Dear Tony Ryan,
I worked in factories from the ages of 14 to 42, and you sound to me like a typical (usually Irish), though with symptoms of megalomania, union boss who, like your "workers across Australia, [and] their organisations, can't see outside the box. You've got beyond your particular industry but now it's the country--nationalism--that you should be superseding. Just as you expanded from industry to nation, can't you see you now need to go from nation to globe? You can't unscramble the egg. No country can become economically insular again. Even if it could (and Australia would have a better chance than most) the rest of the world wouldn't let it. Compared with the unemployed living the high-life in Australia, Chinese workers (and others) are barely approaching that standard. The only chance, in my view, for countries to regrow their cultural distinctiveness and have a decent life, is to get rid of the profit motive worldwide. I'm for getting rid of capitalism, not hoarding the wealth behind tariff walls. It's the capitalists you should be after, the obscenely wealthy across all countries. But I suspect your agenda is ideologically opposite to mine.

Grok

"Local production, et al., should indeed re-establish its pride of place in the schema of human society...... However to fixate on this particular petit-bourgeois pipedream as the required strategic solution to the present problems of humanity..."

Not the solution, but an important part of the picture. Among other things, we could also look at a single global currency value, a balanced cooperative/competitive economy and not to mention a decentralized, directly democratic system of governance tiered upward from the small neighbourhood to the global scale.

Also, I am not just an advocate of "national protectionism": I believe that it is important to protect local economies down to the level of the small neighbourhood.

You say Marx admired Ricardo. Did Marx offer any meaningful analysis of comparative advantage and free trade?

Tony Ryan,

I think that you are an interesting character. People may not always agree with you but you are obviously a talented wordsmith. Why don't you try posting some articles yourself to OLO?!

I looked for your "e-booklet on the Seventeen Elements of the Globalisation of Australia" but couldn't find it.

Gilbert only

It's not on-line yet. There is some suggestion it should remain in-house.

Contact me on tonyryan43@gmail.com and I'll send it as an attachment. Please keep it to yourself.

Tony

Tony

Abusing people who question your data does not enhance your argument.

I said “At the height of the great depression in 1931-32 Australia's unemployment rate averaged about 20%.” That exactly what the data in the paper I linked to show.

It seems to me your definition of “unemployed” will include full-time students, retirees, full-time parents and homemakers, part-time workers, those uable to work due to diasbility, travellers and anyone who is unhappy at their income. That is not consistent with any definition of unemployment that any reputable statistical agency would use, and looks to be simply a device to make “unemployment” look as bad as possible.

The ABS data do have limitations, but as well as the familiar unemployment count they also identify under-employment, which includes people wanting to work longer hours; and detailed analysis of people not in the labour force. These surveys capture the broader employment picture, but again present an unemployment/underemployment picture nowhere near as bad as you present.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/44CFFE8B36AD60B8CA2568A9001393EC?opendocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6220.0Main+Features1Sep%202009?OpenDocument

You have yet to provide verifiable sources – credible or otherwise – for the numbers you use. As well as your unemployment figures, you have yet to explain:

“3 million jobs lost”
“40% reduction in each government’s tax revenue”
“30% of retail” (of retail what?)

Some blurb from The Australian Protectionist Party:

<The federal registration of the Australian Protectionist Party bodes well for the future of the Australian people as we face ongoing dangers to our nation from an increasing refugee influx, Third World immigration, foreign ownership of our economic assets, and Islamic extremism.>
http://www.protectionist.net/

So despite your denials, I reckon I had you (or at least your party) well and trully pegged: fascist! (I wouldn't be surprised if one of my brothers was a member)

And to think, that's where a large chunk of the Australian Labor Party has ended up.

But why so secretive, Tony? There's nothing wrong with using xenophobia to win power is there? It worked for Hitler.

Thanks for the warning above; I'll be sure to keep a low profile should you lot ever gain a majority, or it'll be the gas chamber for me.

Should you change your mind about not posting here, I'll be happy to give you some intellectual engagement.
I don't have the time, but such is my loathing of all that you stand for, I'll find the time.

Rhian, I think you are setting your hopes far too high, to expect
any kind of rational discussion from Tony.

He has yet to explain how 3 cows create a job.

Methinks this is a typical bit of Larouche politics/economic
claims. ie. Make some wild claims about numbers and repeat them
as gospel, but don't let the details interfere with the
rhetoric.

Even Squeers need not be concerned, for these fringe cult groups
are not taken too seriously by the majority of the population.

They simply add a bit of colour to our colourful world and are
best seen as that.