Wait until you see what the Democrats are going to do ;-)

Probably return us to a business climate like the 8 years prior to the
current administration: budget surplus, markets booming, everyone making $$$.


Oh, and a foreign policy where everyone except Britain doesn't hate us or try
to kill us.

Can't wait...

Unless the current emperor burns our house to the ground before we get to the
election...
AB

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:47:32 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Omigawd! It's raining! And it's only 68°F :-(

What are you a frigg in' valley girl now?

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:08:53 GMT, Anon bozo wrote:

Wait until you see what the Democrats are going to do ;-)

Probably return us to a business climate like the 8 years prior to the
current administration: budget surplus, markets booming, everyone making $$$.

Isn't the market booming right now? All the *competent* people I know
are making good money ;-)

Actually, a downturn is good for me... when the Dems get in and the
layoffs start the demand for consultants/contract-design-houses goes
*way* up.



Oh, and a foreign policy where everyone except Britain doesn't hate us or try
to kill us.

Can't wait...

until we have to observe Islamic holidays.


Unless the current emperor burns our house to the ground before we get to the
election...
AB

Liberals = Cowards all

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:00:04 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:08:53 GMT, Anon bozo wrote:

Wait until you see what the Democrats are going to do ;-)

Probably return us to a business climate like the 8 years prior to the
current administration: budget surplus, markets booming, everyone making $$$.


Followed by a trillion dollars of losses and a spike of unemployment
as the bubble burst, beginning late '99. The only thing that remains
from the .com bubble and corporate scandals is the ratcheted up
government spending, which never ratchets down.

You forgot the expansion of the volume of law, which never contracts.
Every scandal and scare results in a new flurry of legislation, most of
which acts to burn more holes in the Bill of Rights without really
making us significantly safer. Was it Samuel Johnson who said "There is
not a man here who has not committed at least one act for which he could
lawfully be hanged"? The number of ways to get oneself lawfully hanged is
a lot smaller now than it was then, but the number of things for which one
can be fined or imprisoned is vastly greater. *Nobody* has read the
entire United States Code; there's too damn much of it. We all go on,
committing various offenses without ever becoming aware of it. Most of us
won't be arrested, because we're not worth (in terms of publicity, career
points or cash rewards) the effort for the enforcers, but making everybody
guilty of something is the second-oldest tyrant's trick in the book.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:33:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Liberals = Cowards all


I'd rather be a weenie than a psychopathic killer.

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:08:53 GMT, Anon bozo wrote:

Wait until you see what the Democrats are going to do ;-)

Probably return us to a business climate like the 8 years prior to the
current administration: budget surplus, markets booming, everyone making $$$.


Followed by a trillion dollars of losses and a spike of unemployment
as the bubble burst, beginning late '99. The only thing that remains
from the .com bubble and corporate scandals is the ratcheted up
government spending, which never ratchets down.

The $$$ were often illusory, but you have to pay income taxes even on
illusory $$$.

John

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:33:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
Liberals = Cowards all


I'd rather be a weenie than a psychopathic killer.

You're in luck, your wish has been granted!

-Chuck

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:44:27 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:19:31 -0400, "Stephen J. Rush"

won't be arrested, because we're not worth (in terms of publicity,
career points or cash rewards) the effort for the enforcers, but making
everybody guilty of something is the second-oldest tyrant's trick in the
book.

Another reason to never go public:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

It's too bad there's nobody in the country with the balls to put this
kind of restrictions on Da Gubmint.

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:19:31 -0400, "Stephen J. Rush"
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:00:04 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:08:53 GMT, Anon bozo wrote:

Wait until you see what the Democrats are going to do ;-)

Probably return us to a business climate like the 8 years prior to the
current administration: budget surplus, markets booming, everyone making $$$.


Followed by a trillion dollars of losses and a spike of unemployment
as the bubble burst, beginning late '99. The only thing that remains
from the .com bubble and corporate scandals is the ratcheted up
government spending, which never ratchets down.

You forgot the expansion of the volume of law, which never contracts.
Every scandal and scare results in a new flurry of legislation, most of
which acts to burn more holes in the Bill of Rights without really
making us significantly safer. Was it Samuel Johnson who said "There is
not a man here who has not committed at least one act for which he could
lawfully be hanged"? The number of ways to get oneself lawfully hanged is
a lot smaller now than it was then, but the number of things for which one
can be fined or imprisoned is vastly greater. *Nobody* has read the
entire United States Code; there's too damn much of it. We all go on,
committing various offenses without ever becoming aware of it. Most of us
won't be arrested, because we're not worth (in terms of publicity, career
points or cash rewards) the effort for the enforcers, but making everybody
guilty of something is the second-oldest tyrant's trick in the book.


Another reason to never go public:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

John

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:19:31 -0400, "Stephen J. Rush"
wrote:


On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:00:04 -0800, John Larkin wrote:


On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:08:53 GMT, Anon bozo wrote:


Wait until you see what the Democrats are going to do ;-)

Probably return us to a business climate like the 8 years prior to the
current administration: budget surplus, markets booming, everyone making $$$.


Followed by a trillion dollars of losses and a spike of unemployment
as the bubble burst, beginning late '99. The only thing that remains
from the .com bubble and corporate scandals is the ratcheted up
government spending, which never ratchets down.

You forgot the expansion of the volume of law, which never contracts.
Every scandal and scare results in a new flurry of legislation, most of
which acts to burn more holes in the Bill of Rights without really
making us significantly safer. Was it Samuel Johnson who said "There is
not a man here who has not committed at least one act for which he could
lawfully be hanged"? The number of ways to get oneself lawfully hanged is
a lot smaller now than it was then, but the number of things for which one
can be fined or imprisoned is vastly greater. *Nobody* has read the
entire United States Code; there's too damn much of it. We all go on,
committing various offenses without ever becoming aware of it. Most of us
won't be arrested, because we're not worth (in terms of publicity, career
points or cash rewards) the effort for the enforcers, but making everybody
guilty of something is the second-oldest tyrant's trick in the book.



Another reason to never go public:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act


Which is why one of the VCs recently said that it can be advantageous to
go public on a foreign stock exchange where there is no SOX.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:44:27 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:19:31 -0400, "Stephen J. Rush"

won't be arrested, because we're not worth (in terms of publicity,
career points or cash rewards) the effort for the enforcers, but making
everybody guilty of something is the second-oldest tyrant's trick in the
book.
Another reason to never go public:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

It's too bad there's nobody in the country with the balls to put this
kind of restrictions on Da Gubmint.

It would require a major change to the constitution, something that
hasn't happened on quite a few years.

But seriously, Sarbanes/Oxley has caused small businesses to needlessly
spend millions of dollars trying to conform with the act. I think there
are better ways they could spend their money.

Sarbanes is one of our Congress Critters in Maryland. He hasn't done
a thing worth doing in all the years he represented Maryland. Glad to
see that the one time he gains national recognition it is for a turd
like this act.

-Chuck

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:18:48 GMT, Joerg
wrote:

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:23:11 -0800, Joerg
wrote:


Does anyone know a nice tropical island where
living is safe, not too expensive, somewhat English-speaking and
served by Fedex?


Australia has all those benefits and it is an island albeit an
'island
continent'.


Yeah, but what I heard from engineers there the authorities are
behaving rather destructive to small business. Exorbitant import
tariffs and so on. A socialistic trend ain't my cuppa tea. Small
business is the foundation of innovation and a region's well-being
and I expect politicians to understand that ;-)

So I should add to the list: Good biz climate, conservative gvt.

I somehow think that your description of the conservative
Liberal/National Party federal government as "socialistic" would not
go down too well with John Howard, who is totally in bed with your
republican George W Bush. I think you have not been keeping up with
the news because the trend in Australian federal governments over the
past 15 years or so is definitely NOT towards solialistic ideals -
rather the opposite even for the Labour side of politics.

The traditionally so-called "socialist" side of politics here is the
domain of the Australian Labour Party which has been on the opposition
benches federally for over 10 years now. In contrast to the Liberal
(ie. conservative) federal government, all 6 states have Labour
governments and they seem to govern in a manner not unlike the
"conservative" side of politics. These days, there is little to
separate the policies of both the so-called "conservative" and
"socialist" side of politics in this country.

Small business the world over is always crying out for a better deal
from governments of all persuasions and it will criticise no matter
how good things are. The fact is that in AUstralia non-farm sector
private companies having fewer than 100 employees accounts for around
47% (as at 1995) of Australia's total workforce.

http://www.pc.gov.au/ic/research/inf...s/smallbus.pdf

This seems to indicate that small business isn't travelling too badly
here and this figure is higher even than USA in the same period
according to the above link. I doubt that the situation has worsened
in the last 12 years considering John Howard's Work Choices
legislation introduced only last year. This gives the employer the
ultimate right to hire on his own terms and to fire without giving any
reasons. There is almost no protection for the individual worker now
and union negotiated employment conditions have al but disappeared. A
poll taken this week shows that 67% of workers are against the new
Work Choices legislation.

Now if you want to talk about protectionism, then it is hard to go
past the USA in terms of cross-subsidies to the American farm sector
which prevents Australia gaining access to the US markets for its
efficiently produced farm products. And then there is the matter of
the USA not allowing privately owned luxury vessels which are not
built in the USA to home port over there so our manufacturers can't
gain access to US customers. In order for an Australian owned and
based ship builder to bid for a USN contract (Littoral Combat Ship)
they have been forced to set up a manufacturing facility over there.
http://www.austal.com/
I doubt the same condition would apply in reverse. We can't be doing
things too badly here if our small nation can compete with US
manufacturers and beat them at their own game.

In terms of import tariffs Australia has virtually led the rest of the
world in reducing these in recent years and is continually battling
against Europe, USA and Japan to match them. For example motor vehicle
imports currently have a tariff of 10% soon to be reduced to 7%, and
in a country of only 22M people trying to support a viable vehicle
manufacturing industry (Ford, GMH and Mitsubishi) is pretty tough
without some protection against cheap imports from Asia and elsewhere.
You can do your bit to help Australia by buying an Australian designed
and built Pontiac G8 - 30,000 of them will be in your showrooms in the
coming year.
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...ID=29015&vf=22
http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web...3!OpenDocument

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:29:29 +0000, Ross Herbert wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:18:48 GMT, Joerg
Ross Herbert wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:23:11 -0800, Joerg

Does anyone know a nice tropical island where
living is safe, not too expensive, somewhat English-speaking and
served by Fedex?

Australia has all those benefits and it is an island albeit an
'island
continent'.

Yeah, but what I heard from engineers there the authorities are
behaving rather destructive to small business. Exorbitant import
tariffs and so on. A socialistic trend ain't my cuppa tea. Small
business is the foundation of innovation and a region's well-being
and I expect politicians to understand that ;-)

So I should add to the list: Good biz climate, conservative gvt.

I somehow think that your description of the conservative
Liberal/National Party federal government as "socialistic" would not
go down too well with John Howard, who is totally in bed with your
republican George W Bush.

Just plain "socialist" doesn't characterize them with the right level of
granularity.

There are the "People's socialists", who want to take your money away
to pay the poor people's bills, and the "National socialists", who
want to take your money away to pay the rich people's bills.

Interestingly, the German acronym for "National socialist" is NAZI.

Cheers!
Rich

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:18:48 GMT, Joerg
wrote:


Ross Herbert wrote:


On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:23:11 -0800, Joerg
wrote:



Does anyone know a nice tropical island where
living is safe, not too expensive, somewhat English-speaking and
served by Fedex?


Australia has all those benefits and it is an island albeit an

'island

continent'.


Yeah, but what I heard from engineers there the authorities are
behaving rather destructive to small business. Exorbitant import
tariffs and so on. A socialistic trend ain't my cuppa tea. Small
business is the foundation of innovation and a region's well-being
and I expect politicians to understand that ;-)

So I should add to the list: Good biz climate, conservative gvt.


I somehow think that your description of the conservative
Liberal/National Party federal government as "socialistic" would not
go down too well with John Howard, who is totally in bed with your
republican George W Bush. I think you have not been keeping up with
the news because the trend in Australian federal governments over the
past 15 years or so is definitely NOT towards solialistic ideals -
rather the opposite even for the Labour side of politics.

The traditionally so-called "socialist" side of politics here is the
domain of the Australian Labour Party which has been on the opposition
benches federally for over 10 years now. In contrast to the Liberal
(ie. conservative) federal government, all 6 states have Labour
governments and they seem to govern in a manner not unlike the
"conservative" side of politics. These days, there is little to
separate the policies of both the so-called "conservative" and
"socialist" side of politics in this country.

Small business the world over is always crying out for a better deal
from governments of all persuasions and it will criticise no matter
how good things are. The fact is that in AUstralia non-farm sector
private companies having fewer than 100 employees accounts for around
47% (as at 1995) of Australia's total workforce.

http://www.pc.gov.au/ic/research/inf...s/smallbus.pdf


But why then have many Australian engineers who are self-employed or own
small shops complained that when they order parts from the US and other
places they get socked with exorbitant tariffs? I mean, even from a
protectionist's point of view that doesn't make sense as there is no
Australian semi mfg. I am not saying it's the product of your present
administration but often such things are "conveniently" providing a
stream of revenue that nobody wants to give up anymore.


This seems to indicate that small business isn't travelling too badly
here and this figure is higher even than USA in the same period
according to the above link. I doubt that the situation has worsened
in the last 12 years considering John Howard's Work Choices
legislation introduced only last year. This gives the employer the
ultimate right to hire on his own terms and to fire without giving any
reasons. There is almost no protection for the individual worker now
and union negotiated employment conditions have al but disappeared. A
poll taken this week shows that 67% of workers are against the new
Work Choices legislation.


They should take a hard look at Eurooe, at what super-protection of
workplaces does to the industry and, in consquence, to a perceived job
security. For example, real age discrimination is rampant. That's a
whole lot better in the US.


Now if you want to talk about protectionism, then it is hard to go
past the USA in terms of cross-subsidies to the American farm sector
which prevents Australia gaining access to the US markets for its
efficiently produced farm products. And then there is the matter of
the USA not allowing privately owned luxury vessels which are not
built in the USA to home port over there so our manufacturers can't
gain access to US customers. In order for an Australian owned and
based ship builder to bid for a USN contract (Littoral Combat Ship)
they have been forced to set up a manufacturing facility over there.
http://www.austal.com/
I doubt the same condition would apply in reverse. We can't be doing
things too badly here if our small nation can compete with US
manufacturers and beat them at their own game.


For mil stuff that is normal. Any country that has the respective
industries at home will want to make sure that the supply situation in
times of conflict is maintained. Those that don't have an industry in a
particular sector won't have that luxury.

I don't know the boating world when it comes to civilian vessels but in
the aircraft biz there don't seem to be many restrictions. People fly
lots of small (and larger) aircraft made in Europe. Such as the highly
popular Cirrus. They wouldn't do so it those were prohibitively expensive.

In terms of import tariffs Australia has virtually led the rest of the
world in reducing these in recent years and is continually battling
against Europe, USA and Japan to match them. For example motor vehicle
imports currently have a tariff of 10% soon to be reduced to 7%, and
in a country of only 22M people trying to support a viable vehicle
manufacturing industry (Ford, GMH and Mitsubishi) is pretty tough
without some protection against cheap imports from Asia and elsewhere.
You can do your bit to help Australia by buying an Australian designed
and built Pontiac G8 - 30,000 of them will be in your showrooms in the
coming year.
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...ID=29015&vf=22
http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web...3!OpenDocument


Well, we are not the prime customers for those guys since my wife and I
tend to drive our vehicles for well over a decade. With a good dose of
TLC and preventive maintenance this works nicely. Both our cars are 10
years and run like new. Never failed us once. Ok, the radio in mine died
but it was still under warranty when that happened ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

But not if the winters in Northern California become longer and colder
every year.

2001: 2 cord of wood, plenty
2003: 3 cords of wood, barely made it
2006: 4 cords of wood, nearly all gone now :-(
2007: Will order at least 5 cords

Global warming? Here? Does anyone know a nice tropical island where
living is safe, not too expensive, somewhat English-speaking and served
by Fedex?


Manila!

"Lord Garth" wrote in message
. ..

Global warming? Here? Does anyone know a nice tropical island where
living is safe, not too expensive, somewhat English-speaking and served
by Fedex?


Manila!

Tropical North Queensland.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:23:24 GMT, the renowned "Homer J Simpson"
wrote:


"Lord Garth" wrote in message
...

Global warming? Here? Does anyone know a nice tropical island where
living is safe, not too expensive, somewhat English-speaking and served
by Fedex?


Manila!

Tropical North Queensland.

Cebu, Bali, Penang

http://flyasiana.com/image/news/cebu.jpg
http://www.targetwoman.com/image/bali.jpg
http://www.circleofasia.com/pictures/Guide/penang.jpg

Cuba might work except for Fedex


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:48:19 -0800, Joerg
wrote:



But why then have many Australian engineers who are self-employed or
own
small shops complained that when they order parts from the US and
other
places they get socked with exorbitant tariffs? I mean, even from a
protectionist's point of view that doesn't make sense as there is no
Australian semi mfg. I am not saying it's the product of your present
administration but often such things are "conveniently" providing a
stream of revenue that nobody wants to give up anymore.

I would agree with these concerns, if they were in fact true. However,
this is not the case.

As far as small business purchasing any goods from overseas (eg. via
internet) there is absolutely no duty or tax payable unless the value
of those goods is more than $1000, irrespective of whether there is an
Australian manufacturer.

For businesses which must import items in order to produce a product
for sale, they can apply for a Tariff Concession Order which means
that absolutely no customs duty applies as long as those items are not
available from an Australian manufacturer.
http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/re...Sys_050927.pdf


They should take a hard look at Europe, at what super-protection of
workplaces does to the industry and, in consquence, to a perceived
job security. For example, real age discrimination is rampant. That's
a whole lot better in the US.

The workplace in Europe is somewhat of a mystery, I agree. At one time
(pre mid 1990's) Australian workplaces were dominated by unions and
collective bargaining with pay and conditions determined by Awards
which spelled out every detail of what workers were paid and what
hours they worked with special rates for overtime, weekend work or
unrostered duty. That has all changed since then and workers have
virtually no rights these days. Anybody wanting a job here now has an
Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) slapped in front of them which
contains only the bare minimum of compulsory conditions determined by
gov't. There is no negotiation (despite Johnny Howard's claim that the
worker now has "choices"), and it is a case of take it or leave it. If
the boss says "jump", the worker now says "how high?"

The protectionism in Europe is well known - we have all heard about
the "wine lake" and the "butter lake" where farmers are paid to
produce goods which are then dumped - purely to maintain an impression
that their farming industry is larger than it really is. When
arguments are raised from Australia about the levels of subsidisation
of European farmers they counter by saying how many farmers would be
put out of work, even though those farmers are not effectively
contributing any marketable goods to the economy.



Now if you want to talk about protectionism, then it is hard to go
past the USA in terms of cross-subsidies to the American farm
sector
which prevents Australia gaining access to the US markets for its
efficiently produced farm products. And then there is the matter of
the USA not allowing privately owned luxury vessels which are not
built in the USA to home port over there so our manufacturers can't
gain access to US customers. In order for an Australian owned and
based ship builder to bid for a USN contract (Littoral Combat Ship)
they have been forced to set up a manufacturing facility over
there.
http://www.austal.com/
I doubt the same condition would apply in reverse. We can't be
doing
things too badly here if our small nation can compete with US
manufacturers and beat them at their own game.


For mil stuff that is normal. Any country that has the respective
industries at home will want to make sure that the supply situation
in times of conflict is maintained. Those that don't have an industry
in a particular sector won't have that luxury.

I don't know the boating world when it comes to civilian vessels but
in the aircraft biz there don't seem to be many restrictions. People
fly lots of small (and larger) aircraft made in Europe. Such as the
highly popular Cirrus. They wouldn't do so it those were
prohibitively expensive.

This is an excerpt from a 2006 Aust gov't document
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ort/report.pdf
which spells out the policy of the US with regard to foreign built
vessels.

QUOTE
2.27
The U.S. has a clearly stated and well-established protectionist
policy for their shipping industry. The Merchant Marine Act, 1920
stipulates that no merchandise shall be transported by water between
points in the United States either directly or via a foreign port in
any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws
of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the
United States.
UNQUOTE

While it is probably intended to protect USA interests with regard to
defence vessels it also applies to any other vessel. I recall a few
years back when Australian golfer Greg Norman (the Great White Shark)
wanted to homeport his Australian built luxury yacht in the USA
(because his major business interests were there), and he was
disallowed under this policy. He bought it for $70M and sold it for
$77M - not a bad profit. The shipbuilder (Austal) lost $18M on the
deal. It was when Austal were trying to raise awareness in the USA of
their capabilities with the hope of attracting orders for both
private,commercial and military vessels. They probably figured it was
good business if Greg Norman had one of their yachts homeported in the
US but obviously it backfired. Soon after they set up a facility in
Florida which then allowed them to access the local market - and hence
the LCS contract.



Well, we are not the prime customers for those guys since my wife and
I tend to drive our vehicles for well over a decade. With a good dose
of TLC and preventive maintenance this works nicely. Both our cars
are 10 years and run like new. Never failed us once. Ok, the radio in
mine died but it was still under warranty when that happened ;-)

I made the suggestion re a new Pontiac G8 with tongue firmly planted
in cheek. I also keep my own vehicles for a long time. I have just
bought a new Peugeot 307 HDi 2L turbo-diesel (I know, a foreign import
- but Australia doesn't build small cars) but kept my old 1993 Mazda
626 2.5L V6 as a backup. It drips a spot of oil occasionally but
otherwise it is still in good nick after 14 years. It would cost a
fortune to drop the motor/transmission out just to fix the oil drip so
I won't bother with doing that.

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:48:19 -0800, Joerg
wrote:



But why then have many Australian engineers who are self-employed or

own

small shops complained that when they order parts from the US and

other

places they get socked with exorbitant tariffs? I mean, even from a
protectionist's point of view that doesn't make sense as there is no
Australian semi mfg. I am not saying it's the product of your present
administration but often such things are "conveniently" providing a
stream of revenue that nobody wants to give up anymore.


I would agree with these concerns, if they were in fact true. However,
this is not the case.


Maybe you are right. This letter indicates that the really bad stuff may
have been remedied by now:
http://www.aeema.asn.au/ArticleDocum...cheme%2008.pdf

But as I wrote I had numerous AU engineers tell me that it has really
crippled their biz.


As far as small business purchasing any goods from overseas (eg. via
internet) there is absolutely no duty or tax payable unless the value
of those goods is more than $1000, irrespective of whether there is an
Australian manufacturer.

For businesses which must import items in order to produce a product
for sale, they can apply for a Tariff Concession Order which means
that absolutely no customs duty applies as long as those items are not
available from an Australian manufacturer.
http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/re...Sys_050927.pdf


They should take a hard look at Europe, at what super-protection of
workplaces does to the industry and, in consquence, to a perceived
job security. For example, real age discrimination is rampant. That's
a whole lot better in the US.


The workplace in Europe is somewhat of a mystery, I agree. At one time
(pre mid 1990's) Australian workplaces were dominated by unions and
collective bargaining with pay and conditions determined by Awards
which spelled out every detail of what workers were paid and what
hours they worked with special rates for overtime, weekend work or
unrostered duty. That has all changed since then and workers have
virtually no rights these days. Anybody wanting a job here now has an
Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) slapped in front of them which
contains only the bare minimum of compulsory conditions determined by
gov't. There is no negotiation (despite Johnny Howard's claim that the
worker now has "choices"), and it is a case of take it or leave it. If
the boss says "jump", the worker now says "how high?"


In the US you typically don't get a contract at all.


The protectionism in Europe is well known - we have all heard about
the "wine lake" and the "butter lake" where farmers are paid to
produce goods which are then dumped - purely to maintain an impression
that their farming industry is larger than it really is. When
arguments are raised from Australia about the levels of subsidisation
of European farmers they counter by saying how many farmers would be
put out of work, even though those farmers are not effectively
contributing any marketable goods to the economy.


That is indeed quite pathetic.


Now if you want to talk about protectionism, then it is hard to go
past the USA in terms of cross-subsidies to the American farm

sector

which prevents Australia gaining access to the US markets for its
efficiently produced farm products. And then there is the matter of
the USA not allowing privately owned luxury vessels which are not
built in the USA to home port over there so our manufacturers can't
gain access to US customers. In order for an Australian owned and
based ship builder to bid for a USN contract (Littoral Combat Ship)
they have been forced to set up a manufacturing facility over

there.

http://www.austal.com/
I doubt the same condition would apply in reverse. We can't be

doing

things too badly here if our small nation can compete with US
manufacturers and beat them at their own game.


For mil stuff that is normal. Any country that has the respective
industries at home will want to make sure that the supply situation
in times of conflict is maintained. Those that don't have an industry
in a particular sector won't have that luxury.

I don't know the boating world when it comes to civilian vessels but
in the aircraft biz there don't seem to be many restrictions. People
fly lots of small (and larger) aircraft made in Europe. Such as the
highly popular Cirrus. They wouldn't do so it those were
prohibitively expensive.


This is an excerpt from a 2006 Aust gov't document
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ort/report.pdf
which spells out the policy of the US with regard to foreign built
vessels.

QUOTE
2.27
The U.S. has a clearly stated and well-established protectionist
policy for their shipping industry. The Merchant Marine Act, 1920
stipulates that no merchandise shall be transported by water between
points in the United States either directly or via a foreign port in
any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws
of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the
United States.
UNQUOTE

While it is probably intended to protect USA interests with regard to
defence vessels it also applies to any other vessel. I recall a few
years back when Australian golfer Greg Norman (the Great White Shark)
wanted to homeport his Australian built luxury yacht in the USA
(because his major business interests were there), and he was
disallowed under this policy. He bought it for $70M and sold it for
$77M - not a bad profit. The shipbuilder (Austal) lost $18M on the
deal. It was when Austal were trying to raise awareness in the USA of
their capabilities with the hope of attracting orders for both
private,commercial and military vessels. They probably figured it was
good business if Greg Norman had one of their yachts homeported in the
US but obviously it backfired. Soon after they set up a facility in
Florida which then allowed them to access the local market - and hence
the LCS contract.


Strange. The protection WRT shipping from one internal port to another
is what most countries do. But import bans would be weird. So he was
forbidden to have that yacht moored here because it was made in
Australia? Then I really wonder why that wouldn't apply to aircraft,
cars etc.

[...]


--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:26:29 GMT, Joerg
wrote:

Strange. The protection WRT shipping from one internal port to
another is what most countries do. But import bans would be weird. So
he was forbidden to have that yacht moored here because it was made
in Australia? Then I really wonder why that wouldn't apply to
aircraft, cars etc.

I suppose that the definition of "merchandise" would have some bearing
on the application of the policy. It would be difficult for a foreign
built vessel costing $70M to travel between ports in the US while NOT
transporting goods which could be classed as "merchandise". It's a
cover-all term to eliminate competition....

Then there is the point that the vessel MUST be BUILT in the US and
OWNED by a US citizen in order to transport merchandise. Since Greg
Norman is an Australian citizen, then owning a foreign built vessel
which would be homeported in the US and would also travel between US
ports (perhaps carrying "merchandise"), would knock him or any
foreigner out on several counts. Note that the policy does not
prohibit foreign built and owned ships transporting merchandise from
overseas to the US or vice versa, it only prohibits them from
transporting merchandise "between" US ports.

Possibly the reason it doesn't apply to aircraft was that these
machines were not all that common back in the early 1900's and were
probably never ever perceived as being possible of carrying
merchandise. Cars were probably classified in a similar category.
Since all world trade was carried by ship at that time, the US
maritime planners were well aware of the money to be made in the
shipping game and were not about to allow foreign shipping owners into
their domain, so they dreamed up a protectionist policy to set in
concrete future profits solely for US owners. Unfortunately, the
policy still exists and appears to eliminate any competition for the
importation of any vessels manufactured outside the US.


QUOTE
2.27
The U.S. has a clearly stated and well-established protectionist
policy for their shipping industry. The Merchant Marine Act, 1920
stipulates that no merchandise shall be transported by water between
points in the United States either directly or via a foreign port in
any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws
of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the
United States.
UNQUOTE

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:26:29 GMT, Joerg
wrote:

Strange. The protection WRT shipping from one internal port to
another is what most countries do. But import bans would be weird. So
he was forbidden to have that yacht moored here because it was made
in Australia? Then I really wonder why that wouldn't apply to
aircraft, cars etc.


I suppose that the definition of "merchandise" would have some bearing
on the application of the policy. It would be difficult for a foreign
built vessel costing $70M to travel between ports in the US while NOT
transporting goods which could be classed as "merchandise". It's a
cover-all term to eliminate competition....


Nah, they just have to make sure that all bottles of Chateauneuf and
Pommery have been consumed before arriving at another port ;-)


Then there is the point that the vessel MUST be BUILT in the US and
OWNED by a US citizen in order to transport merchandise. Since Greg
Norman is an Australian citizen, then owning a foreign built vessel
which would be homeported in the US and would also travel between US
ports (perhaps carrying "merchandise"), would knock him or any
foreigner out on several counts. Note that the policy does not
prohibit foreign built and owned ships transporting merchandise from
overseas to the US or vice versa, it only prohibits them from
transporting merchandise "between" US ports.


Almost all countries do that. I don't know about Australia but I guess
they wouldn't allow American Airlines to ferry cargo or passengers
between Sydney and Adelaide either. Typically they could land there and
even continue but not take on additional payload originating inside the
country if that payload has an inbound destination.


Possibly the reason it doesn't apply to aircraft was that these
machines were not all that common back in the early 1900's and were
probably never ever perceived as being possible of carrying
merchandise. Cars were probably classified in a similar category.
Since all world trade was carried by ship at that time, the US
maritime planners were well aware of the money to be made in the
shipping game and were not about to allow foreign shipping owners into
their domain, so they dreamed up a protectionist policy to set in
concrete future profits solely for US owners. Unfortunately, the
policy still exists and appears to eliminate any competition for the
importation of any vessels manufactured outside the US.


QUOTE
2.27
The U.S. has a clearly stated and well-established protectionist
policy for their shipping industry. The Merchant Marine Act, 1920
stipulates that no merchandise shall be transported by water between
points in the United States either directly or via a foreign port in
any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws
of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the
United States.
UNQUOTE


My guess is that something must have miffed the authorities. I can't
imagine them enforcing that to the last letter. In fact, I knew a family
in Seattle who had a rather large sailboat moored there that was built
in Canada. No problems. You just have to make sure that you pay the use
tax properly (usually equal to the sales tax), just like everyone else
has to. There are folks who try to dodge that tax via some tricks and
that can raise the ire of the laws. But I have no idea what happened in
this case and why.

Also, they did have other means of transportation back then. For
example, numerous steam locomotives where imported into the US from the
UK and from Germany. They remained in service for a long time, hauling
all kinds of merchandise and people around.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com