Will the Holden brand survive?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by hackney

Quite frankly our auto industry was never going to last anyhow,how much money do keep “throwing” @ it? Good Money after bad.Was never a fan of Governments throwing cash @ them.Not getting my hard earned money!Glad they are all gone,money can be redirected to better things.

Which manufacturing countries don't get subsidised by the govt of that country? Most manufacturing countries also have protections in place (import tariffs etc), which Australia, in their wisdom, reduced or abolished thanks to free trade agreements.
As mentioned by jpd, people fail to consider the revenue generated by the industry back to the govt in taxes and to the local industry in employer spending. That's just one example.

What's done is done, and I do believe it didn't have the volume to survive but there was less and less reasons to encourage them to stay in the end.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by prydey

Which manufacturing countries don't get subsidised by the govt of that country? Most manufacturing countries also have protections in place (import tariffs etc), which Australia, in their wisdom, reduced or abolished thanks to free trade agreements.
As mentioned by jpd, people fail to consider the revenue generated by the industry back to the govt in taxes and to the local industry in employer spending. That's just one example.

What's done is done, and I do believe it didn't have the volume to survive but there was less and less reasons to encourage them to stay in the end.

Still do want my hard earned taxes going to an auto maker,sorry,but it is just the way it is.Sure they have flow on benefit(auto makers) to other industry.But for a car? No way.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by hackney

Still do want my hard earned taxes going to an auto maker,sorry,but it is just the way it is.Sure they have flow on benefit(auto makers) to other industry.But for a car? No way.

I often smile at these sort of comments, like you can choose how your tax gets spent. You pay tax. That's it. You don't get to choose where it goes or how it's spent.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by hackney

Still do want my hard earned taxes going to an auto maker,sorry,but it is just the way it is.Sure they have flow on benefit(auto makers) to other industry.But for a car? No way.

Do you also approve of taxpayer support going to the banks (yes it does) etc?

So many more business's that recieve tax payer funding that simply don't deserve it compared to what the auto makers did.

I'm all for our government supportly local industries. Un-australian to disagree with it. Would you rather all our manufacturers and business's to pack up and go to china?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

The volumes were not sustainable, end of story 👋

So true but Ford kept taking co-development money from the government in 2012 for the 2014s
we should be grateful that Ford was generous not to chop off production in 2008 with BF3 and no FG
all thanks to Kim Carr flying overseas to convince Ford to proceed with a $700 M FG product cycle.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

I often smile at these sort of comments, like you can choose how your tax gets spent. You pay tax. That's it. You don't get to choose where it goes or how it's spent.

I'd love to know how many bad investments governments have made over the years aside from the Auto industry.
Kevin Rudd throwing out a $30 Billion bridge at the start of the GFC, the right wing fashists called him nuts
but it avoided a massive recession here...

[hackney]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Do you also approve of taxpayer support going to the banks (yes it does) etc?

So many more business's that recieve tax payer funding that simply don't deserve it compared to what the auto makers did.

I'm all for our government supportly local industries. Un-australian to disagree with it. Would you rather all our manufacturers and business's to pack up and go to china?

Banks? Nope.Spend it on Health,roads infrastructure & anything that benefits the country as whole.Auto maker,hardly benefits.They should be able to stand on their own feet,not by the tax payer feeding them.We all have our views.You have yours & I have mine.At the end of the day,it did not save them,did it?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by hackney

Banks? Nope.Spend it on Health,roads infrastructure & anything that benefits the country as whole.Auto maker,hardly benefits.They should be able to stand on their own feet,not by the tax payer feeding them.We all have our views.You have yours & I have mine.At the end of the day,it did not save them,did it?

What your failing to recognise is that money given as incentive to employ people comes back via the tax they pay.
Holden had 2500 employee's, if they each paid $100pw tax then that's 13m a year returned and then you leave 2500 people spending the rest of their pay packet in shops paying taxes and their employees wages which who also pay tax and so the wheel turns.
Many of these production line workers have done nothing but that all their lives, they don't know anything else and have struggled to find meaningful employment, once the generous severence packages run out they'll be back on the government teat by way of new start or pensions.
Nothing other than reducing our skilled labour pool came from closing the industry and the corporate giants are now sucking more from Aussie wallets via overpriced imports.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I'd love to know how many bad investments governments have made over the years aside from the Auto industry.
Kevin Rudd throwing out a $30 Billion bridge at the start of the GFC, the right wing fashists called him nuts
but it avoided a massive recession here...

err.. that $30 billion bought a few Plasma TVs which Ironically nobody wants now as they uses too much power

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

err.. that $30 billion bought a few Plasma TVs which Ironically nobody wants now as they uses too much power

That's a little revsionist of you, there was so much more done than buying a few TVs....

$42 billion nation building and jobs plan
https://australianpolitics.com/2009/...s-package.html
The Rudd Government today announced a $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan to support jobs and invest in future long term economic growth.

This historic long term and targeted Nation Building and Jobs Plan is a further decisive step in the Government’s response to the severe global recession.

Treasury estimates that today’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan will support up to 90,000 jobs in 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Key measures funded by today’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan include:

* Free ceiling insulation for around 2.7 million Australian homes
Now that was a tragedy with lives lost..

* Build or upgrade a building in every one of Australia’s 9,540 schools

* Build more than 20,000 new social and defence homes

* $950 one off cash payments to eligible families, single workers, students, drought effected farmers and others

* A temporary business investment tax break for small and general businesses buying eligible assets

* Significantly increase funding for local community infrastructure and local road projects

The initiatives in the Nation Building and Jobs Plan will provide a boost to economic growth of around ½ per cent of GDP in 2008-09 and around ¾ per cent to 1 per cent of GDP in 2009-10.

By investing in jobs and long term economic growth the Plan strikes the right balance between immediate support for jobs now, and delivering the long term investments needed to strengthen future economic growth.

For every $1 spent providing immediate stimulus to the economy the Government has invested more than $2 on long term investments that will generate future economic growth.

[Vesper Martini]

Just putting a humorous spin on it but its largely correct, the $950 mostly went to retailers selling imported products like Harvey Norman. it kept Clive Peeters going for another 12 months maybe

The road and school infrastructure projects were going to happen anyway, more spin.

The pink batts didnt just have Tragic outcomes. its another example of creating an industry then dumping it. leaving more unemployed.

besides that the Government was in Surplus thanks to the previous mob. but then we started a 250 Billion roller coaster ride..

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by hackney

Banks? Nope.Spend it on Health,roads infrastructure & anything that benefits the country as whole.Auto maker,hardly benefits.They should be able to stand on their own feet,not by the tax payer feeding them.We all have our views.You have yours & I have mine.At the end of the day,it did not save them,did it?

So giving money to industries that employ people, keeping them off the dole, who then pay tax, who then buy things from local business's etc, is not worthwhile?

Every auto industry is supported by government. Do they do it for no reason, or because there are significant benefits to do so?

And just because you have a salty opinion doesn't make it right. The economic benefits made it worth every dollar spent.

It did get to the point it was unfeasible at the end though. But that defeats the point of it. Government got a hell of a lot more money back than what it spent. They routinely sprouted the economic benefits when they made funding announcements. They don't just **** it down the drain and never see a cent back.

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I'd love to know how many bad investments governments have made over the years aside from the Auto industry.

myki
East-West link
Sky rail
The Greens Party


Just to name a few

[Sprintey]

Next time they fire Rudd dollars at you, you may wish to dump it in silver or bottles of whiskey or bitcoin and watch the currency hyperinflate and smile

I considered mailing a Zimbabwe 100 Trillion dollar note to the ECB back in 2011 at the height of the Greece crisis to bail them all out

[hackney]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

So giving money to industries that employ people, keeping them off the dole, who then pay tax, who then buy things from local business's etc, is not worthwhile?

Every auto industry is supported by government. Do they do it for no reason, or because there are significant benefits to do so?

And just because you have a salty opinion doesn't make it right. The economic benefits made it worth every dollar spent.

It did get to the point it was unfeasible at the end though. But that defeats the point of it. Government got a hell of a lot more money back than what it spent. They routinely sprouted the economic benefits when they made funding announcements. They don't just **** it down the drain and never see a cent back.

Well considering they where “throwing” money @ them(over many years I might add.),& guess what happened? Yup,they left any way.So,your point is?Enlighten me.Because it was @ the end of the day a sheer waste of tax payers money.I have & will never support something like this for a car industry.Really do not care if they leave,go bust.etc.....just make sure they turn the lights off & close the door on your way out fellas.They had this the planning for a very long time & that is a fact.

[IanC]

It was the car industry and other engineering firms that got us through WWII when the UK couldn't supply us. The Beaufort bombers and other planes made here were constructed by a huge number of sub contractors. OK we didn't make complete cars pre war but we had a sizeable industry. If we ever needed anything like that again we would be hard pressed to do it without an engineering industry.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by IanC

It was the car industry and other engineering firms that got us through WWII when the UK couldn't supply us. The Beaufort bombers and other planes made here were constructed by a huge number of sub contractors. OK we didn't make complete cars pre war but we had a sizeable industry. If we ever needed anything like that again we would be hard pressed to do it without an engineering industry.

All very true, but that was a lifetime ago & the international scene is so much different today.

Dr Terry

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

besides that the Government was in Surplus thanks to the previous mob. but then we started a 250 Billion roller coaster ride..

Top economists who study this all day every day said Australia had the best response to the GFC in the world.





Ok back on topic I think I've said this before, but Australian car manufacturing may have stood a better chance if they built Hatchbacks, medium SUVs and 4x4 dual cab utes. That's all the people want these days it seems.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Ok back on topic I think I've said this before, but Australian car manufacturing may have stood a better chance if they built Hatchbacks, medium SUVs and 4x4 dual cab utes. That's all the people want these days it seems.

True, but the 3 marques that were here were already building these cars in other factories around the world in much larger volume and cheaper. Why build them here where wages are high and there is lots of red tape?

[Sprint XR8]

You can pretty much pinpoint the moment of the industry's demise to the 2008 meeting of Mulally and Rudd.

26 Aug 2008
FORD Motor Co president and CEO Alan Mulally yesterday called on the Australian government to delay its plan to cut tariffs in 2010.

Mr Mulally urged prime minister Kevin Rudd and industry minister Kim Carr to pause tariffs at 10 per cent, describing the existing duty rate as a critical element of the automotive industry’s viability in a “terrible” business environment.

The tariff had been due to drop from 10 per cent to five per cent in 2010, and the Bracks review of the automotive industry released earlier this month recommended no change to this position.

Mr Mulally argued the point that a tariff pause was required because Ford Australia had to not only develop a range of new more fuel-efficient technologies, but do so at a time of economic downturn.

“Over the years Australia has continued to reduce the tariffs so we are down to the place now where we are talking about 10 per cent going to five per cent and our suggestion was that at this critical time when we are retooling the industry and bringing out all these new fuel-efficient vehicles that this is a time that maybe a pause in that tariff reduction would be very appropriate to allow the automobile industry to complete this retooling and get through this slowdown in the economy,” Mr Mulally said.

Asked if the local industry was doomed if the government ignored Ford’s request for a pause and the tariffs dropped as planned, Mr Mulally replied: “Well, it is going to make it harder.

“This is a time when you want to do everything you can to accelerate the development of the industry... so one thing is not going to be make or break but you want every element you can to be contributing.

“The important thing about the pause is that it’s near term, because clearly going through this cycle on the economy as well as bringing in the smaller vehicles it is an important time right now to take this pause.”

He said Ford would be satisfied for tariffs to be reduced down the track.

“Longer-term we are going to continue to improve the competitiveness of ourselves and the industry, but right now I think it is a critical piece. It is very important, not just the tariff itself, but every element of competitiveness for the Australian industry is so important right now.”

https://www.goauto.com.au/news/ford/...-26/23512.html

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by hackney

Well considering they where “throwing” money @ them(over many years I might add.),& guess what happened? Yup,they left any way.So,your point is?Enlighten me.Because it was @ the end of the day a sheer waste of tax payers money.I have & will never support something like this for a car industry.Really do not care if they leave,go bust.etc.....just make sure they turn the lights off & close the door on your way out fellas.They had this the planning for a very long time & that is a fact.

Please look further Hackney. There is not a successful auto manufacturing nation on earth that doesn't support its industry in one way or another. Whether that be free land, zero tax, or artificially undervalued currencies; or outright banning competing imports to arrive. For example, Germany under the Euro is about a 25 to 30% depreciation in currency compared to the Deutschemark and has resulted in a time of boom for their auto exports. For example, two weeks after Thailand signed the FTA with Australia they imposed a hefty tax on any car with a >2.7L motor effectively nullifying any Australian imports. For example, China would demand technology/IP transfer, domestic plants if you want access to their market - while pegging the Yuan at an artificially low price to the USD. They are now being called out on this mercantilism. For example, Obama's "cash for clunkers" and wholesale bailout of GM in the GFC. In the UK look at Cameron's 2010 auto industry white paper stating the resolve to keep it, and support it. I believe their government has rendered assistance recently in order to convert Castle Bromwich to an electric vehicle plant. Oh yes and even Elon's use of green credits and other policy financial incentives in keeping Tesla going.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to live in a world of Randian capitalism making really cool stuff, but it doesn't exist presently.

Originally Posted by Ben73

Ok back on topic I think I've said this before, but Australian car manufacturing may have stood a better chance if they built Hatchbacks, medium SUVs and 4x4 dual cab utes. That's all the people want these days it seems.

Given the other thread, can someone render an AU1 Forte hatchback?

[hackney]

@Sprintey,I understand where you are coming from but as I alluded to,how much do you keep “throwing” @ these companies?(I know it happens all around the globe.) but for me it has never sat well.We subsidised these companies for years.To what extent has this helped? Obviously it hasn’t,because as we all know they pulled up stumps & left.They are certainly not loyal to this country.Cheers.

[davenl5l]

Originally Posted by prydey

City Holden is building brand new premises on railway terrace, mile end.

Originally Posted by LG17

The vast majority of nomads she came across, but you know that... ;)

Well aware of that ,still doesn't change the facts. New yard funded by the sale of the city site they are struggling big time. All their tech's are looking to leave the sinking ship

[davenl5l]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

What your failing to recognise is that money given as incentive to employ people comes back via the tax they pay.
Holden had 2500 employee's, if they each paid $100pw tax then that's 13m a year returned and then you leave 2500 people spending the rest of their pay packet in shops paying taxes and their employees wages which who also pay tax and so the wheel turns.
Many of these production line workers have done nothing but that all their lives, they don't know anything else and have struggled to find meaningful employment, once the generous severence packages run out they'll be back on the government teat by way of new start or pensions.
Nothing other than reducing our skilled labour pool came from closing the industry and the corporate giants are now sucking more from Aussie wallets via overpriced imports.

It's not the government teat. We have a pension fund (like the UK) that we all contribute to. This is enough to cover ALL pensions and welfare at a much higher rate. STOLEN and put into general revenue by government.

[lra]

Originally Posted by hackney

@Sprintey,I understand where you are coming from but as I alluded to,how much do you keep “throwing” @ these companies?(I know it happens all around the globe.) but for me it has never sat well.We subsidised these companies for years.To what extent has this helped? Obviously it hasn’t,because as we all know they pulled up stumps & left.They are certainly not loyal to this country.Cheers.

Totally agree, and this seems to be missed by contributors who think the Oz Govt should throw endless subsidies to foreign owned companies doing business in Australia.
If Ford, Holden, Toyota ( and all the other car companies who have packed their bags and left ) were wholly Australian owned, the argument would have more credibility.
GM, since the GFC and their 'bankruptcy', seem to garner all their profits from Govt subsidies from various countries. The latest was South Korea where the Astra/Cruse was produced. That plant was shut after subsidies were not increased in line with GM demands.
It is not about building (good, exciting, reliable ) cars, it is all about share price now.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by lra

GM, since the GFC and their 'bankruptcy', seem to garner all their profits from Govt subsidies from various countries. The latest was South Korea where the Astra/Cruse was produced. That plant was shut after subsidies were not increased in line with GM demands.
It is not about building (good, exciting, reliable ) cars, it is all about share price now.

Not quite. Yes it was 'their' bankruptcy that exacerbated the problem, but it's really about survival (more than just share prices) with the cost of production in developed counties versus the costs in developing nations.

A poster above suggested that Holden/Ford etc. could've survived if they had built 4WD utes or SUVs. Without serious subsidies (& good export volumes) how do we compete against some of these (very) cheap Asian countries.

Dr Terry

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by hackney

@Sprintey,I understand where you are coming from but as I alluded to,how much do you keep “throwing” @ these companies?(I know it happens all around the globe.) but for me it has never sat well.We subsidised these companies for years.To what extent has this helped? Obviously it hasn’t,because as we all know they pulled up stumps & left.They are certainly not loyal to this country.Cheers.

Hackney,
Ford stayed in manufacturing here long after most would have pulled up stumps and left,
the fact that so many years yielded little or no profit was purely and simply because most of
the funding and resource spending done here, stayed here and didn't get siphoned back to the USA.

Now compare that to your non-involved free market where the greater part of our vehicles
come from Asian manufacturers. Yes, we lift the 10% GST from all vehicles as before but
that's not an import tax and their profits on vehicles sold in Australia are now price transferred
beyond the government's reach. It's that drain away from the days when Ford and Holden
dominated sales and all that earnings and business activity was here - that's what's been lost
with low cost Asian cars and the ending of the local car industry, massive bleed off of revenue
leaving our country - we're being pilfered blind.

Ford, GM and Toyota basically left because the government gave them no reason to stay.
We used to encourage investment in this country, now we're only too happy to tell them go FO to Asia.

Ford is still here developing vehicles and generating some business activity, it just on another level.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by davenl5l

It's not the government teat. We have a pension fund (like the UK) that we all contribute to. This is enough to cover ALL pensions and welfare at a much higher rate. STOLEN and put into general revenue by government.

Pensions were only ever calculated on a life expectency of 68,
you're retired three years and then you die.....

[hackney]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Hackney,
Ford stayed in manufacturing here long after most would have pulled up stumps and left,
the fact that so many years yielded little or no profit was purely and simply because most of
the funding and resource spending done here, stayed here and didn't get siphoned back to the USA.
Now compare that to your non-involved free market where the greater part of our vehicles
come from Asian manufacturers. Yes, we lift the 10% GST from all vehicles as before but
that's not an import tax and their profits on vehicles sold in Australia are now price transferred
beyond the government's reach.

Ford, GM and Toyota basically left because the government gave them no reason to stay.
We used to encourage investment in this country, now we're only too happy to tell them go FO to Asia.

Ford is still here developing vehicles and generating some business activity, it just on another level.

Have to remind you that Ford was first to pull out in the “big three”.As I keep alluding to,how long to you keep “throwing” money @ this lot?I am afraid it just does not wash with me,no matter how you try to answer it.Anyhow I have said my bit on the subject.You have my answer.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

Not quite. Yes it was 'their' bankruptcy that exacerbated the problem, but it's really about survival (more than just share prices) with the cost of production in developed counties versus the costs in developing nations.

A poster above suggested that Holden/Ford etc. could've survived if they had built 4WD utes or SUVs. Without serious subsidies (& good export volumes) how do we compete against some of these (very) cheap Asian countries.

Dr Terry

Survived? Nope!It was never going to happen,competition is so fierce.There is no way they could have competed.EG:Territory.Sales:they were only going one way,down,down & down.