Myth 8: Foreigners already control half the country.
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,432
Myth 8: Foreigners already control half the country.
#2
Re: Myth 8: Foreigners already control half the country.
Originally posted by Megalania
FYI:
Net FDI, in Australia in 1991, was 3 per cent of total assets. In 2000, net FDI was unchanged at 3 per cent of total Australian assets.
FYI:
Net FDI, in Australia in 1991, was 3 per cent of total assets. In 2000, net FDI was unchanged at 3 per cent of total Australian assets.
Net FDI is an annual thing, if this is positive then total foreign investment is increasing. Its true that foreigners do not own half the country, however, they own 29%. This will increase with positive FDI.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]
#3
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Perth Arse end of the planet
Posts: 7,037
Re: Myth 8: Foreigners already control half the country.
Originally posted by Megalania
FYI:
Net FDI, in Australia in 1991, was 3 per cent of total assets. In 2000, net FDI was unchanged at 3 per cent of total Australian assets.
FYI:
Net FDI, in Australia in 1991, was 3 per cent of total assets. In 2000, net FDI was unchanged at 3 per cent of total Australian assets.
#4
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,432
Re: Myth 8: Foreigners already control half the country.
Originally posted by jayr
Net FDI is an annual thing, if this is positive then total foreign investment is increasing. Its true that foreigners do not own half the country, however, they own 29%. This will increase with positive FDI.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]
Net FDI is an annual thing, if this is positive then total foreign investment is increasing. Its true that foreigners do not own half the country, however, they own 29%. This will increase with positive FDI.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]
Net Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is measured as both change (eg annually) and as a total. For an explanation of the term "Direct Investment" see:
Chapter 12. Direct investment
Your reference is to "the value of equity on issue" while the DFAT reference is to the value of assets. Equilty on issue being narrower than assets.
I am sure it is true that there is a much higher proportion of foreign ownership "at the big end of town" than of, for example houses. (General Motors vs Bill's Repair Shop)
Would you be interested in pulling out similar info on the UK?
#5
Re: Myth 8: Foreigners already control half the country.
Originally posted by Megalania
Would you be interested in pulling out similar info on the UK?
Would you be interested in pulling out similar info on the UK?
Tried, but couldn't quickly find. The ABS a lot better than the ONS in that respect
#6
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Perth Arse end of the planet
Posts: 7,037
Re: Myth 8: Foreigners already control half the country.
Originally posted by Megalania
Ta jayr.
Net Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is measured as both change (eg annually) and as a total. For an explanation of the term "Direct Investment" see:
Chapter 12. Direct investment
Would you be interested in pulling out similar info on the UK?
Ta jayr.
Net Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is measured as both change (eg annually) and as a total. For an explanation of the term "Direct Investment" see:
Chapter 12. Direct investment
Would you be interested in pulling out similar info on the UK?
Last edited by pommie bastard; May 27th 2003 at 1:09 am.
#7
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,432
In my view, this whole who owns what thing is a bit of a Furphy. Technically the Australian governments own the lot as witnessed by its ability to tax all changes in ownership - real estate, goods, services, incomes etc.
General Motors: Holden
2000 Financial Performance to December 31
$237 million net operating profit
$4.7 billion sales revenue
5.0 per cent return on sales
By the grace of Australian governments, General Motors added $237M to its private ownership of the comonweal.
General Motors: Holden
2000 Financial Performance to December 31
$237 million net operating profit
$4.7 billion sales revenue
5.0 per cent return on sales
By the grace of Australian governments, General Motors added $237M to its private ownership of the comonweal.
#8
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Perth Arse end of the planet
Posts: 7,037
Originally posted by Megalania
In my view, this whole who owns what thing is a bit of a Furphy. Technically the Australian governments own the lot as witnessed by its ability to tax all changes in ownership - real estate, goods, services, incomes etc.
General Motors: Holden
2000 Financial Performance to December 31
$237 million net operating profit
$4.7 billion sales revenue
5.0 per cent return on sales
By the grace of Australian governments, General Motors added $237M to its private ownership of the comonweal.
In my view, this whole who owns what thing is a bit of a Furphy. Technically the Australian governments own the lot as witnessed by its ability to tax all changes in ownership - real estate, goods, services, incomes etc.
General Motors: Holden
2000 Financial Performance to December 31
$237 million net operating profit
$4.7 billion sales revenue
5.0 per cent return on sales
By the grace of Australian governments, General Motors added $237M to its private ownership of the comonweal.
GM has always owned Holden , get real? GM is bigger than most countries try and tell them what to do?
PS you have to be a pollie ?
GM generated approximately $3.3 billion in automotive cash in the first quarter of 2003, including approximately $1.1 billion from the sale of GM Defense. Cash, marketable securities, and assets of the VEBA trust invested in short-term fixed-income securities totaled $20.6 billion at March 31, 2003, excluding financing and insurance operations and Hughes, compared with $17.3 billion on Dec. 31, 2002. The increase in cash improved GM’s net liquidity to $5.6 billion at the end of the first quarter of 2003 versus $2.3 billion at the end of 2002.
GM Asia Pacific earned $75 million in the first quarter of 2003, up from $7 million in the year-ago quarter. Shanghai GM and GM’s Australia-based Holden continued to post strong financial results. Asia-Pacific results also benefited from lower-than-expected start-up costs at GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East (GMLAAM) lost $12 million in the first quarter of 2003, compared with a loss of $40 million in the year-ago period.
http://www.gm.com/flash_homepage/
http://www.gm.com/company/investor_i..._res/index.htm
http://www.gm.com/company/corp_info/global_locations/
Last edited by pommie bastard; May 27th 2003 at 3:33 am.
#9
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 241
Just a quick response to posturing bastard in regards to Qantas purchases putting Australia in the red,what is overlooked is when the Boeing aircraft are SOLD plus the amount of revenue that they produce.
#10
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Perth Arse end of the planet
Posts: 7,037
Originally posted by boots
Just a quick response to posturing bastard in regards to Qantas purchases putting Australia in the red,what is overlooked is when the Boeing aircraft are SOLD plus the amount of revenue that they produce.
Just a quick response to posturing bastard in regards to Qantas purchases putting Australia in the red,what is overlooked is when the Boeing aircraft are SOLD plus the amount of revenue that they produce.
Qantas 25% Brit owned , plus planes all had Rolls Royce engines for everything a country buys it must sell something of same value .
The Finance Department was accused of breaching its own regulations by overvaluing the Telstra share price and creating a $3 billion question mark over the Budget.
Before the Senate's Finance Estimates Committee, department officials struggled to explain how the Budget, released a fortnight ago, valued the telco's share price at $5.25, rather than the normal assumed price of $4.75.
Labor finance spokesman Stephen Conroy said that by using the higher value, the commonwealth's total net worth was at least $3 billion higher than it should have been.
But the government played down the issue, saying the discovery had no impact on the Budget bottom line and labelling it a technical problem.
Last edited by pommie bastard; May 29th 2003 at 1:52 am.
#12
Originally posted by Pommie_Bastard
How come I dont own nuffing?
How come I dont own nuffing?
Megal(om)ania back again...
megalomania
// noun 1. a form of mental alienation marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc.
#13
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Perth Arse end of the planet
Posts: 7,037
Originally posted by Pommie_Bastard
How come I dont own nuffing?
How come I dont own nuffing?
Because you are no one? but have many names?
#14
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,432
Originally posted by jayr
Megal(om)ania back again...
megalomania
// noun 1. a form of mental alienation marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc.
Megal(om)ania back again...
megalomania
// noun 1. a form of mental alienation marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc.
#15
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Perth Arse end of the planet
Posts: 7,037
Originally posted by Megalania
My goodness jayr, you're a wiz with the keyboard.
My goodness jayr, you're a wiz with the keyboard.
A hollow man ?