Cop that, Donald Trump

[Marty_d]

Having given us George W Bush, twice, I couldn't fathom how they , (the GOP) could "Trump" that, but they have. Make the "candidates" do a Psyche test. That would be interesting. If we don't do a better job of choosing Leaders we're doomed.. Nev

Like we can talk. Two words... "Tony Abbott".

 

 

[facthunter]

But that was "Wrecktified", before we were completely wrecked, but HE might come back. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

But that was "Wrecktified", before we were completely wrecked, but HE might come back. Nev

Well, kind of. We thought we were getting a progressive, strong, capable leader, only to find he turned out to be a puppet to the conservative rump.

 

I know Tony had a high opinion of his own leadership, but even the LNP couldn't be silly enough to assume anyone else shared that opinion.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I guess he could always do the standard neo-con move of cutting worker's wages and conditions until they can no longer afford the products they manufacture.

That resolvable situation is by far better than the unresolvable situation of 15% unemployment and the general poverty of Detroit who currently has half the median income ...

 

Detroit has half the median income, three times the poverty rate of nation, new Census numbers show

 

I put it to you that they can not currently afford the products that they don't manufacturer anyway.

 

So Trump gets Ford to manufacture in the US (how? Subsidised by the public dollar...?) and the public refuses to buy their cars which have now suddenly risen in price - what's he going to do then? Whack up the import duties on Japanese/Chinese/Korean cars until Ford are competitive again?

After the GFC, the US Gov successfully supported GM and Chrysler to the tune of a 100 billion or so that has been paid back and those manufacturers are quite competitive in the market today supporting a few hundred thousand jobs. I'm a keen supporter of import tariffs actually as much as it would hurt me.

 

When a country spends 600 billion per year on defense of phantom or self created enemies and 800 military bases that many want gone, I think there's some to spare to get a bit of investment back into home manufacturing.

 

As regards, your "policy issue" question, I don't believe that fits with this aim of this thread, .

Wrong, it is the whole foundation of the thread stemming from a 13 year old's joke about the capabilities of Trump to be President. The validity of his policies are central to it.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would suggest a fair% of them would still want him back in the job. Scary isn't it? Perhaps he can go back to the Priesthood and complete the course. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

Like we can talk. Two words... "Tony Abbott".

Or Bill Shorten.....or??...the list is long.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Scary isn't it? Perhaps he can go back to the Priesthood and complete the course. Nev

There may be an opening in the Vatican soon... George Pell investigated over allegations of sexual abuse

 

Or Bill Shorten.....or??...the list is long.

Bill was never chosen as a leader by this country. He wasn't even chosen by a majority of the Labor party members, if the 30,000 member votes were weighted higher than the 86 caucus votes it'd be Albo leading the party (and possibly the country).

 

That resolvable situation is by far better than the unresolvable situation of 15% unemployment and the general poverty of Detroit who currently has half the median income ...Detroit has half the median income, three times the poverty rate of nation, new Census numbers show

 

I put it to you that they can not currently afford the products that they don't manufacturer anyway.

You're probably right there. When a city/area is built up around a specific industry and that industry collapses (along with the supporting businesses), then of course the people living there will be directly impacted. Which is why either the existing industries or new ones should be looking at what the future may hold (think Tesla rather than Ford...)

 

When a country spends 600 billion per year on defense of phantom or self created enemies and 800 military bases that many want gone, I think there's some to spare to get a bit of investment back into home manufacturing.

...or education, universal health care, nation-building infrastructure, social equality, ending the "war on drugs", gun control, reforming the justice system... I fully agree there are far better things to spend $600b per annum on.

 

 

[red750]

Or Krudd. Interesting discussion on Sky News yesterday. Kristina Keneally said she would rather nominate her Labrador dog for UN General Secretary.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Having given us George W Bush, twice, I couldn't fathom how they , (the GOP) could "Trump" that, but they have. Make the "candidates" do a Psyche test. That would be interesting. If we don't do a better job of choosing Leaders we're doomed.. Nev

Unfortunately FH, WE don't pick the candidates, the parties do. WE have zero input into which douches and turds are put up for election. The ones who DO have a say are the ones who bankroll the parties' election campaigns. So we get candidates that represent the interests of the 1%, NOT ours or the Nation's.

 

 

[facthunter]

The problem starts at the bottom. The preselection of the candidate. Branch stacking and an undemocratic structure at the local branch. Plus APATHY. Nev

 

 

[onetrack]

Congratulations to Bill Leak, the resident cartoonist at the Australian newspaper, for this succinct effort - the barb made even more pointed today, by the speech given by Kizr Khan ...

 

 

 

[octave]

[bexrbetter]

Although it's bit early to feel the effect, the withdrawal of our 3 car manufacturers Holden, Ford and Toyota, will in effect lose about 50,000 jobs by around 2019 with obvious effects on social services. Liberals withdrew further funding, Labor hasn't mentioned a word about it so anyone wants to jump in with a biased political reply to that, just don't.

And so it starts, very sad days and the effects will be felt by everybody.

 

Falcon ute bows out two months ahead of Ford manufacturing shut-down

 

 

[onetrack]

Car manufacturing in Australia is a dead industry, it's been dead on its feet for the last 20 years, and only constant huge Govt subsidies have kept it operational. Those subsidies largely only benefited global corporations.

 

The car industry in Australia should have been given a decent funeral and buried with honours in the 1990's.

 

It served Australia well from just after WW1 to the 1980's - but it was overtaken by technology, it was crippled by corporations who refused to invest in new automotive technologies, it was hobbled by manufacturers failing to recognise what the Australian customer wanted.

 

It was destroyed by global corporations selecting low-cost-base manufacturing zones, and utilising the benefits of favourable Australian trading regulations, that gave advantages to those third-world countries seen to be in need of trade assistance.

 

Those regulations never foresaw global corporations becoming the major beneficiary of those favourable trading laws.

 

Australian manufacturers never produced a local diesel engine, the Japs saw the market and filled it. Jap diesels rule in Australia now - yet, it could have just as easily been Australian diesels.

 

It's not like we lack the smart people to design engines - it was just Western global corporations protecting their investment in the engines of the day, and refusing to progress to new and better and more fuel-efficient designs.

 

Local manufacturers had to be dragged kicking and screaming into producing 4 speed transmissions in the late 1960's - when they all insisted that 3 speed trannies were good enough for everybody.

 

They refused point-blank to produce and install 5 speed overdrive trannies - so the Japs promptly met the demand.

 

The local manufacturers belatedly produced their 5 speed overdrive trannies, 5 or 8 years later - but it was too late, the Japs already had the market by the short and curlies.

 

Australian manufacturers never saw the emerging market for dual-cab utes. The Japs and even the Europeans did, and these vehicles are the biggest sellers in Australia today.

 

I can recall the brother buying a HQ Holden Statesman - which was only available in V8 and automatic transmission. He wanted a manual for improved fuel economy and preferred a decent 6 cyl rather than a V8.

 

The salesman agreed, he said they had told GMH there was a considerable market for a 6 cyl manual transmission Statesmans - and GMH told them they wouldn't make it, as it was deemed as detracting from the "luxury Statesman image".

 

I have a copy of an interesting book, called "The National Handbook of Australia's Industries (1934). This book was a Commonwealth publication, detailing all the industries in Australia in 1934, state by state.

 

A YouTube user shows part of the above book -

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=domRo02ur4Q

 

It is mind-boggling what we produced back then, even though we only had a whisker over 4M population. The car industry alone employed nearly 40,000 people directly. Probably another 140,000 were involved in ancillary and associated work related to the automotive industry.

 

However, those industries survived because they were industries of the times, meeting the current demand, and wisely (for that era), protected by tariffs.

 

In the intervening 82 years, technological advances have wiped out many of those industries. The rest were wiped out by thoughtless total tariff removal, by poor management that couldn't see developing trends and meet them - and by favourable trading regulations that enabled an onslaught of products from low-labour-cost nations.

 

Total tariff removal only works when everyone does it - we did it, but a lot of other nations didn't. Who's the mugs, then?

 

Naturally, many of those imported products from those low-labour-cost nations today, are poor quality, but people (the buyers) largely only see the initial purchase price, not the poor quality.

 

The situation is not helped by retailers only stocking the cheapest products with the highest profit margins.

 

The future of Australia is not in manufacturing - it's in innovation, in producing new technology, ideas and inventions, that are world-class-leading.

 

Our future is in education and training the people in the 3rd world countries. Go to Singapore and see how well-regarded an education in Australia is.

 

We need to be pushing English-language proficiency, both for Australians, and for people from overseas who are studying here.

 

English is the world-recognised language of technology, of science, of engineering, and of high-tech construction - as well as aviation!

 

We are world leaders in many things - but no longer in manufacturing. We need Govts that recognise innovation and technological advances, and we need Govt support for industry and individual research and development, of promising and world-beating new processes and inventions.

 

America does this, and reaps the rewards accordingly. U.S. Govt support for R&D is huge, we need to follow their lead.

 

 

[facthunter]

That's actually a big shame. Every dollar that would have been invested in these companies would have returned between 9 and 19 dollars. The figure for lob losses including associated SUPPLY industries could be as high as 200,000 and they would all be paying taxes and spending money. There's not one country that doesn't subsidise it's car Industry. This is most felt in SA and Victoria. What was the great rush to get rid of these manufacturers? At this time in history, it would have helped the country get through it's transition and post GFC recovery. Same with Aluminium, magnesium and steel production. We are isolated and GONE without these materials. This country has solar in abundance. We haven't even scratched the surface with that one and it's cheaper by the month and more efficient.(not that that matters much, when it's so abundant) Adequate storage technology is here too. WATER is fast becoming the most required commodity in the world. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The car industry alone employed nearly 40,000 people directly. Probably another 140,000 were involved in ancillary and associated work related to the automotive industry.

For all your words I'm sure you can now offer a few extra explaining where all these estimated 55,000 unemployed people are going to work now.

 

Is it better to support the industry which creates micro-economics further employing many more (as the 140,000 you note) or just give the same amount anyway in the dole with all the despairing social economics that brings with it - did you forget about that part maybe?

 

http://tenplay.com.au/news/national/july/vanishing-act-say-goodbye-to-australia-s-middle-class

 

 

[bexrbetter]

There's not one country that doesn't subsidise it's car Industry.

Germany subsidises it's car industry some 8 times greater than we were, and look at them.

 

This pull out is weird as you suggest and it's hard not to think there's some tin foil conspiracy going on, it just doesn't make sense at any level.

 

This country has solar in abundance. We haven't even scratched the surface with that one and it's cheaper by the month and more efficient.

Here's the quandary, we need to use and sell a lot of coal for a lot of years to build a solar/wind infrastructure before a change over. It would take til about 2050 to do it if people want to maintain their current lifestyle - which they hypocritically do while screaming "Green!"..

 

 

[onetrack]

Facthunter, the simple fact remains the numbers are against us. The total vehicle market in Australia is a little over 1M vehicles annually - for ALL makes and models. Compare that with manufacturers requirements that investment in a vehicle manufacturing facility has to be a guaranteed annual sales level of at least 250,000, just for that make, to ensure adequate ROI.

 

Falcon sales have recently been down to about 20,000 annually. Ford have been producing the wrong model for our market for too long, with lower build quality and poorer design, than the imports.

 

They stuck with a huge thirsty 6 for far too long, when high-tech 4 cyls and smaller capacity engines were taking the market by storm.

 

The only thing we can do with our manufacturing industries today, is to seriously upgrade and automate them, and seek out niche markets.

 

 

[onetrack]

Bex, I feel for those people who are losing their livelihoods in the car industry - but there's a maxim I live by, and these people need to understand it.

 

"The only constant in life is change".

 

With drastic changes, unending losses, and restructuring, comes opportunities. They have to be identified and seized. I've been there and done that.

 

In the late 1970's, I had to abandon all I knew, the industry I worked in, and all the goodwill and clients I built up with my business, to reset my life and start out again in a different direction - when I was cursed with a 400% increase in fuel prices within 18 mths, a drought that was the worst in 80 years, and interest rates that peaked around nearly 30%.

 

I actually had to pay 23% interest on a $100,000 bridging loan in 1983, to enable my total change of direction in life, and into the new industry I'd selected as the way forward.

 

The move paid off handsomely, but it was certainly a torrid time, and most of my white hair probably came from that traumatic period of my life.

 

In most cases, people who relied on the local car industry for their income will have to re-examine their skills, what they can utilise them for, the potential for them to move elsewhere for work, or the potential for them to maybe even start their own small businesses locally.

 

Life is a rolling train, and you have to ride the bumps and undulations, and the derailments, that your travel through life hands you.

 

Nearly all these car industry people will receive severance payouts - it's not like the factories have shut at 5 mins notice, and with no money left to pay anything.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Or Krudd. Interesting discussion on Sky News yesterday. Kristina Keneally said she would rather nominate her Labrador dog for UN General Secretary.

Well Turnbull sure screwed the pooch today. He's bending over well and truly for the lunatic right - Bernardi, Morrison and Dutton are taking turns behind him.

 

All he had to do was say "Look guys, it won't hurt to endorse KRudd for this because he's about 12th in line anyway; the woman from Bulgaria is a favourite and it's Eastern Europe's turn, even if they wanted an ex-prime minister from Australasia the Kiwi would end up getting it.

 

So let's just endorse him knowing full well he'll get nowhere; if we don't, we look like small-minded pricks who put petty politics over supporting Australia, and leave ourselves open to the same treatment when Labor gets in and we want someone from our side in the UN...."

 

Unfortunately he chose to be the smaller man.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's a MEAN look THIS decision. I have NO doubt that Turnbull had indicated support prior to last December. Abbott and Bernardi have to be satisfied with this, and they have told Malcolm what he must do. K Rudd (who I'm not particularly fussed with) DID not cancel out all the LNP appointments in overseas posts when he got into power. He tried to lift the game there, but there's no reciprocal good karma. It's a bad American look where they appoint judges that suit their aims, too. Judges are supposed to be impartial. They sell them selves to the party they support (with a few Notable exceptions). Public Servants, Police and Judges should not be political. They can vote how they like but not influence how they operate in their jobs. Nev

 

 

[gareth lacey]

rudd just wanted to get on the gravy train, he cannot get a job because he is a career pollie and that means he useless for anything in the real world

 

 

[facthunter]

That's not the point. What government would refuse one of it's citizens who has been PM and a Foreign Minister , years involved with matters politic/ diplomatic, Family man with kids No criminal history etc.the opportunity to throw his name in the ring for a job that OTHERS ponder his suitability for later?.

 

Malcolm "decides" Rudd is unsuitable. I wonder what particular qualifications he has to carry out that function. In my view NONE. He just CAN and under pressure he HAS. Another bad look to the rest of the world. Wouldn't meet Rudd face to face either. A bit ordinary ?NO? Nev

 

 

[red750]

I don't personally know what he was like, but former Labor politicians say he was dysfunctional and impossible to work with. I reported Kristina Keneally's comments above. Mark Latham laughed at the idea of Rudd as SG, and at Jeff Kennett's opinion that Rudd should be nominated. Peter Garrett has no time for him, and Wayne Swann is not a fan. They should know what he's like behind closed doors. An unsatisfactory person should not be nominated just because of precedent.

 

 

[facthunter]

Peter Garrett was hung out by him. That's not a crime but I understand fully Garrett's position. The others you quote are media personalities or at least in a media position often of some dubious reliability for being deep and meaningful. Do you really suggest those sorts of throw away comments are REAL evidence of unsuitability. Media hype by personalities amusing the audience.

 

The other point is Turnbull had assured him of support, at a time when all the scuttlebutt (such as it is) was known. Do you think K Rudd would have continued to put effort into that position IF he HAD known the current Gov't would refuse to back his application. Not likely. Kevin is NOT stupid. Turnbull is the loser in this one as far as integrity (that word, not used often) is considered. Nev