"Do you think that all these countries should stop buying my lamb to protect their own sheep farmers?"

Yes I do Yabby. Why would you import lamb that you didn't need? Why not import goods that you do need, if a small country can only produce a small amount of lamb given limited arable land use, then yes obviously there will be a need to import more. Many contries which are largely desert, cannot produce all their food so they will import.

Trade should be about need, not some superpower telling the rest of the world what they should buy or not buy in terms of trade.

The poor in Australia will only become poorer if jobs, including agricultural livelihoods, are lost to other nations.

The cost of importing food is not just about money but the use of strong pesticides and poor inspection of pesticide residues and microbiological contamination such as E.Coli prior to release.

It is a myth that imported food keeps the prices down, since importing food the prices have gone up for the most part with some fluctuations as is expected. The middlemen make more money that is the only difference.

*Why would you import lamb that you didn't need?*

Who said that they don't need lamb? Why not let the consumer
make that decision? Take the case of the USA. Its a huge
country, 300 million consumers, with hardly any sheep.
They eat very little lamb as its hugely expensive.

Give me a good reason why US consumers should be denied
the choice of top quality Australian lamb, at an affordable
price. Or do you want to force people to eat beef of pork?
Should not the consumer make that decision?

*Trade should be about need*

So Pelican, our poor clearly need to wear shirts. You did not answer
the question. Are you going to force them to pay 40$ for their
shirts and make them even poorer?

*The poor in Australia will only become poorer if jobs, including agricultural livelihoods, are lost to other nations.*

But there is a huge shortage of labour in Australia. Building companies, trades, mining companies, farming industries, all
clamouring for labour which is not there. Just ask Jullia Gillard,
she got a real shock when she came to WA last time and was shown
what is actually going on.

So now lets say I am entrepreneurial and Pelican is our new PM.
Australia only has 20 million so I figure out that if I open
a computer factory, nobody else will bother. Due to economies
of scale and the high cost of the machinery, per unit will cost
Australians 8000$ per machine. But they then won't need to import,
for PM Pelican will make sure that they can't. Are you going
to force them to buy my 8000$ computers?

.

Yabby I wouldn't force anyone to buy anything. If a company was foolish enough to sell computers at overly inflated prices they won't get a sale.

The US will have access to Australian lamb if they do not produce enough for themselves or don't wish to. Why would they have to eat pork or beef instead if there is US lamb on the menu?

I am not against trade per se, only at being dictated to by global interests that might not always be in any particular nation's interest.

The poor in Australia will always have access to affordable shirts, an entrepreneur will see a market and fill it. When I was a child my parents were not rich but we managed okay and not once did my brother and I think we were poor.

We still managed to buy clothes for affordable prices despite an era of protectionism. And strangely food was not as dear nor was housing and we did not have the same level of debt.

Do you really think that designer shoe makers like Nike and Reebok who moved offshore from the US (I think) to manufacture in Indonesia have dropped their prices for the Western consumer?

Guess what - no they didn't.

If you read Naomi Wolf's 'No Logo' it is an alternative view to the free trade activists and a bit of an eye opener, (but not the only one) about globalisation, free trade, advertising and corporatisation.

I'm interested in the background to this comment of yours, pelican.

>>I am not against trade per se, only at being dictated to by global interests that might not always be in any particular nation's interest<<

I'm not sure I understand whom you have in mind.

We are a free country, and have the option to manufacture or produce our own goods and services, if we can do so at a competitive price.

Which global interests are dictating to us? Not China, surely?

*If a company was foolish enough to sell computers at overly inflated prices they won't get a sale.*

But there is your problem Pelican! You state that we should only
import what we need. Who is to say that my computers are overpriced?
Clearly consumers need them, I make them here. So your argument is
that there would be no need to import them.

The same goes for lamb in the US. US lamb costs twice what Australian
lamb costs (or it used to, until the recent price spike) Reason
being they hobby farm them at great expense. All very sweet, but
hardly fair to a US consumer who likes lamb. So why not let
the customer decide?

*We still managed to buy clothes for affordable prices despite an era of protectionism.*

Ah, the good old days, when people worked hard, with few Govt rules,
with few Govt imposts, with low rents as there was lots of land
and few people. When there was no super levy, migrant women worked
in sweatshops in Melbourne, to make them for you. Times have changed.

Indeed people like Nike make money from snob value, as do Rolex,
Hermes and a host of others. But you can also go to Target and buy
a pair of similar shoes for a third of the price. The poor benefit.

The poor also benefit from lower food prices. Where do you think that
Aldi source most of their products from? They operate globally so
shop globally, with huge buying power. Woolies and Coles are midgets
by comparison.

Ah, Aldi. Thanks for bringing them up Yabby. Their story does indeed show up some holes in pelican's theories about supply and demand.

I recommend you take a quick look at Aldi, pelican.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article5438532.ece

http://www.bettermanagement.com/library/library.aspx?l=14226

Their entire focus is on providing quality at the lowest cost. If you look at their roots you'll get an idea of why they have that as their mission.

You will also see that in order to follow those principles, they cannot be fussy about jingoistic "grown here" ideas. Their focus is on the consumer: is it good enough? is it cheap enough?

When I was briefly associated with the retail trade in the eighties, any conversation on business models inevitably included Aldi. Equally inevitably, there were "a friend of mine" stories of dealing with the Albrechts themselves.

Quite possibly they were all apocryphal. But I particularly enjoyed this one.

A manufacturer of Landjäger had finally managed to get his sausages onto Aldi shelves, and do extremely well in the first nine months. So it was time for the sales manager to call on Karl, and renew the order for the following year.

Problem was, the prices had been cut to the bone in order to get the business. If the business was to expand, they would need a higher price. In fact, even to maintain the price at current volumes would be a problem - they just weren't making a profit.

Karl of course had the numbers in front of him. "I would like to increase our order with you..." he said.

"Great" replied the sales manager "but..."

"...but we would need a reduction in price, given the higher volumes will be good for your business"

"I'll have to discuss with the plant manager" says the poor sausagemaker rep "and get back to you"

As he reached for the doorhandle, Karl reaches for the phone.

"If you leave this room without an agreement" he says "I shall call your competitor with the same offer..."

I used to use this as a case study for would-be salespeople, asking them whether they would open that door.