FRIEDRICH, Vegemite is made by Kraft foods, owed by Altria, which is a Phillip Morris cooperative. On the 12th of Dec 2005 The China National Tobacco Corporation and Philip Morris International Announced the Establishment of a Long-Term Strategic Cooperative Partnership. So by association Vegemite is made in China.
So you'll have to settle for just butter (locally made) on your toast it seems.

See: http://www.altria.com/investors/02_00_NewsDetail.asp?reqid=798160

And see Dick Smith's Media Release - 27 October 2004 about Vegemite:http://www.dicksmithfoods.com.au/dsf/index.php?d=media&p=27oct04

Wrigley's chewing gum is also manufactued in China under licence. Unfortunately for Wrigleys, their manufacturer saw no need to use food grade gum when manufacturing a few shipments on the sly. Wrigley's found that it's product was being counterfeited by it's own machinery, by employees who even counterfeited a Wrigleys delivery vehicle, with delivery men dressed in counterfeit Wrigley's uniforms, who were making deliveries to shops who sold Wrigley's Chewing gum.

The significance of this can be appreciated in the spate of poisonings which have occured in Europe, whereby counterfeiters have been responsible for hundreds of deaths due to selling counterfeit food products. Hundreds died in Spain after being poisoned by counterfeit cooking oil in the 1970's and only recently dozens died in Turkey after drinking counterfeit uzo.

If the Chinese are now manufacturing vegemite, then sniff the product that you buy first before you bravely stick it in your mouth. Vegemite looks like axle grease and the Chinese might consider that nobody will notice if they use real axle grease.

I wouldn't use any axle grease that looked like Vegemite..

Scout “Excellent points raised in your post Col, and it was a pleasure to read without the usual invective.”

Check my posts, the “invective “ is used in response and not initiated.

However, Pleased you liked the post.

My experience , being from UK and born in the 1950’s was to observe the nature of government interference in industry and the consequences.

A lot of my views are based on the observation that no business deserves government protection or assistance.

Cases put up as “special cases” or seek exemption (protection) from the natural market conditions are just promoting a “bad case” with the right weasel words.

The collapse of British heavy industry in the 1980s was more widespread and intense because it had been “protected” to too long that the natural attrition to be expected in any changing environment was held back, just like levy banks and rivers.

The collapse of the eastern European economies in the early 1990’s was not the fault of freer market activity but the direct consequence of their heavily protected and regulated “Marxist / socialist economic” processes and planning which could not / would not deal with realities of change.

People should understand several important realities when discussing economics

1 A market (supplier and consumer) does not exist in isolation to other market forces (other suppliers and other consumers)
2 Artificial barriers to trade are only valid in extreme cases (eg matters of national security) or for a short time with defined goals and sunset clauses.
3 Markets are the result of changing demand patterns and influences. Nothing is ever fixed or forever.
New opportunities arise as traditional “markets” falter.
The successful market driven economies will succeed through exploiting their natural advantages and being constantly on the look out for new opportunities to maximise those advantages.

These 3 points are not options.
No one can resist competitive pressure (1 and 2) indefinitely.
Alternatives to “market economies” (3) have failed consistently throughout history. The biggest reason for those failures has been the inability of other systems to deal with the consequences of “change”

Scout, after connecting on Baldur’s Gate, depression, viral illnesses and suffering at the hands of a state government employer, I’m a bit hesitant to challenge you on this topic! You wrote “I believe that Australia can survive provided its industry is encouraged (research&development) to provide not only what it is good at but that which the world needs. In technology we have the opportunity to excell at sustainable products such as solar, wind power and develop new products.”

Unfortunately, R&D is only a minor part of innovation. The major parts are the entrepreneurial skills, resources and market access needed to compete on global markets. Australia is strong on development of ideas, very weak on turning them into commercially viable products. In general, firms carry out R&D to the point where the risk-adjusted rate of return is equal to that on alternative investments. The reason that business R&D is low in Australia compared to other OECD countries is in part because businesses based here can not, by and large, generate sufficient return from it. This is why many Australian ideas are taken up within large markets overseas, close to users/consumers, where they can be profitably developed.

Where you do find innovation in Australia (not always based on R&D), it’s generally in industries which are not competing globally, such as retail, distribution and construction.

[In passing, it’s often claimed that the problem in Australia is a lack of venture capital. This is rarely the case – it’s a lack of ideas which are commercially viable with an Australian base. Bureaucrats in Queensland’s so-called Department of State Development often claim to have identified sure-fire winners which the business sector, which lives or dies by its ability to identify profitable opportunities, cannot recognise. My first question is “So you’ve mortgaged your house to invest in this great idea , have you?” Alas, the answer is always negative.]

Dear Col
I think on the whole your reasoning is quite good.. but I still maintain that it does not address some important issues which I've alluded to at times.

You say British Heavy industry died as a result of removing government protection. Ok.. lets go a bit deeper.
Why... was it not competitive without government protection ? and 'what' kind of protection did they receive ?

3 major factors cannot be ignored in seeing how protection or its absence is a good or bad thing.

1/ UNION actions in continually raising the wage costs

2/ INDUSTRY LEADERS who were content to wallow in the protection, rather than invest in Innovation (new methods, new equipment)

3/ Artificially low labor rates in competing places.

We also have to ask the question HOW did emerging countries like Korea become so stoked and competitive from the ruins of war ?

Where did the CAPITAL come from which enabled them to set up such heavy industries and utilize a low cost labor force ?

Is it possible that the uncompetitiveness of British Heavy Industry was in part brought about by BRITISH investment and technology directed in these places like Korea ? (I dont know, I'm just raising the question)

Is it possible that the Korean GOVERNMENT took action in the economic interests of their countries and ensured that certain target industries were 'helped' assisted PROTECTED.... etc. to get to the point they are in now ?

P.S. 37% of Switzerlands GDP is in Pharmeceuticals. 7% is Motor Vehicles.

In GDP terms Australia (and Switzerland) has approx 26% in 'industry' and 70% in 'Services'.
26% is one hell of a lot of unemployed people if manufacturing 'dies'.

Surely we can learn from past mistakes and inculcate a better ethic in young Australian entrepreneurs ?