Last nail in the coffin for Ford & Holden?

[ltd]

Taken from news.com.au

NEW evidence that tariffs cost Australians $9.1 billion a year while providing a net benefit to industry of just $1.4 billion will provide a powerful boost to Treasury arguments to wind back protection.

The future of tariffs is dividing the Government, with Industry Minister Kim Carr's push for continued support for manufacturers meeting resistance from Wayne Swan and Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner.

The Treasurer backs his department's view that tariffs impose a heavy cost on the economy. But Senator Carr believes tariff protection has an important continuing role, and has bypassed the Productivity Commission in setting up reviews for the motor vehicle and textile industries, as well as support for research and development.

The Productivity Commission's annual report on industry assistance, released yesterday, shows that although Australia's level of tariffs has fallen sharply, it still imposes a heavy burden on the economy.

"Assistance to one industry comes at a cost to other industries and to Australians generally," the report says.

It found that manufacturing receives about 95 per cent of tariff assistance, with motor vehicle manufacturers receiving $1.4 billion a year. But the commission said that tariffs on imported cars "restricted choice, inflated the price of cars for consumers and added to the costs of the many businesses that use motor vehicles as inputs".

Tariff assistance overall imposes a $7.7 billion annual cost on industries that have to buy goods at higher prices. This is overwhelmingly borne by the services sector, with the construction industry's costs $1.5 billion higher because of tariffs, while retail trade suffers increased costs of $700 million.

Tariffs add 10 per cent to the cost of imported motor vehicles, while the rate on imported clothing is 17.5 per cent. Imported shoes, fabric and carpet all carry a 10 per cent tariff.

Kevin Rudd used meetings with European Union leaders in Brussels this week to argue for cuts to European and American subsidies and tariffs protecting their farmers as part of his push to revitalise the Doha round of World Trade Organisation talks.

The Productivity Commission report shows total assistance to industry, including tariffs and direct budget support, rose 9 per cent over the last five years of the Howard government, after allowing for inflation.

Direct budget subsidies soared 15 per cent to reach $6.5 billion, the fastest growth in at least 20 years.

"At a time of budget constraints and skill shortages, we want to be sure that industry assistance has a strong rationale and is providing good payoffs to the community," Productivity Commission chairman Gary Banks told The Australian.

"What stands out in these latest numbers is that financial support to industry and firms has gone up by 15 per cent in real terms over five years to June 2007. That is significant."

Direct industry assistance programs are likely to feel the sharp edge of the Government's razor gang. As the minister responsible for finance and deregulation, Mr Tanner is expected to argue against any increase in subsidies to industry or regulatory moves to assist them.

It is not known what position Mr Swan took when inquiries into the motor vehicle and textile industries came before cabinet, but both were election promises, so would likely have been ticked off with little debate.

Expectations that these reviews will press for increased assistance were raised on Monday when the discussion paper released by the motor vehicle review, headed by former Victorian premier Steve Bracks, canvassed direct grants to motor vehicle manufacturers and continued tariff assistance.

When it last reviewed the motor vehicle industry in 2002, the Productivity Commission found that tariffs added $2800 to the cost of each car sold.

The Productivity Commission said calls for industry assistance needed to be treated carefully. "In addition to its adverse effects on other industries, providing assistance can in itself entail substantial costs - including tax raising, administration and compliance costs."

The Productivity Commission said that there were more than 100 separate industry support programs. They have become more important as tariff levels have been reduced.

"There has also been considerable 'churn' in the delivery of assistance, particularly budgetary programs, with particular measures frequently being amended, extended or repackaged," the report said.

Managing the handouts was also a costly exercise, with the delivery costs for a range of programs averaging 28 per cent of the aid provided, and topping 80 per cent in some cases.

The commission's report revived its earlier criticisms of programs such as the Howard government's Commercial Ready scheme, and cited audit office concerns over the transparency of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme.

If they don't want to subsidise our industries, then they shouldn't make employment and other inputs so expensive that we uncompetitive internationally.
Honestly, they creat the problem by driving up costs of production in Aus, then for brownie points they decide to duck and run so some idiot can pay a couple of grand less on an import. When you add the fact that no other countries have abandoned their own market protection; abandoning ours seems incredibly stupid especially when it is such a small percentage in contrast to others. It would also see thousands of manufacturers go bust and then what do we do? Hope that China will never increase its prices?
Now I know why Kevin was never circumcised; there's no end to the pr!ck.

[BadMac]

Originally Posted by ltd

Taken from news.com.au

When you add the fact that no other countries have abandoned their own market protection; abandoning ours seems incredibly stupid especially when it is such a small percentage in contrast to others.

Yes there is, the smaller basket case to your east.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by BadMac

Yes there is, the smaller basket case to your east.

True, my bad.
In this instance though I am referring to countries with an auto manufacturing industry, but it does apply to all things. How did your manufacturing sector fare after the changes?

[Wretched]

Is there any data showing other countries vehicle tariffs?
I have done a lot of web searching on DFAT and can't find anything.
I am not a fan of governments having to support a manufactruer if they are not putting in any effort to shift with the market. Saying that I detest people who criticise the Australian manufactruers as being leeching from the Australian taxpayer without highlighting the fact that other makers in other countries like Germany and Japan do they same thing.

[|||]

it costs $7.7b per year just to let companies build cars here and take the profits overseas? thats insane.

[The G6ET Spot]

Do the powers to be really believe that is they reduced tariffs,thus making the items cheaper to import that it would make the items cheaper.

They have to be kidding themselves,all they would do is keep the prices the same and make a bigger profit. Therefore saving the general purchaser nothing.

It happened when they reduced them before,so why not again.

But then again the upside could be that if they did lift the tariffs, Ford and Holden would go to Japan to get their cars built and we would end up with a better made and more reliable car in the long run.

Just a thought, as we all know that the Japanese DO take more pride in the work that they do.

[sleekism]

I wonder if Ford, Holden, Toyota and all their suppliers shut local manufacturing what the cost of that would be??

100,000+ people on the dole anybody...............

Better hope they start mining in Adelaide or Melbourne.............

[Buddy 1]

Originally Posted by sleekism

I wonder if Ford, Holden, Toyota and all their suppliers shut local manufacturing what the cost of that would be??

100,000+ people on the dole anybody...............

Better hope they start mining in Adelaide or Melbourne.............

Exactly!

The cost to us would be even more than Lost Jobs as we base our Economy on what?

Tourism, Natural Resources, Agriculture & Manufacturing.

Well Resources will run out one day, Climate will change enough to make Agriculture redundant, Tourism will go up & Down as it does already & then we are left with Manufacturing which if we let the Asians do all of it for us will go as well.

Yeah so we get maybe cheaper vehicles, woo hoo as the cost of this to our great Country is great!

Surely we do not all just look at our own lives & can see the Bigger Picture for Our Wonderful Country

We need to Make MORE & import LESS & if a vehicle cost each of us 20% more at least we can be Happy WE Made it!

Oh the other Countries will be the ones who end up well of over time & we will end up third world if we import everything & Make nothing.

Once our Resources run out.

Come on Aussies think about it.

[The Stylist]

Originally Posted by ltd

True, my bad.
In this instance though I am referring to countries with an auto manufacturing industry, but it does apply to all things. How did your manufacturing sector fare after the changes?

New Zealand did have an automotive manufacturing industry, although most of it was just assembly, there were a few plants around the country. This industry evaporated when tariffs were reduced. We still had locally assembled Telstars up until 1997, from then Ford started importing the Mondeo from Belgium.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by The Stylist

New Zealand did have an automotive manufacturing industry, although most of it was just assembly, there were a few plants around the country. This industry evaporated when tariffs were reduced. We still had locally assembled Telstars up until 1997, from then Ford started importing the Mondeo from Belgium.

I thought as much, but wasn't sure enough to post it.
Thanks for that mate, as you've highlighted exactly the trend I fear we would follow on this should the "Razor Gang" try to save a little money in the interem. Hopefully someone will see the light and realise that giving open access to our markets for the rest of the world is like dropping your pants and grabbing your ankles at a mardi gras parade.

[Dave_au]

Of course, the argument for dropping tariffs is that we should, in a macroeconomic sense, as a nation only concentrate on what we are efficient and good at on a global scale, like mining and services, rather than spending billions on supporting what will eventually become an economically unviable industry.

Likewise, you could argue that the slow reduction of tariffs to date in the Automotive industry has forced our manufacturers to improve quality, technology and safety as compared to what we were manufacturing in the early 80s.

And likewise, lowering tariffs on importing vehicles will, in kind, result in a reduction on tariffs that our efficient exports suffer in other countries.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

And likewise, lowering tariffs on importing vehicles will, in kind, result in a reduction on tariffs that our efficient exports suffer in other countries.

I agree it should, but seldom does.
The problem is not the intention we have here, but that of other countries' governments and their unwillingness to do so.
Take China and our steel. China sells more crap to us than per annum than we could hope to sell to them in a lifetime yet they don't want to pay market prices, and have blocked the lucrative immediate sales of steel instead of long term contracts. This is in a sense manipulation, as they point blank refuse. If we were to apply the same logic of refusal of their goods, it would become an international outrage. No, I think we need tarriffs as long as the other countries refuse to play ball, and the devastation to our markets and jobs far outweighs saving 2 grand on a foreign car.
If they do abolish them it would be to our extreme detriment in the long term. The electorate would rightly be as mad as a queer with lockjaw at a Kylie concert.

[|||]

Originally Posted by ltd

The electorate would rightly be as mad as a queer with lockjaw at a Kylie concert.

2 homeosexual metaphors in 2 posts. something you want to tell us? lol

[ltd]

Ha ha ha.
I heard them both over 13 hours on a recent flight, laughed so hard I vowed to use them again. Now I won't mention anything about uniforms or a captain; as that just may compound the situation more.

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by ltd

I agree it should, but seldom does.
The problem is not the intention we have here, but that of other countries' governments and their unwillingness to do so.
Take China and our steel. China sells more crap to us than per annum than we could hope to sell to them in a lifetime yet they don't want to pay market prices, and have blocked the lucrative immediate sales of steel instead of long term contracts. This is in a sense manipulation, as they point blank refuse. If we were to apply the same logic of refusal of their goods, it would become an international outrage. No, I think we need tarriffs as long as the other countries refuse to play ball, and the devastation to our markets and jobs far outweighs saving 2 grand on a foreign car.
If they do abolish them it would be to our extreme detriment in the long term. The electorate would rightly be as mad as a queer with lockjaw at a Kylie concert.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people!

The electroate will simply think "oh goody I can save 2 grand on my Corolla enough to buy a plasma television" without thinking of the long term devastation this causes to the economy.

Heres an intersting extract on the matter:

Some free trade economists have recently begun to express their own doubts concerning the concept and practice of free trade. Alan S. Blinder, for example, a professor of economics at Princeton University, and former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman and advisor to Democratic presidential candidates, had previously argued, along with most economists, that free trade enriches the U.S. and its trading partners. However, he now says new communication technology will put 30-40 million American jobs at risk in 10-20 years. Blinder has not completely rejected free trade or Ricardo's ideas about comparative advantage, but he advocates greater protection for displaced workers and an improved education system. Blinder opposed steel, aluminum and farming export subsidies and protection, and pushed for the passage of NAFTA, though he did not agree that it would create jobs in the US. Trade changes types of jobs, not the number, he said. Technology allowed Indians in call centers to do the work of Americans at lower wages. "Tens of millions of additional American workers will start to experience an element of job insecurity that has heretofore been reserved for manufacturing workers," said Blinder. Democrats and Republicans are becoming skeptical. The debate is, "Should government encourage forces of globalization or try to restrain them?" Latin America performed poorly since tariff cuts in 1980s and 1990s, compared to protectionist China and Southeast Asia. Paul Samuelson, in his 2004 essay[16], condemned "economists' over-simple complacencies about globalization" and said that workers don't always win. Lawrence Summers, advocate for trade expansion as Clinton Treasury Secretary, said retraining is "pretty thin gruel" to the middle class. Ralph Gomory, former IBM chief scientist, says the rise of China and India could make the U.S. lose important industries. Harvard economist Dani Rodrik says trade barriers should help poor nations build domestic industries and give rich nations time to retrain workers. But Jagdish N. Bhagwati says jobs will grow in medicine, law and accounting. Blinder has created a list of "highly offshorable" jobs that could be lost in the next 20 years, which claims that 1,815,340 bookkeeping, accounting and auditing jobs could be lost. [17]

[melbzetec]

[QUOTE=ltd]Taken from news.com.au

If they don't want to subsidise our industries, then they shouldn't make employment and other inputs so expensive that we uncompetitive internationally.
Honestly, they create the problem by driving up costs of production in Aus, [QUOTE]

The lack of logic in some of this thread is frightening.

Make employment less expensive? What, like cutting wages perhaps!!!!
Driving up the cost of production? Cars and trucks are an input in the cost of production

That's the whole point.

We cost every Australian (you and me) and every Australian business $9.1 billion a year. If that money was spent in the economy, or used to reduce the cost of business inputs, how many jobs do you think that would create?? Thousands and thousands more than we'd lose

The trouble is, the jobs created by this are spread right throughout the economy, and therefore not as obvious as the direct jobs lost.

If tariffs are that good for us, why don't we double them? Or triple them? Think that would create more jobs? Or would it take money out of the pocket of every taxpayer (you and me), so we can't spend it on other items, or increase the costs for business (who buy the majority of cars) which just drives the economy smaller and smaller, meaning less and less jobs.

Who here wants car tariffs to go to 50%???

Because the arguments here would suggest we'd all be rolling in clover if we did.

Rubbish

[Fev]

i think australia's industries need to think of newer and better ways of how to get australian money into their own pockets instead of oversea's pockets as thats where most of it is goin

[ltd]

[QUOTE=melbzetec][QUOTE=ltd]Taken from news.com.au

If they don't want to subsidise our industries, then they shouldn't make employment and other inputs so expensive that we uncompetitive internationally.
Honestly, they create the problem by driving up costs of production in Aus,

The lack of logic in some of this thread is frightening.

Make employment less expensive? What, like cutting wages perhaps!!!!
Driving up the cost of production? Cars and trucks are an input in the cost of production

That's the whole point.

We cost every Australian (you and me) and every Australian business $9.1 billion a year. If that money was spent in the economy, or used to reduce the cost of business inputs, how many jobs do you think that would create?? Thousands and thousands more than we'd lose

The trouble is, the jobs created by this are spread right throughout the economy, and therefore not as obvious as the direct jobs lost.

If tariffs are that good for us, why don't we double them? Or triple them? Think that would create more jobs? Or would it take money out of the pocket of every taxpayer (you and me), so we can't spend it on other items, or increase the costs for business (who buy the majority of cars) which just drives the economy smaller and smaller, meaning less and less jobs.

Who here wants car tariffs to go to 50%???

Because the arguments here would suggest we'd all be rolling in clover if we did.

Rubbish

Interesting post. You might want to tone it down a little before calling me illogical there buddy. The article references tarriffs in general coming under reform, not just the automotive industry.

Firstly, you seem to be the only one who has missed the point of employment being expensive. I'm not talking about an input cost such as an extra 2 grand on a car as that makes up a tiny percentage of the overall cost to the business. I'm talking about our wage comparison internationally. What this means is, it's cheaper to manufacture in China or India than here as there wages are much lower; as well as their standard of living.
Now, to someone who may not see the impost here that means that we often cannot buy the material used in production for the same or less than the landed cost from China. Why is this bad? Because should China increase their standard of living and demand more money for the same product then the saleable product landed in Australia would increase in price too.

Add to that, the fact that our only bargaining chip of being able to produce our own goods would be lost meaning collectively we would be over a barrel. Companies like Ford and GM would not again set up companies should the local branches fail financially, and we would not have a car industry. This industry mind you, employs thousands upon thousands who contribute to the economy through taxation, superannuation and not drawing on the public purse through welfare. Not just those directly employed, but thousands of components manufacturers too. This is a far greater outcome than telling them all to find new jobs because a little earwax eating muppet wants to have a better looking budget.

Secondly, as for increasing tarriffs, we would not increase them as then nations such as China encountering a newer barrier to trade would most likeley reciprocate and make it difficult for us to do trade considering we have imposed trade restrictions upon them.
My point here is, that the Chinese currently accept our tarriff level and reducing it will be well received by them however weak political will won't allow for us to increase it back to todays levels again without sanctions. No PM now or ever would do something that unpopular in making our goods more expensive here, and harder to export from China or India etc. The fact remains that people have accepted the price of general goods, without it being an issue this has been brought to the fore for no reason other than to have a good May budget.

Finally, there are over 1 million people working in manufacturing in this country; people not skilled enough to get an IT job or an accounting job, what will they do in the short term whilst retraining? They'll become a burden on the welfare system which would increase government costs exponentially which would require more taxation and therefore less money for those not working in non manufacturing industries. But don't worry, because the unemployed and those paying higher taxes will be able to save 2 grand on a new car.

[cupic]

Australia has one of the Worlds lowest tarriffs

Just look at China 40% ,and Singapore 150% just to name 2.(quoted from ABC Radio)
Who is kiddin who?


The rest of the world laughing at us!

Im all in favor of competition but this is Ludicrous


cheers

[cycle myth]

I think theres a bit of craziness here....

If the numbers are the way I read them - we are paying many times more in subsidies than the economy gets back. Thats the benefit of direct and indirect jobs and businesses.

The only way this could be is due to inefficiencies, off shore profit taking and the like..

So as a tax payer do you feel happy paying for $x thousand dollars each year to subsidise a holden, ford, or toyota you don't even own?

Lower tarrifs mean increased competition - the evidence has been seen over the past years of reduction for benefit.

The only problem is the species is still too protected for its own good.

[HTCURRY]

Those saying but its free trade and good for all, umm the US, 'the beacon of freedom, and the land of the free' has a 25% tariff on commercial vehicles and trucks.

When the Howard govt signed the 2004 Free Trade Agreement with the US, it got the 25% tariff waved straightaway and in return Australia promised to immediately eliminate tariffs on automotive parts and commercial vehicles from the United States and will phase out tariffs on passenger vehicles from 10 percent in 2005 to zero in 2010.

So while its not ideal, we did get something in return for it(i know exports of Aussie cars to the US is miniscule at present)

This is something we should be doing with China/Korea/Japan

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by ltd

Interesting post. You might want to tone it down a little before calling me illogical there buddy. The article references tarriffs in general coming under reform, not just the automotive industry.

Firstly, you seem to be the only one who has missed the point of employment being expensive. I'm not talking about an input cost such as an extra 2 grand on a car as that makes up a tiny percentage of the overall cost to the business. I'm talking about our wage comparison internationally. What this means is, it's cheaper to manufacture in China or India than here as there wages are much lower; as well as their standard of living.
Now, to someone who may not see the impost here that means that we often cannot buy the material used in production for the same or less than the landed cost from China. Why is this bad? Because should China increase their standard of living and demand more money for the same product then the saleable product landed in Australia would increase in price too.

Add to that, the fact that our only bargaining chip of being able to produce our own goods would be lost meaning collectively we would be over a barrel. Companies like Ford and GM would not again set up companies should the local branches fail financially, and we would not have a car industry. This industry mind you, employs thousands upon thousands who contribute to the economy through taxation, superannuation and not drawing on the public purse through welfare. Not just those directly employed, but thousands of components manufacturers too. This is a far greater outcome than telling them all to find new jobs because a little earwax eating muppet wants to have a better looking budget.

Secondly, as for increasing tarriffs, we would not increase them as then nations such as China encountering a newer barrier to trade would most likeley reciprocate and make it difficult for us to do trade considering we have imposed trade restrictions upon them.
My point here is, that the Chinese currently accept our tarriff level and reducing it will be well received by them however weak political will won't allow for us to increase it back to todays levels again without sanctions. No PM now or ever would do something that unpopular in making our goods more expensive here, and harder to export from China or India etc. The fact remains that people have accepted the price of general goods, without it being an issue this has been brought to the fore for no reason other than to have a good May budget.

Finally, there are over 1 million people working in manufacturing in this country; people not skilled enough to get an IT job or an accounting job, what will they do in the short term whilst retraining? They'll become a burden on the welfare system which would increase government costs exponentially which would require more taxation and therefore less money for those not working in non manufacturing industries. But don't worry, because the unemployed and those paying higher taxes will be able to save 2 grand on a new car.

Very true I have a few friends who work for a component supplier for Ford, Holden and Toyota. Many of them have families. What happens if Ford, Holden and Toyota shut shop.

It's very easy to say "there is a mining boom" but there isn't a mining boom on the east coast! Many of these people dropped out in year 9 and 10 and have no formal qualifications. Who is going to employ them and are they are going to earn the same amount.

As the manufacturing sector dies the manufacturing jobs are replaced by lower paying and often casual jobs in the Services Sector. This has happened in the United States and Spain for example. The U.S. was lucky enough to have a computer/software boom in the 90's and have a viable defence industry but what about Australia??

Are we to become a nation of checkout operators and kitchenhands?

[ltd]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Very true I have a few friends who work for a component supplier for Ford, Holden and Toyota. Many of them have families. What happens if Ford, Holden and Toyota shut shop.

It's very easy to say "there is a mining boom" but there isn't a mining boom on the east coast! Many of these people dropped out in year 9 and 10 and have no formal qualifications. Who is going to employ them and are they are going to earn the same amount.

As the manufacturing sector dies the manufacturing jobs are replaced by lower paying and often casual jobs in the Services Sector. This has happened in the United States and Spain for example. The U.S. was lucky enough to have a computer/software boom in the 90's and have a viable defence industry but what about Australia??

Are we to become a nation of checkout operators and kitchenhands?

Exactly. You're 100% correct.
We can't be a nation of "I'm all right, screw the other guy" people, it is a dangerous mindset and serves only to undermine those espousing a blase attitude. We as a nation need to keep what industries we have, and we need to nurture and protect those willing and able to work. Not punish them for some intelligentsia based ideal of a new utopia. What a ****. When the world gets rid of their penalties, we'll can get rid of ours but not a moment before.

[Jayden]

And if you look to your left you will see our iconic Australian car, the 2011 Camry. Just like yours at home. And if you look to your right you will see the depressed Aussie blokes. dont make eye contact, Their a bit sore that their government stole everything they loved from them and handed it to you on a platter.

[mik]

i cant help thinking that down the track when these country`s that pay there workers 2$ an hour have bought their living standards up to ours and surpassed it at the expense of our manufacturing industry, why should we support their manufacturing at the expense of ours, if it cost`s 9 billion to support manufacturing BIG DEAL, bugger me were thinkin of spending 18 billion on some freeways, 9 billion is peanuts imo, why do we need 32 different models for a population of 21 million?.

[Bossxr8]

I read an article in the Age recently about China, and how wages are starting to get forced up due to the massive expansion making labour harder to find, thats right, a country of a billion people is having a hard time trying to find labour, and due to the competition to find people companies are forcing the wages up to attract them. It went on to say that in the long run if wages keep getting pushed up then its only a matter of time before it no longer becomes competitive to move operations to China. And now since China is starting to introduce pollution laws its driving the costs up even further as they can no longer just dump their waste into the local river or emissions into the sky, they need expensive pollution treatment equipment. They then reckoned India will probably be the next hot spot.

Probably a bit off topic but its a counterpoint to people who assume that Ford and Holden will probably just move production to China.

Question. If a purchuser has to pay a tariff of 10% on an imported vehicle, where does the money go, to the Government or what?

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Question. If a purchuser has to pay a tariff of 10% on an imported vehicle, where does the money go, to the Government or what?

Ironically, that money could be seen as assisting local car production and/or manufacture relocating offshore, ala MMC with the 380 (copped a decent handout from the Government) and Ford had coin handed to them for the 4.0L then it got scrapped (I do understand the reasons why however)

I just find it laughable.

Daniel

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by mik

i cant help thinking that down the track when these country`s that pay there workers 2$ an hour have bought their living standards up to ours and surpassed it at the expense of our manufacturing industry, why should we support their manufacturing at the expense of ours, if it cost`s 9 billion to support manufacturing BIG DEAL, bugger me were thinkin of spending 18 billion on some freeways, 9 billion is peanuts imo, why do we need 32 different models for a population of 21 million?.

It's happened all throughout history:

Spain used to import cheap goods from Britain.

Britain used to import cheap goods from Germany.

Japan used to build cheap cars and bikes before they drove their wages up.

Remember how we used to make fun of Korea for making cheap junk??? Well Koreas GDP per capita is $25,000 compared to $30,000 in Australia and $23,000 in New Zealand and Korea has economic growth that averages 5%+.

The difference is you go to Korea and try and buy a car that is not a Hyundai or Kia. They are building ships, cars and plasma screen televisions in Korea and we are building strip mines and shopping centres in Australia.

And do you know what the scariest thing is. A manufacturing worker in Korea makes around the same as a manufacturing worker in Australia.

When your grandchildren are working in sweatshops making shoes for Korean consumers you will be able to tell them about the time when Australias economy was important.......

[my gt]

Hi all
let me say this
the BG MK1, MK2, MK3,
will be the last falcon made down under, from then on, all larger saloon cars will come from the States.
cheers

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by my gt

Hi all
let me say this
the BG MK1, MK2, MK3,
will be the last falcon made down under, from then on, all larger saloon cars will come from the States.
cheers

The sky is falling in. Doomsayers have been talking of the last Oz made Falcon for decades. If it happens it happens, people talking it up will only eventually make it a reality, its the last thing Ford needs, look what all the negative talk did to Mitsubishi.