,not that
i give a fuk whos in "power".
From my limited understanding when someone goes gaurantor(ie the money lender/doner,call it what you will) for a lone/funds,whatever,
the person who gives/gaurantees the bucks is in charge,and responsible for that deal.
Unfortunately the red headed captain has other ways of sinking ships...anyone got a cork to plug the hole?

[Toranamat69]

Not one that big - maybe a whole cork tree would be close to the correct size.

[Bart]

My posts on this forum are pretty rare these days (Makes some people happy)

But all I can say is I told ya so

Carbon tax and mining tax which will increase material and labour costs affect the price of production. Higher wages due to union push. Hell I hear the base wage is $90000 to build a car. Give me a break. Good luck to the employees they're on a good rort but it costs every tax payer $250 mil+

Oh and I shouldn’t forget since metals will cost more to make here companies like Holden will import cheaper steel/metals so bye bye steel and aluminium industryThose who ignore the real cost of co2 tax and mining tax, and union push naughty naughty, you know who you are

And yes current gov lowered import tariff and increase our production costs. Remember the key words "De-industrialise rich countries" Sounds like a conspiracy theory but the numbers don’t lie.

Good luck
Oh and just for fun

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=e0UXY_HyssU

Edited by Bart, 29 April 2012 - 11:11 PM.