January 9, 2017

Clawing back savings may not apply to all.

A reader, known as Anonymous, provided the following:

Proposition 1 - We need twice as many submarines ie. 12.

Proposition 2 - The 12 should be "regionally superior".

Proposition 3 - If the goal is regional or State economic development then spreading Federal money
                         for plausible reasons is an end in itself.
                         :  hence putting a price on the A$50 Billion does not present an obvious bargaining
                            failure, now or in 20 years time.
                         :  Japan Inc. and TKMS did not understand that saving money had nothing to do with                             it. TKMS saying A$20 Billion could buy all 12 submarines positively sealed its                                   own fate.

Proposition 4 - The major providers have years of notice that they are the only major providers, and
                         there are no other conceivable customers. So all are comfortably catered for, for

Proposition 5 - As with other Projects any major management problems will be rectified by adding
                         more Management companies at greater cost rather than removing Management
                         companies to save money.

Proposition 6 - No competitive structures, eg. duopolies, are conceivable at the priceless end of the
                         shipbuilding industry once a definite number of A$Billions in public money is
                         promised for decades.

Proposition 7 - Savings on small items, from small suppliers, under industry offset
                         arrangements, will be trumpeted - definitely not the main money for the monopoly

Proposition 8 - No-one will rock the boat because those in the know either benefit from industry
                         connections or government connections or both,

Anonymous asks "Is all this responsible, fair and inevitable?"

No comments: