-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Tell that to the American Government - or the Japanese or any other - they buy their own country first and if that is not available they then buy from overseas - why do other governments do this - because they know that a dollar spent with a company from their own country stays in the country and goes around in its economy.
Whereas a dollar spent on a foreign company only part of it stays in the country the majority of it goes overseas rarely to be seen again.
Singtel will run their Australian network from somewhere in Asia and the profits will go into building a better Singapore - not Australia
Watch the government scream when Telstra has to lay staff off when the its revenues decrease as the overseas telcos raid our market and the Telstra share returns aren't as good as they should be.
Just try setting up a telco business or raid the US telco market - bad luck buddy we only support American companies
And the real dupe hear is that the government sold their share of telstra to Australian VOTERS and now no longer supports the Australian brand.
By the way the Government makes up for 38% of the Australian ICT market revenue - that is a very big slice of the market.
You would think that Australian Voter's Taxes woud be spent on Australian product - to help maintain jobs and Australian Industry and Economy.
Whereas a dollar spent on a foreign company only part of it stays in the country the majority of it goes overseas rarely to be seen again.
Singtel will run their Australian network from somewhere in Asia and the profits will go into building a better Singapore - not Australia
Watch the government scream when Telstra has to lay staff off when the its revenues decrease as the overseas telcos raid our market and the Telstra share returns aren't as good as they should be.
Just try setting up a telco business or raid the US telco market - bad luck buddy we only support American companies
And the real dupe hear is that the government sold their share of telstra to Australian VOTERS and now no longer supports the Australian brand.
By the way the Government makes up for 38% of the Australian ICT market revenue - that is a very big slice of the market.
You would think that Australian Voter's Taxes woud be spent on Australian product - to help maintain jobs and Australian Industry and Economy.
so by this I assume you want Australian meat, dairy, grain, wine, and fruit/veg exports to stop because they take away jobs of farmers in other lands? You cannot have it one way and not the other Remote.
Also I HAVE bid for and won US Govt business, so its wrong to say we are excluded from it.
Also I HAVE bid for and won US Govt business, so its wrong to say we are excluded from it.
rt, your heart is in the right place, but your protest reads a little xenophobic. It shouldn't be the government's place to prop up Australian businesses, it is the government's job to provide the best service to taxpayers. If the government finds a foreign company will provide a better service, it would be ultimately counterproductive of them to take up a second rate service simply because it was Australian.
Many Australian businesses are doing well in foreign markets. Just ask Macquarie Bank.
I'm not convinced by the government's broadband plan myself, I simply think the government would be remiss if it put supporting Australian companies ahead of providing the best service. Ultimately the hands-on work will provide Australian jobs and a world-class broadband network will be of benefit to current and future Australian companies.
As for 'mum and dad' investors, why should they be treated any differently to other investors? Once you get into the market you are at the mercy of the market.
Many Australian businesses are doing well in foreign markets. Just ask Macquarie Bank.
I'm not convinced by the government's broadband plan myself, I simply think the government would be remiss if it put supporting Australian companies ahead of providing the best service. Ultimately the hands-on work will provide Australian jobs and a world-class broadband network will be of benefit to current and future Australian companies.
As for 'mum and dad' investors, why should they be treated any differently to other investors? Once you get into the market you are at the mercy of the market.
On a side note, Telstra is unsurprisingly vocal in its endorsement of the Labor plan and its disdain for the federal government plan. It will be interesting to see how far Telstra goes down this path, it has made the veiled threat of attempting to influence the votes of its shareholders and customers before.
mld said:
It is enthralling and fascinating watching the big boys play chess for big stakes............
eight ace said:
Why?
Do you want to see our telecommunications infrastructure owned by overseas interests? Or even an overseas Government?
For *smile* sake what happened to buy Australian - keep jobs in Australia - Telstra has a huge Reseach and Development Division which equals Australian owned intellectual property - all Optus and Vodafone research and development is done overseas - no Aussie IP there.
There is now talk of the largest Telco in the world Deutsche Telecom coming into our market - more profits and R&D jobs going overseas - bannana republic here we come................or...............the iron and coal pit of the world (and the iron and coal will run out one day!)
This is worse than Australian companies being purchased by overseas interests - it is crucifying an Australian Company in its own domestic market. I could really see other western countries allowing one of their own to be crucified in their domestic market - like Bell South being ousted by China Telekom or Amercan First Bank being pushed out by National Australia Bank - the American government would simply not permit it - the American people would rally to save it.
Not Australians though - we have no national pride when it comes to commercial or academic achievement - only in our sport do we stand and cheer - bloody sad. This is typical of the tall poppy theory here in Australia - I don't like you because you are a huge Australian success......
Remote,
It's like all this yap about Marty Clarke, the Irishman playing for the Magpies.
Surely, we don't need to go to Ireland to recruit players to play OUR game? ???......but if clubs feel that Clarke is better than the Aussie prospects, then it is their obligation to recruit the best player for their team, and their supporters.
It's the same with Telstra and their position/sell-off.
It's like all this yap about Marty Clarke, the Irishman playing for the Magpies.
Surely, we don't need to go to Ireland to recruit players to play OUR game? ???......but if clubs feel that Clarke is better than the Aussie prospects, then it is their obligation to recruit the best player for their team, and their supporters.
It's the same with Telstra and their position/sell-off.
Liverpool said:
So *smile* the aussie jobs the Aussie IP - just forget it because someone else produces something cheaper - maybe better maybe inferior - just sell our economic foundation down the drain - what about rising to the occassion making Australian Companies produce better more competitive products/services that allow the money to stay in Australia - allowing Australian companies to own and earn from IP. Keeping Australia working - allowing Australia to own its own infrastructure - or are we to become the next state of the USA - or province of Japan or county of England.
Strewth I find it hard to believe what the traditional conservatives on this web site are saying - What is wrong with Australian Companies owning our infrastructure? - owning IP is the very future of our country - if we continue to be flooded by overseas products to the point where we do not produce our own then our balance of trade will reflect the same as that of a pacific island nation. We will be at the mercy of the product prices foisted upon us by our overseas suppliers - our standard of living will drop dramatically because there will be many out of work.
I honestly thought you guys would support Australian made - but I am obviously wrong.................
Remote,
In a perfect world, it would be fantastic to keep Aussie companies in Australia, trust me, I would be the first to lead the march if I thought that was the best for the country......and in a perfect world, it would be.
But in REALITY, we can't expect the Government to continue to prop up and 'save' Australian companies from their losses....due to their mismanagement, being too expensive, or that our market isn't big enough for them to be viable against bigger and cheaper products flooding our market.
If Australian companies are good enough, then they will be able to stand on their own two feet in the global market....as proven by companies such as Multiplex, BHP, etc.
Regarding infrastructure, in particular.....what I have been worried about the most, is if they are 'owned' by a foreign company, then a war broke out...where would we stand then?
And in this, I agree with you Remote.
The Government should own essential services.....that being water, electricity/gas (power), transport, and communications.
In a perfect world, it would be fantastic to keep Aussie companies in Australia, trust me, I would be the first to lead the march if I thought that was the best for the country......and in a perfect world, it would be.
But in REALITY, we can't expect the Government to continue to prop up and 'save' Australian companies from their losses....due to their mismanagement, being too expensive, or that our market isn't big enough for them to be viable against bigger and cheaper products flooding our market.
If Australian companies are good enough, then they will be able to stand on their own two feet in the global market....as proven by companies such as Multiplex, BHP, etc.
Regarding infrastructure, in particular.....what I have been worried about the most, is if they are 'owned' by a foreign company, then a war broke out...where would we stand then?
And in this, I agree with you Remote.
The Government should own essential services.....that being water, electricity/gas (power), transport, and communications.
Remote , I agree with Scouser. Once the decision was made to privatise Telstra, It has to be able to be competitive with other companies. The Board of Directors should for the most part be representing their shareholders.
It's up to the government to represent Australian interests. The government believed it was in Australia's interest to privatise Telstra (and successive election victories would indicate that the majority of Australians are happy with it).
Here is an article talking about British Companies going o/s.
In praise of shopkeepers and sellers
Jun 21st 2007
From The Economist print edition
In the contrasting stories of Tesco and ICI, Britain offers a lesson to the world
NAPOLEON was wrong when he dismissed the British as a nation of shopkeepers (and hence unfit to defeat France in war). Compared with France, Britain in the 1790s already had a bigger manufacturing base, a higher income per head and hence a tax base wide enough to pay for 22 years of conflict that led to the emperor's Waterloo. Indeed, the demand for ships and munitions, created by the long war against France, boosted British industry.
Two centuries later, however, the little Corsican may have a point. This week ICI, the company that once symbolised British industry, became the target of a takeover bid from Akzo Nobel, a Dutch competitor. Meanwhile, Britain's Tesco supermarket group is boldly expanding into America and other foreign markets in a bid to overtake France's Carrefour (sorry, Monsieur l'Empereur) to become the world's second-biggest retailer behind Wal-Mart (see article). Britain has a much more open economy than America, measured by foreign trade or capital flows. Indeed, there could be no greater testimony to its health than the unsentimental ability to let one-time national champions float quietly off into another's embrace.
Imperial Chemical Industries was born on the liner Aquitania in the mid-Atlantic when four British chemical barons of the 1920s agreed to combine forces. But the company started coming apart in the 1990s. It balked at buying Glaxo to become a world-class drugs company. *smile* as predator, it became prey itself. Prodded by the threat of a hostile break-up bid from Lord Hanson, a corporate raider at the height of his powers, ICI floated off its drugs division, now AstraZeneca.
As it moved upmarket, ICI became progressively less imperial, less chemical and less industrial. It paid too much for Unilever's specialty chemicals business and struggled to pay down the debt it incurred by selling its commodity petrochemicals operations at just the wrong point in the cycle. Its giant petrochemicals complex on Teesside—once the very symbol of British manufacturing strength—was sold to some Americans and now belongs to a Saudi company.
Such sell-offs go almost without comment now in Britain. When investors from Dubai snapped up P&O, another commercial relic of the British empire, Britons shrugged, even as nationalistic opposition in America forced the Arab buyers to find someone more trustworthy to take on the ports it owned there. German and French firms have snapped up British water and electricity companies, and London's airports belong to a Spanish construction company. First the Dutch, then the Indians walked off with Britain's steel industry. The Chinese bought Rover, the rump of Britain's car industry, and shipped its machine tools back home. It may only be a matter of time before BT (conveniently, no longer called British Telecom) becomes the first “national” telecoms incumbent in foreign hands; its mobile arm has already been taken by Spain's Telefónica. Likewise BAE Systems (no longer British Aerospace) sees its future in America, perhaps in the belly of a beast named Boeing, Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin.
In most countries that would count as a litany of failure. But just as Britain led the world into industrialisation, so now Britain is leading it out. Today you can still find a few British engineers and scientists making jet engines and pharmaceuticals—and doing rather well at it. But many more are cooking up algorithms for hedge funds and investment banks—where in many cases they add more value. The economy has boomed these past 15 years, as manufacturing has been left behind and London has become the world's leading international financial centre. Britain's deficit in manufactured goods is hitting record highs. But so are the capital inflows.
All those foreign investors have brought a lot, too. Nissan's car factory in Sunderland, for instance, is one of its finest anywhere. If foreigners think they can manage British factories or finances better than the natives can, they are welcome.
www.economist.com
It's up to the government to represent Australian interests. The government believed it was in Australia's interest to privatise Telstra (and successive election victories would indicate that the majority of Australians are happy with it).
Here is an article talking about British Companies going o/s.
In praise of shopkeepers and sellers
Jun 21st 2007
From The Economist print edition
In the contrasting stories of Tesco and ICI, Britain offers a lesson to the world
NAPOLEON was wrong when he dismissed the British as a nation of shopkeepers (and hence unfit to defeat France in war). Compared with France, Britain in the 1790s already had a bigger manufacturing base, a higher income per head and hence a tax base wide enough to pay for 22 years of conflict that led to the emperor's Waterloo. Indeed, the demand for ships and munitions, created by the long war against France, boosted British industry.
Two centuries later, however, the little Corsican may have a point. This week ICI, the company that once symbolised British industry, became the target of a takeover bid from Akzo Nobel, a Dutch competitor. Meanwhile, Britain's Tesco supermarket group is boldly expanding into America and other foreign markets in a bid to overtake France's Carrefour (sorry, Monsieur l'Empereur) to become the world's second-biggest retailer behind Wal-Mart (see article). Britain has a much more open economy than America, measured by foreign trade or capital flows. Indeed, there could be no greater testimony to its health than the unsentimental ability to let one-time national champions float quietly off into another's embrace.
Imperial Chemical Industries was born on the liner Aquitania in the mid-Atlantic when four British chemical barons of the 1920s agreed to combine forces. But the company started coming apart in the 1990s. It balked at buying Glaxo to become a world-class drugs company. *smile* as predator, it became prey itself. Prodded by the threat of a hostile break-up bid from Lord Hanson, a corporate raider at the height of his powers, ICI floated off its drugs division, now AstraZeneca.
As it moved upmarket, ICI became progressively less imperial, less chemical and less industrial. It paid too much for Unilever's specialty chemicals business and struggled to pay down the debt it incurred by selling its commodity petrochemicals operations at just the wrong point in the cycle. Its giant petrochemicals complex on Teesside—once the very symbol of British manufacturing strength—was sold to some Americans and now belongs to a Saudi company.
Such sell-offs go almost without comment now in Britain. When investors from Dubai snapped up P&O, another commercial relic of the British empire, Britons shrugged, even as nationalistic opposition in America forced the Arab buyers to find someone more trustworthy to take on the ports it owned there. German and French firms have snapped up British water and electricity companies, and London's airports belong to a Spanish construction company. First the Dutch, then the Indians walked off with Britain's steel industry. The Chinese bought Rover, the rump of Britain's car industry, and shipped its machine tools back home. It may only be a matter of time before BT (conveniently, no longer called British Telecom) becomes the first “national” telecoms incumbent in foreign hands; its mobile arm has already been taken by Spain's Telefónica. Likewise BAE Systems (no longer British Aerospace) sees its future in America, perhaps in the belly of a beast named Boeing, Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin.
In most countries that would count as a litany of failure. But just as Britain led the world into industrialisation, so now Britain is leading it out. Today you can still find a few British engineers and scientists making jet engines and pharmaceuticals—and doing rather well at it. But many more are cooking up algorithms for hedge funds and investment banks—where in many cases they add more value. The economy has boomed these past 15 years, as manufacturing has been left behind and London has become the world's leading international financial centre. Britain's deficit in manufactured goods is hitting record highs. But so are the capital inflows.
All those foreign investors have brought a lot, too. Nissan's car factory in Sunderland, for instance, is one of its finest anywhere. If foreigners think they can manage British factories or finances better than the natives can, they are welcome.
www.economist.com
three things remote:
1) Whats the IP? This is a broadband system like others around the world (and to be blunt inferior), there is nothing new or special here
2) If Australian companies are inefficient why should they be supported? Telstras sole argument is "give it to us because we are Aussie", which is because even they know they are ineffient, slow, and unresponsive compared to international telecommunications companies.
3) Australia is an economy of 20 million, yet we run a high tech first world economy. What this means is we have needs for capital beyond that our own savings and investments provide. Even if the Govt intervened and directly invested more often, we simply lack the capital to do it ourselves. This means we either borrow from overseas or we get foreign investment.
You never answered my earlier question either.
To protect hard working Asian, African, European, South and North American farmers, are you prepared to support banning exports of Australian grains, dairy, fruits, veegtables, meats, and other ag products? Unless you are prepared to do this, you should stop your argument, because if we have the right to export meat, why do Singaporeans not have the right to export their telephonic technologies.
Also on the evils of foreign investment, are you prepared to see Holden, Ford, and Mitsubishi all pack up shop and leave our shores? I think you will find these three PLUS Optus and co. have reinvested a significant amount of their profits in the Australian economy. These industries are highly capital intensive, and need constant re-investment. If they were just paracites taking their money back home, their business would not last long.
1) Whats the IP? This is a broadband system like others around the world (and to be blunt inferior), there is nothing new or special here
2) If Australian companies are inefficient why should they be supported? Telstras sole argument is "give it to us because we are Aussie", which is because even they know they are ineffient, slow, and unresponsive compared to international telecommunications companies.
3) Australia is an economy of 20 million, yet we run a high tech first world economy. What this means is we have needs for capital beyond that our own savings and investments provide. Even if the Govt intervened and directly invested more often, we simply lack the capital to do it ourselves. This means we either borrow from overseas or we get foreign investment.
You never answered my earlier question either.
To protect hard working Asian, African, European, South and North American farmers, are you prepared to support banning exports of Australian grains, dairy, fruits, veegtables, meats, and other ag products? Unless you are prepared to do this, you should stop your argument, because if we have the right to export meat, why do Singaporeans not have the right to export their telephonic technologies.
Also on the evils of foreign investment, are you prepared to see Holden, Ford, and Mitsubishi all pack up shop and leave our shores? I think you will find these three PLUS Optus and co. have reinvested a significant amount of their profits in the Australian economy. These industries are highly capital intensive, and need constant re-investment. If they were just paracites taking their money back home, their business would not last long.
Tiger74 said:
I feel your question above is a tad silly -
Exporting of food to those continents by Australia should IMO compliment the needs of the importing people where there own produce is insufficent in covering those needs - I am sure the locally produced produce is far cheaper than the imported due to transport costs but unfortunately lacks the quantity to fulfil the importers total needs. In these instance the local producer is still obtaining a rightful share of his/her domestic market and has the ability to sell the total of his/her produce.
Whereas the Australian domestic telecommunications market is now wide open to all who are interested at the expense of the locally produced product - and if you think there is no IP in broadband then you are mistaken as Telstra has been able to r&d many advances - these are sold to other telcos around the world - whereas if we denude Telstra's profits it will cut back on its r&d and thus decrease our exports.
Holden, Ford, and Mitsubishi invest heavily in Australia through the manufacturing of motor vehicles and other parts here - which employs many and also creates wealth that stays in Australia. Whereas Singtel and Deutsche Telekom will not be manufacturing any product here R&D (ing) any product here all they will be doing is importing commponents setting up a network and the profits from that network will be ciphoned away from Australia.
One may argue that a network is an excellent investment in Australia but unlike the manufacturing plants of Holden, Ford, and Mitsubishi which continually produce Australian Cars and jobs and wealth which stays here - the Optus network will be a once off building event after which it will be maintained from the central management point in Singapore and cost to use it by the average Australian will be channelled to Singapore.
I daresay these are not the answers you were looking for and are most likely juxtaposed to your line of thinking - but they do hold a lot of truth IMO.
RemoteTiger said:
Firstly, most food goes to food sufficient nations, Japan is one of the few exceptions. I used to export food to the USA and EU in massive numbers, and they export to other countries (even ourselves). Its all about choice and competitive price/quality. Dont think we are doing the world any favours, everytime we export food we take a sale away from a local farmer in China, etc...
On Optus and co., their infrastructure is a communications asset our nation uses to perform more competitively, and right now our broadband infrastructure bites. This is why I am wrapped something is finally being done about it (even if it is minimal), and I frankly dont care who builds it, just as long as it gets built.
Your attitudes remind me of the Whitlam days when we used to pay people to paint rocks on the side of the road to keep unemployment down. We are in a highly competitive global economy, the days of protectionist flag waving are over. At a local level, you have the choice to buy Telstra shares and have Telstra as your provider, but I resent you wanting to force me to use them when I made a CHOICE not to buy their shares because I knew they were a management basketcase.
