End of the line for Vauxhall if the government refuse to bail them out.

chopperharris

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

NO



WE HAD THIS


http://www.mgcars.org.uk/runnymede-mgoc/mgpitfiles/sef/milestones/mgf1012.JPG

How soon people forget...

We still do have them , and you can buy them newly made in the uk but from a chinese company.One of the last cars mg sport worked on is also still being produced in very limited numbers by a british company.see pic

lukekelly_2

scooter100 wrote: »

If it has no relevance then whats the point of saying it.

It was a hypothetical situation created to make it easier to illustrate a point. Neither I nor you know the average price of a manufacture of a car produced in the UK or elsewhere. We also don't know the effective subsidy provided by different governments nor do we know an exact quantification of the effects of different tax regimes on manufacturing costs. In the absence of such exact figures we could, as you appear keen to do, debate nothing and instead merely write angrily. Or we could accept this and use hypothetical, but not entirely absurd, scenarios to make debating general principles -- such as whether subsidising industry is a good idea -- easier.

As I said before, if it makes you happier divide those hypothetical numbers by 10 when you read that post. Then, hopefully, you'll be able to address the serious point: it'd be better to give that money to all firms and let the market decide which are most deserving than have the government decide to give substantial sums of money to a single firm at the cost of higher taxation across the board.

This is like someone posting a question on the Mortgages & Endowments board asking for mortgage deal advice. When they don't give the size of their mortgage, as they often don't, it's impossible to compare exactly how good different interest rates and fee levels are for them. So we use hypothetical scenarios to illustrate general points about the various options: "If your mortgage is substantial, say it's £200,000, then of those two deals the one with the higher fee and lower interest rate will be better for you over a 5 year period." Such a statement is not wrong if the hypothesis does not hold because the object is not to give exactly a correct hypothesis, only to give a hypothesis plausible enough to aid the exposition of an argument. The conclusion is the thing.

scooter100_2

lukekelly wrote: »

Neither I nor you know the average price of a manufacture of a car produced in the UK or elsewhere.

You might not know what it costs to manufacture a car but i know on a quarterly basis exactly how much its costs to produce a car in each of GMs European factories.If you are going to hypothosize on the difference in costs to manufacture a car in different locations then at least use figures that are credible.As already stated the figures you used were ludicrously wrong.If the UK plants have a cost advantage over the Euopean plants then dont you think it would be sensible to manufacture the cars here?You are perfectly entitles to your opinion over where our tax pounds are spent as am i.I happen to think that manufacturing in this country matters because when its all finally gone then this country will be truely bankrupt.If you dont produce anything then you cant pay your bills to buy anything its as simple as that.
This Government spends circa £150 billion per annum to keep 8 million people economically inactive whilst the the budget for the Dept of Trade (and the support therefore of 28 million workers) or whatever it calls itself these days is about £8 billion.That is a crime.

Cannon_Fodder

Don't bother Luke, he just can't see your point...

lukekelly_2

Cheers Cannon Fodder. Will give it one last go though!

scooter100: You still appear to be obsessed with individual numbers and completely unconcerned by the important general argument to be had. If it makes you happier you can pretend that my original post used the numbers that you believe to be correct. Once you have done that could you please address the substance of my post instead of getting worked up about a didactic device.

I'd agree that you'd be bankrupt if you can't do anything (produce if you prefer) that others are willing to pay for. It doesn't matter what people pay you for though, as long as you can find something they will pay for. The money Rolls Royce gets for the services it provides is as real as the money it gets for creating physical objects. If though by produce you mean manufacture then your statement is entirely wrong. Microsoft for example demonstrate you can manufacture absolutely nothing and be not bankrupt but stinking rich. There is an advantage in having a reasonable manufacturing sector in that it reduces the over-reliance of the UK economy on any individual sector. And, as any investor or provider of folk wisdom knows, having all your eggs in one basket can result in a steep decline in one sector having a huge affect on government revenue. The solution to this though is to shift some taxation from manufacturing (say by reducing the cost of capital expenditure or a labour related tax) to financial services (corporation tax being one possible target for raising here). There is a cost to this, specialisation carries benefits of its own, so a balance must be struck. The solution is absolutely not though to subsidise individual firms or particular areas like car manufacturing.

And on one specific point you made, if cars can be manufactured more cheaply here than elsewhere than companies will do so because they will make more money. You don't need government help for this to be the case. Of course the figures you are looking at, which presumably don't take into account taxation regimes and subsidies, are pretty meaningless when comparing costs of production between countries. There are many products that I could buy online in the US that would be cheaper if you didn't take into account the duty that would have to be paid, but for obvious reasons I compare the cost after everything has been taken into account not before it. But if, after taking into account all relevant costs, cars can be produced here more cheaply than elsewhere then cars will be manufactured here.

scooter100_2

lukekelly wrote: »

Cheers Cannon Fodder. Will give it one last go though!

scooter100: You still appear to be obsessed with individual numbers and completely unconcerned by the important general argument to be had. If it makes you happier you can pretend that my original post used the numbers that you believe to be correct. Once you have done that could you please address the substance of my post instead of getting worked up about a didactic device.

I'd agree that you'd be bankrupt if you can't do anything (produce if you prefer) that others are willing to pay for. It doesn't matter what people pay you for though, as long as you can find something they will pay for. The money Rolls Royce gets for the services it provides is as real as the money it gets for creating physical objects. If though by produce you mean manufacture then your statement is entirely wrong. Microsoft for example demonstrate you can manufacture absolutely nothing and be not bankrupt but stinking rich. There is an advantage in having a reasonable manufacturing sector in that it reduces the over-reliance of the UK economy on any individual sector. And, as any investor or provider of folk wisdom knows, having all your eggs in one basket can result in a steep decline in one sector having a huge affect on government revenue. The solution to this though is to shift some taxation from manufacturing (say by reducing the cost of capital expenditure or a labour related tax) to financial services (corporation tax being one possible target for raising here). There is a cost to this, specialisation carries benefits of its own, so a balance must be struck. The solution is absolutely not though to subsidise individual firms or particular areas like car manufacturing.

And on one specific point you made, if cars can be manufactured more cheaply here than elsewhere than companies will do so because they will make more money. You don't need government help for this to be the case. Of course the figures you are looking at, which presumably don't take into account taxation regimes and subsidies, are pretty meaningless when comparing costs of production between countries. There are many products that I could buy online in the US that would be cheaper if you didn't take into account the duty that would have to be paid, but for obvious reasons I compare the cost after everything has been taken into account not before it. But if, after taking into account all relevant costs, cars can be produced here more cheaply than elsewhere then cars will be manufactured here.

You mention Rolls Royce which is an interesting choice considering that they were bailed out by the Government in 1971 which if they hadnt been nationalised ,then they wouldnt exist now.If it was good enough for the Government to provide support at that time then its good enough now to support strategically important manufacturing sectors.

ChiefGrasscutter

Rolls Royce was indeed nationalised in 1971.
The reason it effectively went bust was the development costs spiraled on the aero engine the RB2-11
As a supplier of gas turbine engines to the defence sector it was clearly of national strategic importance
The car side was sold off as I recall, and then Rolls Royce, now an aero and power generation gas turbine only manufacturer was privatised - possibly in the 1980's
The RB2-11 engine has been a great success story.
Possibly the only example of a successful HMG intervention.

It is also interesting to note that the C.Exec of Rolls is an ex merchant banker. I'm sure he has as many engineering qualifications as the bankers running BoS and HBOS etc have banking qualifications.

StevieJ

chopperharris wrote: »

Beware the return of the lada , if it wasnt for the emmissions problem from the old tech in those cars they would still be the cheapest option on the road in the uk.Its going to be a dark time for car lovers over the next decade , its back to vanilla , the vavavoom will have to gogogo.Makers will ride a model til it dies old old age.

As long as it has heated rear windows to make the pushing a little easier

chopperharris

StevieJ wrote: »

As long as it has heated rear windows to make the pushing a little easier

its easy to laugh but you can still buy them new for 4500us in russia , and in these uncertain money times everyone cuts back.Now if they have sorted the emmisions problem , then thats a 5 seater car (see tank)sold in the uk for 4999 quid.Whether it is bought though is another question entirely.



To think out the box here makes you wonder if our govt has any plans on using them solely as mobilty cars for 5 year contracts.I think everyone remembers the old days of the blue sheds.....perhaps history will repeat itself , this ones already got the paint on it.

chopperharris

I thought I would do a little quick research on the price of uk cars.I think it contributes as not being off topic as price of cars is relative to a manufacturers possible closure.

I want to reflect the home country of the manufacturer itselfs price v's the uk one for the same model , but this may not always be the actual country of manufacture though as they can be made elsewher and not even in the eu at all for an eu company.The cheapest cars offered are...


Fiat panda £5995 - italy 8830 euros
pug 106 £6695 now replaced by 107 in france price unavailable
citroen c1 £6295 - 9000 euros in france
twingo £6,995.00 - french price 7990 euros
vauxhall agila 7925 - opel agila in germany 9990 euros


Now if you take the current exchange rate for euros for your quid.

the panda is 6,692.71e , which is a big difference to what the italians are paying.

the c1 is 7,027.63e , nearly 770 euros cheaper here than there.

twingo 7,809.10 , nearly the same price.

agila 8,847.33 , almost identical to german price.

So on the surface the prices are stacking well based on the micro car sector , so much for the large increase in price for model changes for lhd to rhd.

Sure there will be some wiggle room with different prices in the eu , some cheaper , some more expensive.For example in portugal with their car sales tax heavilly applied to even used cars , a 3 year old car is the same price as a new one in the uk.

NOTE-chevy matiz is still the cheapest available car at £5595 in the uk new.

Lastly if the inidans are coming then in india you can buy a new car for £1500 , yes that a one , a five , and only two zeros.But to give realism to that figure most folk still cant afford it.

Heres a tata nano below , the £1500 quid car.It looks like someone just squashed a chevy matiz.Importantly it doesnt meet eu standards , and there is no plans for eu sales.