Author |
|
24-May-2011 4:34:40 PM
|
On 23/05/2011 ninth10 wrote:
>The car example is a great one to highlight how we kill our own industries.
No, the car is a great example of how our own industries weren't even vaguely competitive and how it's only able to continue to exist due to it being propped up by the goverment. Now it depends on your political leanings as to whether you think that is a good thing.
>Australia has some of the lowest import Tariffs in the world for things
>like cars- which would seem like a good thing, except it becomes so much
>cheaper to import than build locally.
Which is because our industry is not competitive. The solution is not to prop it up. See:
http://watoday.drive.com.au/motor-news/tariff-cut-bonus-for-newcar-buyers-20091120-iqjy.html
> Which means local builders become
>non exsistent, and we are forced to import, and imperters can then charge
>whatever they choose.
Importers can charge whatever they want, but we don't have to pay it because the market is now competitive is there are no restrictions we get the choice of the cheapest cars around. The contrary is the problem, ie where we protect our own non viable automobile industry to such an extent (eg 1984 where the import duties were ~57.4%) that no one else can be competitive, and the local manufacturer can charge what they want and we have NO choice but to pay it because the competitively priced cars that are made oversea's can't be imported!
>If tariffs were increased significantly, we would initially pay more for
>imported gear, until companies started to produce the gear locally again,
>at a competitive price. Our desire to have cheaper imports is our undoing
>in the long run.
Or, as is far more likely the case, local people won't be able to manufacture climbing gear (or cars) to our satisfaction and we'd just have to pay outrageous prices for inferior products. All of this ignores the march of global markets, and if you really think you can stick your head in the sand and just up tarrifs to support some mythical aussie company that is making better goods at better prices (which if they were, then why do they need protection of the tarrifs in the first place?), then you have a very different opinion then me.
|
25-May-2011 12:40:16 PM
|
at one stage when there was a tarriff (up to $50 a pair) on all footwear, importers wanted climbing boots exempted as there was a small market and nobody made climbing boots in australia anyway . This was opposed by Blundstone as they claimed they could make climbing boots and it was an important market for them . Blundstone now manufacture all their boots overseas but advertise their product as ' great aussie boots " They never made a climbing boot ot even attempted to make one
|
27-May-2011 10:32:03 AM
|
On 24/05/2011 micko wrote:
>Chockstone should ask for copyright on its threads. The article is almost
>a direct copy of this thread. Just search replace the climbing gear for
>jeans and shoes.
or http://www.smh.com.au/business/aussies-ripped-off-by-retailers-choice-20110527-1f72l.html
|
27-May-2011 11:00:59 AM
|
Saw that article and figured it was only a matter of time before it reached this thread!
|
27-May-2011 12:35:18 PM
|
CHOICE weighs in on retail inquiry
http://www.choice.com.au/media-and-news/consumer-news/news/retail-inquiry-submission.aspx
|
27-May-2011 9:56:08 PM
|
On 24/05/2011 Eduardo Slabofvic. wrote:
>The answer is blindingly obvious, you all need to become independently
>wealth to the extent that money loses its meaning and you can buy whatever
>you want whenever you want. Alternatively, you can become so poverty that
>each day is a struggle to survive, so partaking in frivolous activities
>(like climbing or other outdoor pursuits) is completely out of the question.
> I have chose the first option for myself.
Woo hoo! ES knocked up his 2,000th Chocky post with this good philosophy one, ~> another Chockstone milestone reached...
I agree ES, oh, andeezajollygoodposteretc(who'sgotsimeyplayingcatchupnow).heh,heh,heh!
Foreezajollygoodfellowetc!
|