*You are assuming I am the one not living in the real world*

Pelican, well I did show you that the Western world's so called
greatest countries, are unable to govern without pork barreling.
So where does your assumed "good governance" fit in?

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

So you claim, despite the evidence right under your nose, staring
you in the face, of all those millions of Australians who benefit
from cheaper imported products, every day.

*no level playing field - means you cannot compete particularly on wages, IR and OH&S.*

You don't need to compete on those things, as a country like
Germany shows. Up until now they have been the world's largest
exporter by value, with high wages and all the rest of your concerns.
For the playing field is made up by all sorts of comparative
advantages, so its simply different. As long as all abide by the
same WTO rules. If there is a problem with the rules, as you claim
about dumping, then fix the rules, not abandon free trade.

When Australia had high tariffs, some of the biggest losers were
in fact farmers. For they had to pay overinflated prices for
machinery, chemicals and other inputs, whilst competing on world
markets with their exports. In fact you discouraged all kinds of
new exports, by inflating their costs. No wonder we don't have
a competitive manufacturing industry like Germany!

For twenty years we've heard all these screams about job losses
from imports, yet Australia is so short of workers we have to
import them by the tens of thousands! Forget food security,
unless you live on a small farm, with a cow and some chooks.
For if the diesel supply chain breaks down or the machinery
parts supply chain breaks down, or a host of other supply
chains break down, city consumers are stuffed. The
best guarantee of food is diversity of supply and diversity
of supply chains.

*Yappy* national security in part rests upon the cornerstone of being able to manufacture. The development of the national consciousness also depends on us being able to create. And in that regard, what don't we have that we need? Surely we have most if not all of the raw materials and expertise, (though the expertise bit concerns me a bit) with all that we are lacking being the political wisdom to drive the agenda to reform the economy so we can have the best of both worlds, our cake, cream and the cherry too.

In fact relative to others in the international community, the average ozzie is pretty useless really, living well by virtue of the fact of a big g.d.p., low population and a relatively equitable distribution of wealth. (far from ideal I would add but better than a lot of other countries undoubtedly)

You talk about the need to import labor when we have a huge unemployment problem. How do you reconcile these things?

God's, Australia knows little about self reliance and independent operating, being infested and riddled with all manner of parasitic agents from those who administer the law, to medicine to real estate etc

And real estate, houses mostly being comprised of dirt, with the absurd laws in this place leaves most people either not being allowed or not being capable of fixing or renovating themselves.

Laughable .. oh, and as for fruit and veg and certain other food types being trucked around I would suggest, don't waste your money. From a scientific medical perspective the healthiest, cheapest food comes out of your own back yard or nearby wherever that may be.

From the examples you give, pelican, it would appear that most of your concerns about a "level playing field" stem from abuse of Free Trade principles, rather than from adherence to them.

>>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.<<

Which is why I disagree with your statement that...

>>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.<<

The "premise" of Free Trade is fundamentally the simple and straightforward concept of comparative advantage. Used properly, it benefits both parties, big or small, rich or poor.

http://www.commonsenseeconomics.com/Readings/Comparative%20Advantage.CSE.pdf

http://arnoldkling.com/econ/GMU/lectures/compadv.html

http://www.netmba.com/econ/micro/comparative-advantage/

Surely, "Free Trade" itself should not be held accountable for the actions of countries that ignore, flout or bypass the rules that stem from it?

It's a bit like holding the passport office regulations responsible when their citizens' passports are forged, and used as part of an assassination.

Pericles and Yabby I am not completely oblivious or closed minded to the valid points you make but overall I still believe in a nation's sovereign right to trade as they see fit. And I don't believe FT is the panacea it is made out to be particularly for developing nations.

Your arguments about my concerns being about the flouting of the principles of free trade are correct but that is not the only concern. On that though, flouting is inevitable because while some countries play the game of FT or speak the rhetoric there will always be self interest. And the flouting will inevitabley be thus, particularly with those who wield more power and believe themselves to be less accountable.

This argument is equally valid for those who flout competition law in more protectionist systems. Both systems are not infallible but I think for many nations free trade is the least desirable of the two. Both need oversight and some regulation otherwise it will be a cowboy affair.

DreamOn's perspective is one that I believe can work and is a mix of 'free' trade with some regulation and protections as might suit a particular time and place, where one or more factors might influence the swinging of the pendulum from one side to the other.

Severin
Thanks for the links. I think I might give up on this one too, there is not much more to add and Yabby and I always go over the same ground but he is at heart a gentleman I think. :)

Pelican, I accept that the whole trade, free trade story is
counter intuitive. For that very reason, the majority of
the public will not even bother to try to understand it.
The public just look at the short term, ouch, there goes
my job etc, not the big picture and how things interlink
in the longer term.

Its a bit like evolution theory really. You need to get
your mind around it and its complex, believing "god did it"
is the easy mental option and does not require much thinking.

You clearly have the intelligence to get your mind around
the trade story, perhaps not the will, but that is your choice.

But the evidence is overwhelming. Far more people have been
dragged out of poverty by trade, then development aid can
ever dream of.

Just go back in history and see where Japan, South Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong were, in the 60s. Look where
they are now.

China and India both refused to accept the evidence for years,
so their people continued to starve. It was only when they
finally conceded to the reality, that their economies took
off, along with the benefits to their people.

The wheel of course turns full circle and today, all these
nations are some of Australia's largest customers, to our
benefit.

What amuses me is that you and I have similar aims in life,
yet went about achieving them in such different ways.
I moved to the bush 30 years ago, with the idealistic
dream of building my old MacDonalds farm, to live the
country life etc. Yet that lifestyle requires that
bills are paid, that is the reality. It took me years
of struggle to figure it out and achieve it, but in the
end I did. Guess what. Free trade globally was how
I did it! But that is another story.