Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Airfix]

You are trying to sell Ladas to BMW buyers.

No I am trying 'to sell Ladas to Lada buyers'.
I am not a pessimist.

Only a fool would ignore the fact that whilst top end goods are better, they can be expensive and unaffordable.
There is a market for products that are not top end.

There is a market for cheap cars, cheap guitars, cheap gliders (people still buy Schleicher K6's for example), cheap aeroplanes, cheap tools, cheap TVs, computers, cheap washing machines, vacuum cleaners etc.
And Sky is technically superior to Freeview but that hasn't stopped people getting Freeview boxes.

Now think back to 1982, at the time the BMW products in the world of computing were the Apple II and the IBM PC.
The presence of better products in the market didn't stop Clive Sinclair releasing the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Lots of people couldn't afford the Apple II or the IBM PC, but they could just about afford the Speccy.

Think back to the format war of VHS vs Betamax, Philips Video 2000 and Laserdisc.

VHS was the worst of the lot, but dominated the market because it was CHEAP.

If you pitch a product to the right audience, they will buy.

Not everyone can afford this kind of turbine:

Having looked into turbines more, there is an Italian company making vertical axis turbines (Darrieus Savonius DOMUS) for €300.00 so there is obviously a market for 'Ladas' despite 'BMWs'.
I don't know how well those turbines are selling in the developing world, but I wish the Italian manufacturer every success.

Even if the developing world market is already dominated by other manufacturers, there are other things we can do.
And if we can get rid of tariff barriers that would be a very positive move.

 

[abaddon]

Problem is other people are making better products that are more commercially viable. You are trying to sell Ladas to BMW buyers. This coupled with your rover and bhs stuff suggests you have absolutely zero commercial nouse. Which would explain why you think brexit might be good for the economy.

The UK has no indigenous car industry remaining. No more than a few niche marks. Even then, many of those are owned by others. Ironically, Land Rover/Range Rover/Jaguar is owned by Tata. In India. Rover/MG is owned by...China. What's left? Aston-Martin. Who cares about them? Overpriced cars which are impractical, and failure prone (BL lives on). McLaren? The roads are swimming in those, right? Vauxhall? Rebadged GM. Ford? American.
The Mini? German.

All the UK has left in the motor industry is vehicle assembly on behalf of others. And they have no control over those others. Toyota and Nissan are already making noises about vacating the UK. Every one has plants in other EU states. They can bail out of the UK easily. Although, they already largely have.

The notion that British made automobiles have some sales credibility is nonsense. Everyone know that any car made in the UK will fall apart.

 

[Airfix]

The UK has no indigenous car industry because we moved from selling to countries which did not have their own indigenous car industries and entered into a customs union with countries which often made better cars in the same price bracket and could not compete.
And we'd also started importing Toyotas and Datsuns and could not compete with those either.

BL carried on making the same model far too long, did not develop new models at the same pace as the continent, so on style and quality and price, they fell behind.

And when it came to reliability, the Triumph Stag for example, that was a beautiful machine but quite unreliable. It should have had the same V8 engine as the Rover P6, instead a rubbish Triumph engine was developed for it, for which the teething troubles were never fully resolved.

There were also industrial disputes.

I recognise that there were massive problems with BL, but I also have a sort of fondness for it, inspite of all it's faults, it was ours. I wish it could have been reformed.

 

[Jules Galen]

The UK has no indigenous car industry because we moved from selling to countries which did not have their own indigenous car industries and entered into a customs union with countries which often made better cars in the same price bracket and could not compete.
And we'd also started importing Toyotas and Datsuns and could not compete with those either.

BL carried on making the same model far too long, did not develop new models at the same pace as the continent, so on style and quality and price, they fell behind.

And when it came to reliability, the Triumph Stag for example, that was a beautiful machine but quite unreliable. It should have had the same V8 engine as the Rover P6, instead a rubbish Triumph engine was developed for it, for which the teething troubles were never fully resolved.

There were also industrial disputes.

I recognise that there were massive problems with BL, but I also have a sort of fondness for it, inspite of all it's faults, it was ours. I wish it could have been reformed.

The UK has no indeginous auto industry because they were making crap cars - for a long, long time. In the 1970's, it was all crap: Land Rover, Triumph, Jaguar - you name it (and it started being crap long before the 1970's). I mean, the first time I ever got a close-op look at the beautiful Jaguar XKE was when I was helping to put it out as it's electrical system causedit to burn to the ground. likewise, I was very dissapointed when I popped the hood of a 1960's rolls and found the same Chevrolet 6-Banger we used in the Farm Truck under it's hood.

Jesus, and I thought the US Auto-makers were a scam-ridden bunch of thieves with no pride,but compared to the British they were saints. Likewise, the Germans and the Italians put out some real crap over the years. Yeah...I've seen crap Merecedes in the 1970's: cars that cost waay too much and need to be repaired too often. And the BMWs were just over-priced dogs....with fleas. And VW...Gawd, don't get me started!

But the Japanese put a stop to that crap! Around 1990, the Lexus, the Mitsubishi 3000, and the Acura NSX were born and the German, Italian and American Automakers found some new "Religion" and started building better cars as a result. But it was too late for the UK Auto Industry....they had sunk so far into the Suck Zone that they couldn't even build Japanese designs with Japanese parts and get it right: and I give you the "Sterling" - a re-badged Acura - as the prime example.

Seriously, by 1990, the Japanese were utterly alone at the pinnacle of automobile design, luxury, performance, reliability and price. Everyone else was second rate. But they improved...except for the UK: they just died.

So...that's how it went.

Now, as far as to "Why" it got that way...that's a whole 'nuther story.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Most British engineering was ****, we only sold the stuff because we subjugated a third of the planet and forced them to buy it.

 

[Jules Galen]

Most British engineering was ****, we only sold the stuff because we subjugated a third of the planet and forced them to buy it.

The only bad engineering I saw (and I wasn't really familiar with British cars) was when the XKE burned up (I heard they did that a lot due to bad electrical design). On the other hand, what I did see was a lot of bad choices concerning materials and testing: cheap materials and not enough testing. And this materials and testing goes back to management - who were obviously trying to make money by going cheap.

I swear, no matter how good the design, bad management can screw it up. For example, the Chrysler cab-forward design was one of the best designed cars I have ever seen - I think it is brilliant! In fact, indexed in consideration of advancing technology (which helps you design better and better cars), I think it was probably the best designed car of all time. However, did I buy one? Hell no! I just knew Chrysler was going to screw up the build no matter how well it was designed, and that's just what they did.

However, I did have a manager - who was the best aerospace designer I ever met - buy one just because he loved the design. He got rid of it after a year because he figured Chrysler went cheap on it and it wouldn't last. He was right.

Oh well.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Most British engineering was ****, we only sold the stuff because we subjugated a third of the planet and forced them to buy it.

Not sure the engineering is the problem. Its the other 80 percent that the uk normally struggles with.

The UK has some of the best sutomotive engineers in the world as priven by F1 the problem was designing something peopke want at a price they want to pay and scaling it.

Its a common problem. The UK has some of the finest research in science and technology and struggles to commercialise any of it. Lots of reasons as to why

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No I am trying 'to sell Ladas to Lada buyers'.
I am not a pessimist.

Only a fool would ignore the fact that whilst top end goods are better, they can be expensive and unaffordable.
There is a market for products that are not top end.

There is a market for cheap cars, cheap guitars, cheap gliders (people still buy Schleicher K6's for example), cheap aeroplanes, cheap tools, cheap TVs, computers, cheap washing machines, vacuum cleaners etc.
And Sky is technically superior to Freeview but that hasn't stopped people getting Freeview boxes.

Now think back to 1982, at the time the BMW products in the world of computing were the Apple II and the IBM PC.
The presence of better products in the market didn't stop Clive Sinclair releasing the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Lots of people couldn't afford the Apple II or the IBM PC, but they could just about afford the Speccy.

Think back to the format war of VHS vs Betamax, Philips Video 2000 and Laserdisc.

VHS was the worst of the lot, but dominated the market because it was CHEAP.

If you pitch a product to the right audience, they will buy.

Not everyone can afford this kind of turbine:
[qimg]http://www.power-technology.com/projects/whiteleewindfarm/images/4-image-4.jpg[/qimg]

Having looked into turbines more, there is an Italian company making vertical axis turbines (Darrieus Savonius DOMUS) for €300.00 so there is obviously a market for 'Ladas' despite 'BMWs'.
I don't know how well those turbines are selling in the developing world, but I wish the Italian manufacturer every success.

Even if the developing world market is already dominated by other manufacturers, there are other things we can do.
And if we can get rid of tariff barriers that would be a very positive move.

But the old tech is less economically viable than the new. Its more expensive to run and you get less out. And your answer is to compete on price? With China?

Sorry you are commercially clueless.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The UK has no indigenous car industry remaining. No more than a few niche marks. Even then, many of those are owned by others. Ironically, Land Rover/Range Rover/Jaguar is owned by Tata. In India. Rover/MG is owned by...China. What's left? Aston-Martin. Who cares about them? Overpriced cars which are impractical, and failure prone (BL lives on). McLaren? The roads are swimming in those, right? Vauxhall? Rebadged GM. Ford? American.
The Mini? German.

All the UK has left in the motor industry is vehicle assembly on behalf of others. And they have no control over those others. Toyota and Nissan are already making noises about vacating the UK. Every one has plants in other EU states. They can bail out of the UK easily. Although, they already largely have.

The notion that British made automobiles have some sales credibility is nonsense. Everyone know that any car made in the UK will fall apart.

I also dont think you should underestimate that nissan and toyota had advantages in building brand new plants with brand new workforces. I doubt Rover could have copied them even if they wanted to as they didnt have the £££ to invest nor the labour relations. Strikes would have been the order of the day. As with many things Britons often have to be dragged into modernity kicking and screaming. And sometimes if asked they vote to go back thinking you can squueze the toothpaste back in the tube.

 

[Airfix]

But the old tech is less economically viable than the new. Its more expensive to run and you get less out. And your answer is to compete on price? With China?

Sorry you are commercially clueless.

You call me clueless and then say renewable energy is "expensive" to run ?

There are ways in which this country can trade globally as a manufacturer.
Stop being pessimistic and start thinking creatively.

There are wind turbine manufactuers in Britain:

Endurance Wind Power
http://www.endurancewindpower.co.uk/

Gaia-Wind: They sold Tonga it's first wind turbine.
http://www.gaia-wind.com/events-and.../tonga-s-first-wind-turbine-to-start-in-june/

There are wave power manufacturers in Britain.
http://marinepowersystems.co.uk/

http://www.hi-energy.org.uk/renewables/wave-energy.htm

There are things that can be made here and sold all around the world that will generate electricity cleanly.

We have an opportunity here.

I am not clueless.

Countries do not need to be in political union just to trade with each other.

Nations do not need to set about build a federal superstate with a common police force, tax system, currency and military, just to trade on a tariff free basis. Anyone who thinks that a superstate is the only path to peace is truly deluded.
The mindset of the Commission in Brussels is that they must create a superstate. I don't want to be part of that plan.

 

[Airfix]

I also dont think you should underestimate that nissan and toyota had advantages in building brand new plants with brand new workforces. I doubt Rover could have copied them even if they wanted to as they didnt have the £££ to invest nor the labour relations.

BL was state owned. The state had the £££ to invest.
You are right to point out that the Labour relations weren't there.

There was no desire from government to put it right.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You csn guarantee that whatever decision is made by the Govt will be the wrong one, serving the self interest of Tory MPs and party donors first.

 

[McHrozni]

I am not clueless.

Keep telling yourself that, yes mr. "Free trade with non-EU world will be a wonder for British renewable manofacturers".

You'd be clueless if you got a clue. You're in deficit with clues as it stands, you see.

McHrozni

 

[Aepervius]

You call me clueless and then say renewable energy is "expensive" to run ?

Without subsidy renewable (*) is not only expansive to run, but to top it without a physical battery not viable for a good industrial parc, you need baseload and without battery you aer SOL (and we are speaking mostly physical high capacity one like a barrage/water reserve let down during lull).

Now for commercial center/home this is enough but they encompass at best 10% (residential) and 25% (commercial building) electricity use, the industrial one require massive baseload.

On the price per USD/Euro even counting dismantling price and long term stockage , nuclear is still much better than wind/solar because it provide base load.

(*) mostly wind, solar. Hydro is not expansive but require physical infrastructure (e.g. dam) which is already by now mostly or completely exploited.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You call me clueless and then say renewable energy is "expensive" to run ?

There are ways in which this country can trade globally as a manufacturer.
Stop being pessimistic and start thinking creatively.

There are wind turbine manufactuers in Britain:

Endurance Wind Power
http://www.endurancewindpower.co.uk/

Gaia-Wind: They sold Tonga it's first wind turbine.
http://www.gaia-wind.com/events-and.../tonga-s-first-wind-turbine-to-start-in-june/

There are wave power manufacturers in Britain.
http://marinepowersystems.co.uk/

http://www.hi-energy.org.uk/renewables/wave-energy.htm

There are things that can be made here and sold all around the world that will generate electricity cleanly.

We have an opportunity here.

I am not clueless.

Countries do not need to be in political union just to trade with each other.

Nations do not need to set about build a federal superstate with a common police force, tax system, currency and military, just to trade on a tariff free basis. Anyone who thinks that a superstate is the only path to peace is truly deluded.
The mindset of the Commission in Brussels is that they must create a superstate. I don't want to be part of that plan.

I dudnt say renewable energy is expensive to run. I said your old tech is more expensive to run than the new tech.

But take a look at the cost of generation for renewables sometime.

 

[The Don]

It just gets worse and worse

Work permits.....
Paying for visas.....

It's all up for grabs.

Interestingly this highlights that Airfix's position is a minority one:

Ms Rudd said it was a "given" people voted Leave to reduce immigration.

So there you are - KEEP THOSE FOREIGNERS OUT !!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37332282

Despicable...

Edited to add...

Reinforces my opinion that May has always been out-out-out

 

[McHrozni]

So there you are - KEEP THOSE FOREIGNERS OUT !!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37332282

Despicable...

Edited to add...

Reinforces my opinion that May has always been out-out-out

TBH, if UK ever stands a chance of making Brexit a success, out-out-out is the only choice. It's an all or nothing gamble, which probably won't work, but on the off chance that it does is the only one that offers any hope for improving the situation of UK. ECC membership without EU has the best chance of not worsening the situation, but it will never make the UK better off than with EU membership.

It's a stupid gamble, with all likely scenarios making UK notably worse off than it was in EU of course, but the only one with any prospect for making it better off.

The only question left is if May really is an out-out-out Brexitard, why doesn't she invoke A50 already? Time is not on her side at all.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

TBH, if UK ever stands a chance of making Brexit a success, out-out-out is the only choice.

It's an all or nothing gamble, which probably won't work, but on the off chance that it does is the only one that offers any hope for improving the situation of UK. ECC membership without EU has the best chance of not worsening the situation, but it will never make the UK better off than with EU membership.

If your definition of "success" is being better off than being in the EU (as opposed to not destroying your economy) then I suppose you're right, but as you point out it's a long shot.

From my perspective, a Norway-style Brexit is the least worst alternative. We'll be worse off (because we'll lose our influence over EU regulation) but at least we'll still have access to our most important export market for our important service industries.

It's a stupid gamble, with all likely scenarios making UK notably worse off than it was in EU of course, but the only one with any prospect for making it better off.

The popularity of The National Lottery (and copies like the Postcode Lottery) already demonstrate that a large proportion of the UK population are pre-disposed to making stupid gambles

The only question left is if May really is an out-out-out Brexitard, why doesn't she invoke A50 already? Time is not on her side at all.

McHrozni

I have no idea, maybe she's settling some old scores with BoJo, Davis and Fox, maybe she's waiting for a while to ensure that the UK public are fully distracted by something else.

 

[McHrozni]

If your definition of "success" is being better off than being in the EU (as opposed to not destroying your economy) then I suppose you're right, but as you point out it's a long shot.

From my perspective, a Norway-style Brexit is the least worst alternative. We'll be worse off (because we'll lose our influence over EU regulation) but at least we'll still have access to our most important export market for our important service industries.

Norway-style deal offers the best chance of not destroying your economy, but also the least chance of making Brexit into anything but a fiasco - albeit a significantly smaller fiasco than any other option offers.

The popularity of The National Lottery (and copies like the Postcode Lottery) already demonstrate that a large proportion of the UK population are pre-disposed to making stupid gambles

Buying a lottery ticket is not a stupid gamble. You lose something you can afford and hope against hope to win big. The net payout is almost always negative so it's not a gamble I advocate, but it's not stupid either, since any potential losses are fully understood beforehand and well within tolerable limits.

The gamble of out-out-out Brexit is outright retarded, because it gambles so much and hopes to gain so little. Any other gamble essentially ensures nothing will be gained, but the loss will be also moderated.

Brexit options are a bit like buying an unclaimed lottery ticket from last weeks' lottery for some huge factor of their original price (factor depends on option taken). Out-out-out option has the highest price by far, but it is also the only one where the seller hasn't checked the numbers before offering you the ticket.

I have no idea, maybe she's settling some old scores with BoJo, Davis and Fox, maybe she's waiting for a while to ensure that the UK public are fully distracted by something else.

Maybe. She said she'll wait for another year, by which the democratic mandate of the referendum will already have eroded noticeably.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It just gets worse and worse

Work permits.....
Paying for visas.....

It's all up for grabs.

Interestingly this highlights that Airfix's position is a minority one:



So there you are - KEEP THOSE FOREIGNERS OUT !!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37332282

Despicable...

Edited to add...

Reinforces my opinion that May has always been out-out-out

It's odd to see Rudd suddenly having to say these things as she seemed quite pro immigration during the referendum. I suppose dishonesty is to be expected from politicians but this kind of thing is why I struggle to get on the anti-Corbyn 'just say what you need to to get elected regardless' bandwagon for Labour.

This also makes a mockery of the suggestion that May or the Tories are somehow moving to the left.