Oops Vanna, Australians have of course taken to Apple, Amazon,
Facebook, Twitter, Google, the internet and all the rest, like
ducks to water!

Some are accepting change, accepting that people are free to make
choices and are creating all sorts of new businesses and thriving.

The world is changing and moving on Vanna, even if some old fellas
can't deal with change. Can't deal with wifey not being home to
darn their socks anymore, can't deal with Google as a search engine.

So your post and others, tell us a great deal about you and the real
problem here, ie your attitude to life. Well that is your choice,
Vanna.

Australia and Australians are clearly not the problem Vanna, for
a good majority are leaving you behind, as the world changes and
you want to go backwards 40 years. Its not going to happen.

Yabby,
Thanks for the lecture, but it has no meaning to me.

Globalisation is of course a wonderful thing, although there are an increasing number of countries now on the verge of economic catastrophe, while executives in many places are awarded bonuses.

I think it has become fashionable to bag Australian industry, as you well know.

But it can reach the absurd stage where a government will not take any action or offer any support if an industry in the country is failing, because that could be protectionism.

The present federal government would be the most useless government we have ever had, (and I think the polls reflect that), but it now wants to absolve itself of responsibility for Australian industry, by saying that industry “must ‘find new, efficient and greener ways’ to compete”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/job-loss-fears-on-back-of-strong-australian-dollar/story-fn6bfkm6-1226120789498

Still waiting on the federal government and its public service to find new, efficient and greener ways to operate or compete.

*although there are an increasing number of countries now on the verge of economic catastrophe, while executives in many places are awarded bonuses.*

Vanna, I am really not sure how you relate the two. Many countries
have a problem, because they did not have a Costello, who limited
borrowing and paid off debts. Bonuses are paid to executives
according to their employment agreement. Some companies are still
doing very well. Why should their boards break those agreements,
because Govts borrowed too much?

Personally I find criticism very constructive. It either stands up
to scrutiny or it does not. If it does, then it brings about change.
The ostrich approach is doomed to failure.

I really don't think the Govt should be throwing money at every
industry that gets into trouble. For that becomes a cost to
other industries. For instance Bluescope cannot make money anymore
from steel exports. So they plan to wind down that section of their
business, whilst their local market remains profitable. Why
should Govt interfere?

OTOH Govt plays an important role in getting the basic economy
right. Less red tape, no carbon tax, no cushy union deals,
leave super at 9%, get rid of payroll tax, would all be welcome
options to assist all industries and would help us maintain a
manufacturing industry.

Look at the latest union rort on the oil rigs. $312'000$ a year
for 182 days worked by a laundry hand, is hardly being reasonable.

No wonder some manufacturers want to pack up and leave.

Yabby
Well of course governments could try using industry inefficiency as an excuse or smokescreen for poor government performance.

I personally know of an industry in Australia (sugar), that would send representatives to other countries to look at their sugar mills, and came back learning nothing new.

The mills in Australia were already producing the highest quality product in the world, and what technology was being used in other countries was already being used by mills in Australia, or had been tried and discarded some years previous in favour of something better.

They also found many factories in other countries that could not operate in Australia because they would not meet environmental or workplace health and safety regulations.

So when people such as Minister Kim Carr call Australian manufacturing inefficient, they label all Australian manufacturing inefficient, when that is not the case, but it could easily lead to a drop in public confidence regards Australian made products.

The result would be people such as yourself, who want to buy nearly everything from outside of the country, while still living in Australia.

That is not sustainable.

I doubt whether the present federal government will be around for much longer either, as it is obvious they are not very efficient or sustainable.

*The result would be people such as yourself, who want to buy nearly everything from outside of the country, while still living in Australia.*

I made no such claim, Vanna, so that is purely in your imagination.

Australian sugar would indeed be of good quality, for it has had
to compete in the global marketplace. You don't sell there, if
you produce rubbish.

So my point is, all manufacturing should be exposed to real
competition, or it simply leads to price gouging and shoddy products.
Not much different to our Govt services. They can afford to be
shoddy and expensive, for they have no competition either.

Back in the days of high tariffs, I was getting alot of gear made
up in fibreglass for a new export venture. I got to know the bloke
making it, pretty well. He pointed out to me that he could buy
high quality fibreglass matting in Singpore, but the import tariff
was 140%, to protect the local manufacturer. Fact is that the most
profitable thing to do in those days for a manufacturer, was not
to make a better product, but to simply convince the Govt that
the import tariff should be increased and then cream in the profits.

Its a shame that I can't find the URL for you anymore, but I read
of one local washing machine maker, who did not even bother to
test his new models. People would soon complain if they were no good.

Now tell me Vanna, which Australian manufacturer actually made a
vehicle that was suitable for the outback, despite the huge market,
given the huge country? Wow, the Holden 1 tonne ute is as good as
it got. Not a 4wd in sight locally. The punters would just have
to buy what they produced. It took Toyota and others to manufacture
4wd diesels, country people flocked to buy them. But they still had
to pay tariffs. That hardly helps to make an industry such as
agriculture, more efficient.

Yabby,
The federal government may have had an inspired moment, although some would say a little too late.

“Ms Gillard ruled out mandating "buy Australian" campaigns for mining projects but said the Government would advocate greater use of local products.

A tax forum in October will consider ways to help industries such as manufacturing and tourism that are being hit by the strong Australian dollar.

Labor MPs based in manufacturing areas have already discussed options including tougher local content rules for companies that want to do business with the Government.”

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/gillards-buy-australian-jobs-fix/story-e6freomx-1226119989147

Of course it is to be applauded, after years of politicians saying that buying Australian made products was not good for Australia.

I would suggest the federal government should initially focus on two areas. Start and convince government departments and the education system to consider buying Australian made, and then after that, start and convince the public to buy Australian made.

Spending taxpayer funding to convince the public to buy Australian made, while government departments and the education system would not even glance at an Australian made product, will likely be another giant waste of taxpayer funding by this government.