An eminently sensible article, I have a feeling that Katter well understands the job at hand and that the silly extreme policies which have belonged to Labor and Liberal and dare I remind the Nationals as well for the past 30 years has had its time.

When think about it, Katter exits because the Nationals went that way...sad really but thats history, lets hope Bob Katter can arrest the decline.

Theres nothing free about free trade!!

Nev

The debate on free trade requires an understanding of the arguments for it, and that requires an understanding of the economics of free trade versus restricted trade.

The author shows no understanding of either. He simply adopts the tactic of assuming what is his to prove - that restricting trade creates social benefits greater than if it were not restricted - and name-calling.

For example, he says Australia's protectionism showed a "social ethos in action". But that's begging the question. How does he know it wasn't an anti-social ethos in action? He implies that protectionism created social benefits greater than it destroyed. But how does he know?

He refers to the "free trade dogma" of Britain etc. But this assumes that it is a dogma, that there is no more to be said for it, as if the author had understood the arguments, correctly represented them, and refuted them. But he hasn't.

His article is full of epithets like "unhealthy" (as applied to the economy, not a person), as if the economy were some kind of patient, and he the wise physician; or "three speed" and "two speed" as if the economy were some kind of bicycle. Protectionism is motivated by "conscience". But free trade is motivated by "ideology". Similarly Nev's technique is to call the arguments for free trade "silly".

The problem with these arguments is that they beg the question. If they were right, then the people of Australia would be better off not trading with the rest of the world, and the people of each state would be better off not trading with the other states, and the people of each region, and so on down to .... ? Their philosophy is the truly anti-social one, the opposite of what their conceit supposes.