Thanks Severin - I value your contributions always to OLO and often see much of a kindred spirit on many issues. Your eloquence is evident in your own writings. I have heard of Ostrom but will follow up your recommendation further.

Yabby and Pericles, I acknowledge some of the issues with protectionism but free trade is unfortunately as you yourself put it - we have to deal with the real world - is tied up with unfair practices that bedevil what probably the purists might seek.

Despite anti-dumping laws it is very difficult to prove. How does one argue that a lower than normal price is not due to other factors? The fact that anti-dumping laws exist is to protect countries from unfair competition in the form of dumping, which implies that free trade itself is not always a positive thing given there is huge disparity in the playing field - dumping or no dumping.

It is unfair that some nations are being bullied into free trade to their own detriment.

My biggest concern is that superpowers like the US or China can influence and affect Australia's (and other nations) laws and policies relating to issues of quarantine, GE labelling and other matters once considered the right of a sovereign nation to determine how it is governed. It is a slippery slope.

The problems you speak of with protectionism can be dealt with by good governance and indeed good government with appropriate regulation that does not strangle freedoms/enterprise within economies but allows some flexibility given the inequities in the playing field. No system will ever be perfect or to the satisfaction of all players where vested interests outweigh other considerations.

Pelican, you need to get back to fundamentals, then you will
understand it. Now its a fact that the biggest beneficiaries of
free trade, are in fact consumers. That is the reality of it.
You, who make the case for the poor, would have to agree that
if their Dollar stretches further, then they are better off.

I see this all the time. Pensioners off to Bunnings, to buy some
cheap power tool to do their handycraft, something they could
never have afforded back in the days of high tariffs. Clothing,
kids clothing, the list is endless. I myself benefit, when
I buy electronic stuff on the internet, direct from Hong Kong,
America or elsewhere.

The losers of lowering tariffs have in fact been large corporations,
who can't hide behind tariff walls anymore, as they used to.
There was no need for them to be efficient, they simply jacked
their prices up every year, as in a country with a low population
like Australia, it was easy to have a local monopoly.

The whole concept of free trade is that things are produced where
there is a clear comparative advantage, so that long term everyone
benefits.

*The problems you speak of with protectionism can be dealt with by good governance*

Welcome to the real world Pelican :) What are the main impediments
to free trade? Political pork barreling. Look at the examples you
yourself have raised, USA dumping, EU dumping and subsidies etc.
The list goes on. Govts will nearly always put winning the next
election ahead of what is best in the longer term and
pork barreling works like a charm, so they have done it forever.

Next we have political agendas. When for instance Saudi Arabia
decided that they would grow their own wheat, to be self sufficient,
they paid 5 times the world price to grow it locally. Now its
occured to them that they have drained huge underground water
storages for irrigation, water totally wasted, when the same
wheat ban be grown far better in Australia and elsewhere, using
natural rainfall. Its also 5 times cheaper.

*Despite anti-dumping laws it is very difficult to prove.*

Not really. If a company is selling into another market, cheaper
then they are charging on their home market, then they are
dumping. That is the way I understand it, but there are well set
out rules on all this.

*My biggest concern is that superpowers like the US or China can influence and affect Australia's (and other nations) laws *

Well that is why you need a global body like the WTO, to have
rules which all countries agree on, not just USA or China.
AFAIK those rules are fairly well established and based on
science.

Yabby
You are assuming I am the one not living in the real world - have you thought that you might be wedded to the wrong end of the stick on this one? Just a thought.

Re dumping, it is not just about selling cheaper than at home it is about selling way under the cost of production. US companies are always getting into trouble with the WTO but nothing changes - wheat, soy and other products are being sold overseas at prices under the cost of production sometimes by as much as 47% (in the case of US cotton in 2005) but generally around 28% under.

You can understand why US food companies are apt to do it - how can they expect an African consumer to pay as much for soy, wheat or cotton than an American consumer.

The distortions in trading are there because the premise is wrong - no level playing field - means you cannot compete particularly on wages, IR and OH&S.

Why do you think countries like Australia, UK and the US have such strong 'buy at home' campaigns. It is worthy of satire that we are all pushing for free trade yet encouraging consumers to buy local - the US is big on this at the moment with good reason given the GFC has meant unemployment (sitting around 10%) has far greater impact.

No-one wins except a few vested groups in the free trade debacle in my view.

Let nations maintain a sovereign right to trade whatever with whomever.

The consumers are not always winners if FT means job losses (in the worst scenario). It is all very well to say we can provide new job niches in the technology or education sector but it means we lose out on food security and the like. The risks are too great with little benefits and a failure to ensure safe and fair working conditions in poorer nations over the making of a bigger profit.

But I think Yabby we will alwasy disagree on the fundamentals no matter how you define them.

:)

Pelican

I have been wracking my brain for the name of the following person you might be interested in reading: Riane Eisler. Author, sociologist and attorney, she has written books on reforming our current economic system into something that, if given the chance, could work:

http://www.rianeeisler.com/rwon.htm

I don't expect anything will cause Yabby et al to reflect and rethink their world views - which is why I haven't bothered with this debate - I need all the energy I can muster. However, I so admire your arguments here, I didn't want you to think that you are alone. There are many who think as you do.

Cheers

Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 17 April 2010 4:00:35 PM
" ... I myself benefit, when I buy electronic stuff on the internet, direct from Hong Kong, America or elsewhere. ... "

Aah yes, it can be beautiful can't it *Yappy?* I have a pearler of a supplier in Beijing at the moment whose selling quality electronics for .. well .. here, see for yourself Poppet.

http://www.holanfa.com/index.asp

I have an item currently on order, so the proof remains to be seen, but I do have one Gay friend in France who has already ordered and received one genuine 8GB iPhone for $US265 + $US25 for DHL delivery.

I should be pleased to see any contribution that you may care to make.

..

Thereafter, I think both *Yappy & Peli* both make some valid points. The best solution for societies as a whole I believe requires a hybrid system, or a mix of free market, regulation and micromanagement as and when required.

..

Re: this thread, I know very little about Stern Hu, but I would imagine that he was an astute bi/multilingual operator who learnt the Red China game and did everything right except for one fatal exception - that being he went in to bat for Australia and not Beijing.

..

Thereafter, as said and in my view, the whole thing is a joke in extremely bad taste and the Chinese administration should be heavily penalised for it.