The Forum > Article Comments > Backs to financial future > Comments
Backs to financial future : Comments
By Greg Barns, published 30/11/2010Australia is looking decidedly protectionist and xenophobic about Chinese investment.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 3:24:21 PM
| |
Rhian,
Well, yes, I learned the economic theory of free trade many years ago, however economics is not a science and I found the study of East Asian economic history much more informative. The facile assumptions of economists in regard to the movement of capital and labour from declining industries to more productive ones is not as smooth as they imagine. That is, (1) political/social constraints are not given the proper weight and (2) I'm not denying the benefits of partial deregulation however, it is not free trade. The remarkable economic success of Japan and South Korea was not carried out under free trade principles, those nations did rather well from intelligent economic nationalism. The current percentage of Australian assets held by China is not relevant, future trends are, and the comparison of superpower,authoritarian China with democratic Japan is invalid. You should also consider US economic penetration of Latin America and its often brutal 'interventions' to protect its stategic interests there. There are sound economic and political reasons to be wary of China,the attempt to portray all sceptics as 'paranoid' or 'racist' is offensive. I've no objections to free trade---in the appropriate international environment. Posted by mac, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 6:27:54 PM
| |
Chris
The lower domestic price of rock lobsters due to this news, suggest that (contrary to common belief) FT does not mean lower prices for consumers. The same happened when Australia started exporting its best meat products, we paid more for lower quality meat. There is a lot of myth around FT. Rock lobsters are like all marine animals, at risk of being fished out so reducing demand is not necessarily a bad thing long term. It is interesting that China is restricting ONLY Australian lobsters but not NZ or South African. Australia will just do what everyone else does - sell it to another country who will onsell it to China. Not unusual seeing as currently without a FTA the lobsters were being sold via the back door so to speak. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/29/3079295.htm Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 7:53:47 PM
| |
*FT does not mean lower prices for consumers. The same happened when Australia started exporting its best meat products, we paid more for lower quality meat. There is a lot of myth around FT.*
Not so Pelican. It certainly does. You have to look at a whole host of goods, not just pick out a couple, that suit your flawed agenda. There are a whole host of food products now available in Australia, better and cheaper then ever before. I eat guavas from South Africa and asparagus from Peru. That is just the start. When it comes to meat, the reality is that you bought it far too cheap for far too long, as many markets were closed to Australian meat, so your cheap meat was off the back of Australian farmers. Unlike your unions, farmers did not have the power to enforce a reasonable price. Result was that in the early 90s, people like me had to give sheep away for nothing, it was cheaper then shooting them. But today, you have available to you, some of the world's best and cheapest meat. Australians get first pick, if they want it. Hardly something to complain about. Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 9:15:59 PM
| |
Well flawed agendas are in the eye of the beholder. There are economists brighter than you dear Yabby (or I) that raise concerns about the lack of debate on FT and how political correctness is increasing the reluctance for anyone to raise concerns in the FT debate.
Rock lobsters were not raised by me but by another poster, I mentioned meat as the same outcomes were a result of your FT ideology often painted to be a friend of the consumer, but often just the opposite. FT benefits those with the commercial advantage, poor farmers in developing countries benefit very little and often face food shortages for the first time due to exports of local produce. More money for the mostly foreign owned agribusinesses but little for the people on the ground. In this case the loss of a trading partner has worked to make lobster available to many Australians who previously could not afford to eat this particular delicacy. I can afford lobster but many cannot, why should it be only available to the rich. All I can say is your continued efforts to throw insults at anyone who does not share your FT ideology only diminishes your own argument and suggests the merits of FT are on shaky ground. Otherwise it would be enough just to argue your position without resorting to personal attacks. Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 9:39:35 PM
| |
Aha Pelican, so if I disagree with you, it must be a personal
attack. I learn something new every day. The lobster story has little to do with free trade, everything to do with China making up the rules, as they go along. But then that is how China plays the game, we know that. The kinds of lobsters going to China/Japan live, are not really what the Australian consumer fusses over. ie lobsters absolutaly perfect in every way. Not a blemish, not a leg missing and lobsters have lots of legs btw. They only make up a portion of the catch. All the seconds, which taste just as good, are available to the Australian public at a reasonable price. As to the rest of your free trade claims, if third world farmers had 1st world markets openened to them, clearly they would be better off and if they are better off, they are unlikely to go hungry. Consumers and producers benefit from free trade. But I grant you, lots of those who might want a free lunch for nothing, might lose out Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 10:10:34 PM
|
Anyone have an opinion?