I would agree that the culture of a country or region often comes down to what it produces.

Think of Bordeaux, and many people will think of wine. Think of Milan, and many people will think of fashion. Think of Silicon Valley, and many people will think of software.

BUT think of Made in Australia, and the mentality of many people is to now think “Buy Imports”.

Why, because we have been repeatedly told by academics and politicians that imports are best.

Now, we not only have a very minimal manufacturing base, we have minimal culture and identity.

Free trade is good, when it is fair.

It doesn't take too long to realise that fair, free trade is not very common at the moment.

I tend to prefer free trade as it brings so many more opportunities and chances but your example of banana farmers is spot on. Simply looking at the economic benefits of free trade is flawed, unless we all turn into mindless, emotionless automatons. Having said that, I'm not a big fan of subsidies that unfairly favour one group. Tricky positions to balance.

Also, like your idea of a "technofix" - hopefully something will come around. Just looking and comparing the technologies and skills available 200, 100, 50, 25 years ago...optimism is not dead yet.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

If Gilbert is, as the blurb says, 'expecting his first child', he is probably not of an age to remember the results of protectionism in Australia during the 60s and 70s. Think unreliable, high-priced, dangerous cars, high-priced, shoddy goods that were difficult to repair, and Australians prevented by law from buying Australian-made goods so they could be sold at a higher price overseas. Return to that situation? No thanks. And, after all, why should I care more for the banana farmers of Queensland -- who are, after all, in a comfortable country with a reasonable unemployment benefit -- than the banana farmers of Sumatra, who presumably need my dollars much more?

Moreover, if the costs of restructuring an industry are genuinely more than the money saved by buying from overseas, then it is the taxpayer, not the consumer, who should subsidise the failing industry, since it is the taxpayer who would otherwise have to foot the bill for restructuring. But I find it hard to believe that a credible case can be made out for propping up dying industries -- at anybody's expense.

It seems that way on the outside but, can we afford any more manufacturing with our population base. We are still coming out of a downturn yet our unemployment is not all that bad at this time. How about that..

Jon J,
"unreliable, high-priced, dangerous cars, high-priced, shoddy goods that were difficult to repair,"

I lived through the 70's, and I can't remember anything of the sort, and I think that this type of statement is a part of propagating a myth.

There are Australian standards that manufactured goods have to abide by, and many of those standards were around in the 1970's.

In fact, there was considerable resistance to buying products from asian countries because they were considered of worse quality than Australian products.

Short of dismantling global capitalism, it seems to me the least conscionable thing we can do is stoop to protectionism again, unless we're prepared to be self-sufficient in all commodities, and not just the ones we specialise in. We should be thinking beyond the selfish notion of what's good for our prosperity and considering the impact, especially on poor trading nations, of protectionism. Apart from the dire impact of tariffs on poor countries, tariffs beget retaliatory tariffs and the only ones who prosper in that scenario are wealthy nations that have the manufacturing base to to starve out the little fish. Indeed this is an old scenario and the genie is out of the bottle. Apart from resource-rich nations like Australia, these days the west would probably suffer more, as the once poor countries are now big fish. So while the author's idea is vested in reigning in rampant consumerism, I think it's naive. One of the benefits of free trade is it forces diplomacy and cooperation, or at least communication, and thus initiates global, if fraught, stability. Free trade is probably largely responsible for comparative world peace of recent decades.
In practice, protectionism is a form of insular nationalism, however commendable the motive. Today, alienating the global community and going it alone would soon provoke resentment and probably invasion.
The free market would indeed probably be (as an inhuman equation) the fairest means of distribution---if it were not bounded (in a closed system). As it is, free trade is bound to get bound-up, that is binded, as the limits to growth are reached, markets shrink and wealth stagnates in rich polyps. At which point the rest of the world, malnourished, degenerates, peacefully or is put down---and perhaps a new feudalism begins.

The dream of reforming the system is pure utopianism; it won't happen, can't happen.

Squuers
I think you overlook currency rates, and overlook just how dependant Australia now is on coal. If coal prices were to drop to levels at the start of this decade, Australia would be bankrupt.

Very little is being produced in the country, with some belief that we have also become a net importer of food.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/australia-a-net-importer-of-food-20101027-173kl.html

Reduction in tarrifs should have occurred with an increase in our manufacturing base, but it didn't.

So while you may lecture on the nasty evil tarrifs, do you have any ideas on how to increase our manufacturing base, now that there are few tarrifs?

Dear Vanna,
I was saying exactly that, that manufacturing has largely gone off shore and that countries like Australia rely on resources.

<So while you may lecture on the nasty evil tarrifs, do you have any ideas on how to increase our manufacturing base, now that there are few tarrifs?>

I have no sympathy and am not concerned with Australia, which is a spoiled rich nation that's never done anything to merit its wealth. I'm more interested in fairness, which is a universal concept and cannot exist in one quarter unless it also abides in the others.
But I shall read other people's thoughts with interest and try to sit this one out, as am very busy writing a subversive PhD.

Squuers,
"I have no sympathy and am not concerned with Australia, which is a spoiled rich nation that's never done anything to merit its wealth"

I am wondering where you get the money from to write your PhD.

If you are getting it from the Australian taxpayer, then perhaps you shouldn't be getting it from the Australian taxper.

You haven't suggested how to increase our manufacturing base, or even to stop being a net importer of food, because you don't know how.

That is your merit, and not ironically, most of the universities in this country import almost everything they use, which doesn't say much for their usefullness, self-reliance and know how.

What makes you think that manufacturing in AU is absent. Industrial sites are still expanding. Employment is going well considering:
Someone leaves and someone starts up, i don't see the problem.
If there was anymore manufacturing going on, there would be screems of no staff.

Manufacturing is definitely important, but the new industries of IT, biotech/pharma, electronics etc have largely gone overseas.

That's not to say that (some) of our governments haven't been trying to establish new industries in Australia but our reliance on mining and agriculture can only last so long. I am thinking that diversification will protect the economy from any collapse in resource or agriculture prices. And this is perhaps where subsidising the set-up of new industries is worth the trouble.

Korea, China, SE Asia, India, the Middle East, Brazil...they are all on the way up, while Japan, the US and Europe will at best, in the short term, remain marginally stable. Tourism and education are industries that are now on a downtrend in Australia so while things are still good we should figure out ways to keep the economy that way.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Vanna has a bee in his bonnet about this.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/8195905/wa-labour-shortage-looming-again/

The fact is, we are still short of tradesmen and its getting worse.
Whilst we might make less consumers goods, manufacturing of
specialised gear for all those mining developments is growing.

You won't spend 200 billion $ on new mining venture investments,
without creating a hell of a lot of manufacturing jobs.

But Vanna doesen't see these, as they are not goods sold
at Harvey Norman.

What we are really short of in Australia is training. Too many
people are happy to remain unskilled, staying on their butts
in Sydney and Melbourne and want a job down the road. It ain't
that simple.

Interesting isn’t it? Things don’t change.

It is always those sucking hardest on the public teat, the bureaucrat & the academic, who are least interested in supporting those who support them, & pay their salaries.

It gets easier every day to understand the emotions, & the reasons behind China’s Cultural Revolution.

Vanna

When I migrated to Australia in 1989, cars cost far more than they had in the UK for an equivalent model because of tariffs.

Not only were they more expensive, the range and choice was far more limited. At that time Australia not only had higher tariffs, it also had a quota system, meaning that importers only bothered to import more profitable, larger models. As Australia didn’t produce small cars this meant it was virtually impossible to get one.

By then Japan had long ago shed its reputation for producing cheap but unreliable vehicles and was competing with Europe and the USA on both quality and price

To be fair to Squeers, he is not alone. The halls of academia are
loaded with indivuals who think that their true potential lies
in contemplating their navel about the world and we should
apparently all take note of their amazing findings.

The thought of real work, to earn a living and feed their families,
seemingly is not appealing. No wonder Marxism is popular in
some academic circles. If only those pesky entrepreneurs were not
there, there would be even more feed in the trough for them.

I once served on a research review committee, where academics had
to justify their funding, given that much of it came from real
people, working hard, paying levies. Some were truly shocked,
that we wanted to know exactly how their work would benefit
levy payers and the industry!

Squeers is seemingly fortunate. That market economic system which
he hates, ie. BHP, banks, harworking taxpayers and others,
generates hundreds of billions of dollars, which various academics
can tap into, to tell us how evil it is.

I can only find that highly amusing :)

I say, I seem to have diverted the thread..
I knew if I threw out a bit of bait I'd be reeling them in :-)

As it happens I've worked all my life and still working part-time during my academic navel-gazing stretch.

But now, back on topic, comrades.
Do you agree with the author's neo-protectionism?

Yabby, true some academics are a little out of this world.

But without researching for the sake of simply doing research new ideas and concepts may not see the light of day. A rather long article on the change of management style at 3M: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_24/b4038406.htm

Academics that I have been and am familiar with, though not many in number, also teach, run commercial entities, manage departments, are involved in government and corporate affairs etc.

There are some research papers and theses that are almost 100% useless. I do not have any numbers, but let's hope they are in the minority.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

First, let me shunt that drivel about the bad old protectionist period into the myth cemetery.

Australia’s era of greatest prosperity was the 1950s and 60s when tariffs protected family farmers and manufacturers. There was no poverty and every family had two cars. Widespread wealth was due to tariff protections; and the successful distribution of wealth was caused by the trade unions, which ensured that workers got a fair share of the national pie.

When the free trade cult won influence, enabled largely by the Zionist banker-driven WTO, tariffs were incrementally withdrawn and the poverty and unemployment began. Australia’s vast middle class disappeared, to be replaced by plutocrats and an all-pervasive poverty class. Over three decades three million jobs were lost, and a million rural and regional workers migrated to cities to find jobs.

This precipitated massive urban sprawl, gobbling up our valuable arable soils and urban ecosystems.

The urban drift strained our tiny city catchments and created a water crisis. Impoverished regional councils went broke and state governments absorbed these with amalgamations. Another effect was to put the ALP in power in all states.

Meanwhile, the foreign buyouts of our resources and infrastructure resulted in rocketing utility prices. And so on.

Now, how does this sound like a happy story?

Any reader who wants to know more about this actual period of history can read http://www.oziz4oziz.com/ and if interest is whetted, ask me for the free e-booklet Globalisation of Australia. I promise you, it ain’t boring.

Gilbert Holmes

In case you wondered: polarity, social organisation, philosophy, and peace are indeed connected.

An ancient example: the northern Aboriginal polarity of Dhuwa and Yiritja applies to all things and to all people; predates Yin and Yang by about 10,000 years; and was the determinant for the Aboriginal conflict avoidance system, as well as marriage and social organisation.

You are really on the right track. With an interest in music, you may enjoy http://www.oziz4ozrok.com

if you want to know more, I am at tonyryan43@gmail.com

Actually I think that the author is really onto something here. Hang on, I am the author!

"Manufacturing is definitely important, but the new industries of IT, biotech/pharma, electronics etc have largely gone overseas. ......I am thinking that diversification will protect the economy from any collapse in resource or agriculture prices. And this is perhaps where subsidising the set-up of new industries is worth the trouble." Jorge

"So while you may lecture on the nasty evil tarrifs, do you have any ideas on how to increase our manufacturing base, now that there are few tarrifs?" Vanna

When reasonable people have such genuine concerns, how has protectionism been so forgotten?

Squeers, I have marched with your comrades on the streets against the exceses of the IMF's structural adjustment programs, and listened to Vandana Shiva lamenting the plight of the Indian small farmers. "Anyone like to buy my rice? Great rice, cheap price!" "No thankyou, you are my neighbour but the imported stuff is cheaper; and I don't have much money because no-one wants my mangoes anymore." I think you had best do a little more navel gazing before you put your name to championing free trade.

Thanks for those comments Tony, I'll check out those links tomorrow night. Interesting stuff.

*I promise you, it ain’t boring.*

Well clearly it is flawed, because you forgot to mention that
riding on the sheep's back, caused the sheep to collapse. The
invention of nylon etc. did not help either.

*Do you agree with the author's neo-protectionism?*

Comrade Squeers, to be honest, methinks that Gilbert is doing it
the easy way. He dreams up all these philosphies, but does not
really think them through. Its easier to post them on OLO and
then get us mug punters to do the hard work of providing the
critique.

You actually made some valid points earlier. Aussies did indeed
get it on a plate and few appreciate it. A few industries learned
to compete globally, but not too many.

Free trade is indeed the best way to assist those in the third world,
but as we see here, most only focus on their own little patch.

Fact is, due to protectionism, much of Australian industry became
fat, lazy and complacent. Australian consumers paid a heavy price
and so has industry, for many simply lost the ability to be
competitive and focus on the real world out there. We have too
many easy options. Do bit of mining, develop a bit of real estate,
there is no need to worry too much. The money will still roll in.

Despite all this, I don't think that all is lost. I watched the
Junior Masterchef kids tonight do their thing, and if 10-11 year
old kids can be inspired to be so creative and keen, then clearly
there is hope. Finally coming up with a functional training system
to teach our kids real skills, is crucial to our future. It's
going to take intelligent training, not just throwing money at
something without much thought, which is what we normally do.

Dear Tony Ryan,
I shall look at your link with interest, but on the surface of it you appear to be pedalling just the nationalism I was criticising. As I said, it's not about "Australian" prosperity. Australia is an enormous and enormously rich (resources) landmass inhabited by a small population of invaders who killed-off or marginalised the natives and took over. All a normal course of events of course in human history, but nationalism is no longer plausible in the global system capitalism created and Australia has been and is party to. Because of demand, Australia's resource wealth is impervious to protectionism, so we can go on quarrying the place and raking in the doe. But once this God-given wealth is all fetched up we're going to have to compete in the real dog-eat-dog world we've helped to create but been insulated from. No country any longer has the luxury of nationalism; it's open slather and we have to find a way to get along together. The gross global disparity that currently obtains is not the way--though certainly free trade will never fix it.
So go on mooning the good old days if you like, but they're never coming back.

Dear Gilbert Holmes,
I'd have thought that even you'd have tweaked I was playing Devil's advocate:
<The free market would indeed probably be (as an inhuman equation) the fairest means of distribution---if it were not bounded (in a closed system). As it is, free trade is bound to get bound-up, that is binded, as the limits to growth are reached, markets shrink and wealth stagnates in rich polyps>

..Not exactly subtle, duh.
But you continue to surprise...

Squeers,
It is not completely open-slather, because you are overlooking tax.

The Australian public pay tax to the Australian government, who then give the money back (hopefully) as government spending on various projects.

We do not pay tax to a government in another country, which then spends the money on the Australian people.

But we now have an anomaly. There are many government departments and almost the entire education system that spends so much of the money that government gives them on imports from another country.

So the circle is broken and the taxpayer money leaves the country.

What also has developed is the mentality that buying anything from Australian companies is not in the best interests of the country.

We have very little national pride or identity left, but we still have to pay tax to the Australian government.

BTW. As far as your “invasion” is concerned, it is the history of the world, and some races were invaded countless times (eg the Great Wall of China was built to stop being continuously invaded). The aborigines were only invaded once.

*But once this God-given wealth is all fetched up we're going to have to compete in the real dog-eat-dog world*

Gawd Squeers, you mean that you city slickers might have to
find real jobs :)

People like me in WA, just about everything we produce, wheat, oats,
lamb, mutton, virtually the lot is exported. Now the protectionists
want us to pay extra on our inputs. That is exactly one of the
reasons why the poor old merino collapsed.

Now you are speculating about how long those minerals will last.
Well quite frankly, we would not have a clue and you are going to
have to do an awfull lot of drilling to find out. Its a huge
continent and much of it has never seen a drill hole.

Given that we can't predict the future very well a year ahead,
now you want to guess 50-100 years ahead. I bet you will be
totally wrong. How many people accurately predicted the future,
50 years ago?

We will never have competitive industries in Australia, if they
are protected from competition. They will simply suck the tariff
system dry as they did last time, making those efficient exporters
even less efficient. Its crazy!

A couple of days ago I ordered some stuff from the IKEA website.
It turned up this morning, up country, quite amazing. Unless
you people think that Australians are too stupid to compete with
the Swedes etc, then we'll need a stupidity tariff. Other wise
our businesses should be learning from the Swiss, Germans, Dutch,
etc, to see why they can do it and what we are doing wrong.

It starts with some proper training for our youth, so that they
actually have skills to their names

Dear Vanna,
thanks for the engagement, but I think I'm whistling in the wind on OLO, so I won't bore you or anyone else with a riposte.

Dear Yabby,
I bet you're a nice bloke, but you should open your mind.
For the record, I've done some of the hardest physical labour jobs there are, and never slept so well as when physically exhausted, or enjoyed life so much as when the body was put through its paces. I find sitting in a chair in front of a computer ten times harder.

And that's the cure for psychosomatic mental illness--discover your body, give it what it cries out for and your mind will join in.
Unfortunately, all you have for that is a treadmill.

"The aborigines were only invaded once."

Can we at least get history right? Australia was invaded a number of times, twice incorporating genocides.

Sometime during the Pleistocene, a negrito group made its way across the land bridge created by the most recent ice age.

With the Holocene came a progression of racial groups. The absence of Negrito DNA across most of Australia clearly demonstrates the Negritos were killed off. The Ice Age caused the oceans to rise and saved those Negritos thus sheltered on the new island of Tasmania.

A small enclave continued to exist in remote rainforest on the Atherton. Eventually the men were killed off and the women taken as wives by Queensland Aborigines. Any readers wanting to follow up on this can buy the recently published book Pygmonia, by Peter McAllister.

The British Empire brought the first white Australians here in chains, with muskets in their backs; which is not the classic uniform or equipment of genocidal invaders. Nevertheless, there were reprisal mass killings in several places in NSW, Queensland, and Western Australia.

The so-called Black Line of Tasmania is a fabrication(Read Keith Windschuttle).

The most recent invasion was in 1710, by Macassans of Indonesia, with up to 15,000 in good trepang fishing seasons.

Two Small Pox epidemics killed tens of thousands, and others died from Chicken Pox, Measles, Influenza, Pneumonia, and other European diseases. Yaws and leprosy was introduced by the Macassans and killed many more, or caused sterility. Malnutrition caused by selective western diet was a serious issue.

Perhaps now we can discuss protectionism versus free trade without these irritating non sequiturs being tossed in the debate.

And as to respondents deriding tariff restoration as mawkish muddling back to the past, in my last survey (August 2010) of a doorknock sample of an Australian demographic corridor, 86% supported such reform. I can promise those who so undemocratically imposed their minority ideological imposition, a very unpleasant future when we take our nation back.

Tariffs were a means to extract the wealth from the smaller states, & transfer it to NSW, & Vic, where most of the manufacturing was done.

It even discriminated against the country people of those states, in favour of the capital cities.

Not only did everyone pay 30 to 50% more for locally manufactured goods, giving factory workers, & owners a large boost in incomes, the tariffs collected on imports were spent in these cities as well. Import duties built Canberra, giving the bureaucrats a standard of living most could only dream of.

We may have to reintroduce tariffs to give meaningful employment at some stage. We can not go on for ever taking in each others washing, some of us will have to get productive again sometime. However there is another aspect that requires attention.

We will have to break the grip of the few companies who hold far too high a percentage of our retail trade. This domination is not permitted in the USA for example. There is a limit on the percentage of a market any one company can have in the US

For these companies, with huge turnover, it’s worth sourcing product off shore for just a few cents extra margin, & they are doing this aggressively. For smaller companies the gain is not worth the effort involved, so they are more likely to buy local.

It is sobering to remember that I once supplied raw materials to 6 companies in Sydney alone, who manufactured TV sets, & 10 who built refrigerators

Dear Tony Ryan,
first antisemitism:
<When the free trade cult won influence, enabled largely by the Zionist banker-driven WTO>

Then a spurious historical argument designed to disenfranchise an aboriginal population that has occupied the Australian landmass for many tens of thousands of years (in favour of a ravaging mob that's been here for a paltry 250. Though personally, I don't think any humans in the modern world should be entitled to exclusive ownership of their country's natural wealth, especially in a case such as Australia, with its massive reserves presided over by a relatively tiny population).

Now threats:
<I can promise those who so undemocratically imposed their minority ideological imposition, a very unpleasant future when we take our nation back.>

Does that entitle me to call you a fascist?

As for protectionism, here are some conventional pro/cons:
http://www.ehow.com/about_5106315_pros-cons-protectionism.html

I'm for ditching the capitalist model, period, but hypothetically, the weight of these views seem to back up what I said above.

Squeers

Let me respond:

"first antisemitism:"... Ethnic Jews are Judeans, Shepardi or Mizrahim; and their ancestors lived in greater Palestine. They, along with local Arabs, are the only Semites. Russian and European Jews have origins in Russia and Europe. They are Jewish by adoptive religion only and, as Mohandas Ghandi pointed out, this gives them no rights to another people's land. This leaves the Ashkenazim, whose origins are the 8th century Khazar Kingdom, whose king made everyone Jewish by instant decree. Hordes from the east drove them into East Europe and the Khazar language, mixed with German, resulted in the Yiddish we hear today. Again, they are not Semites.

The Zionist Jews, Askenazim Rothschild bankers in particular, are not Semites. If I criticise them, how does that make me anti-Semitic?

All this tells me is that you are very easily propagandised by Zionists.

"Then a spurious historical argument"... What part was spurious?

"Does that entitle me to call you a fascist?"... No. Fascism is an elitist minority forcing its views on the majority. We already have that in Australia. Surveys (available) demonstrate that around 90% of Australian Government policies are opposed by 80% of the people (ranging from 76% to 96%).

I am merely stating what history has taught us, that following a period of oppression by an obnoxious minority, the majority always let their former oppressors know how it feels.

I feel the majority are far too reasonable and forgiving.

Hasbeen,
The usual excuse for not purchasing locally is that local products are inferior in quality and more expensive than imports.

But over time, most things become better in quality and cheaper. I remember having an early model mobile phone. It came with a recharger the size of a shoebox, and weighed about the same as a brick. Now of course someone can easily lose their mobile phone if it drops out of their pocket.

So it is somewhat a hypothetical question, but it would be interesting to see what Australian manufactures could now produce, if given half a chance.

*It is sobering to remember that I once supplied raw materials to 6 companies in Sydney alone, who manufactured TV sets, & 10 who built refrigerators*

Well that just shows us how manufacturing has changed over the
decades. Today its all about huge, highly automated factories,
with as little manual labour as possible. Robot welders etc
are the norm. Australia can't compete there, we don't have the
population to have the required volume of scale.

Going back to making things by hand, would blow their cost right
out of the water. Consumers could not afford to buy them.

But then today, the cost to get things from the wharf to the
consumer, is often larger then the cost of manufacture. So even
on imported goods, a major chunk of their value stays local.

* in my last survey (August 2010) of a doorknock sample of an Australian demographic corridor, 86% supported such reform*

Clearly your survey was not much good, for people vote with
their wallets, every single day.

This is becoming an amusing thread. We have our marxist, our bloke
who believes nearly everything could be made locally, now Tony
with his economic voodoo, which is basically garbage.

WA does seem to be the go ahead state. 10% of the population
producing 50% of Australia's exports. I'd say that if the East
tried to go back to the dark days of tariffs, West Australians
would vote for you lot to get lost and simply secede. I doubt
if this state would go backwards 50 years.

Hi Tony Ryan,

Checked out your websites. I like a lot of what's on them, but am concerned that you go too far in some areas. For example, I am a supporter of moderate protectionism, that encourages diversity within local economies while still enabling trade. Creating a tariff 'firewall' to protect Australia is pretty strong rhetoric, moving toward the no-trade end of the free-trade/no-trade spectrum that I mentioned in the article.

With the Australian centred focus of your thoughts; fair enough, I think that it is in Australia's interest to protect its economy, but it's not about "We're gonna do what's right for us and the rest of you can jump." I realize that you didn't say that, but if you don't want to get accused of nationalism, perhaps it would be better if you provided an broader, international context within which the Australian focus could fit. (You could for example look at how supporting the implementation of trade tariffs could be used as an important component of development aid; encouraging each region toward self-directed economic interdependence and self-reliance.)

I also like the community-control-of-comunity-issues and direct democracy theme from the music related website, though I think that you could do more work on describing the specific mechanisms for the 'genuine democracy' that you describe. The devil may be in the detail but if you figure it out, the same processes can of course be applied across the board to the management of all local assets and scenarios.

Squeers, The article which you link for us with Pros and cons of protectionism is pretty poor to say the least. Shane Hall's enquiries are obviously biased by his assumption that free trade is good. In his points about the pro's of protectionism, we have, "Economists concede that free trade ..... in the long term, ... is far more beneficial than protectionism" and "The validity of this (protectionist) argument, however, is undermined by the tendency for such policies to become permanent as ... aided industry grows dependent on the support"

But Shane doesn't have any concerns about the supposed pros of free trade.

Surely you can do better than that. Your superviser would laugh at you.

Yabby, Thankyou for reading my articles and making comments. Your input and good humour is well appreciated. Friendliness aside however, I am concerned that you may be in unfamiliar territory here, what with Hasbeen making comments like, "We may have to reintroduce tariffs to give meaningful employment at some stage.", and you finding yourself in ideological allignment with Squeers. How weird is that?

Gidday Gilbert

I find it ironical when people who are monolingual and have experience of living in only one culture, then go on to express international values.

I have learned several languages in my life, lived in several cultures, and comprehend the conflict inherent in this.

I know that nobody in any other country cares that three million Australians are unemployed; that possibly up to 13% are homeless.

I also know that Australia is the only country remaining that is potentially self-sufficient. That we do not need to trade, except to balance the value of imports; most of which we are capable of producing ourselves. In fact, since WWII, most of our exports served the purpose of making certain elites wealthier; and these same exports had an inflationary effect on domestic consumption.

Other exports cost us jobs... for example, live cattle export cost us around 250,000 jobs in abattoirs and flow-on industries.

This is not ideology. It is reclaiming lives for the millions whose prosperity was sacrificed at the alter of free trade cultism; and UN-promoted internationalism; all of which can be traced to the creators of the UN: the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and their Zionist alliance.

I have observed the broken families, the thousands of suicides, the children who have no future, and I swear that their prosperity will be returned to them. I see this as a burgeoning war.

If you want to call that nationalism, as though this were a dirty word, I will respond with the word 'traitor' to anyone who sells us out to foreign powers. Ironically, the Constitution uses these very words. Am I a patriot? Yes.

On the issue of democracy; as this was understood by Thucydides, the Irish Monks, the Finnish Philosophers, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Lord Acton, and Gore Vidal; I have prepared articles that cover this in detail. All pertinent issues are covered by similar articles, including an e-booklet on the Seventeen Elements of the Globalisation of Australia.

On music, Gilbert, what instrument do you play?

*Other exports cost us jobs... for example, live cattle export cost us around 250,000 jobs in abattoirs and flow-on industries.*

Gawd, I just love this economic voodoo. Last time I checked, we
were exporting around 750'000 cattle. That would be 1 job per
3 cows slaughtered. Wow!

Fact is that northern pastoralists would have gone broke without the
live export trade and there would be no jobs at all.

Fact is that many of our meatworks, even in Queensland, depend
on 457 workers, as Australians don't want the jobs. In WA they
need to use Chinese and Filipinos, Aussies don't want the jobs.

The National Farmers Federation knows how important export markets
are to agriculture. Without them, most Australian farmers would
go bankrupt. They also know how high tariffs on inputs nearly
sent many farmers to the wall.

But voodoo economics is preached at every election by the CEC
and luckily its pretty well ignored by the Australian public.
Not too many take Larouche seriously.

Yabby,

I wonder how many of the mining companies operating in WA that you enthuse about are actually multi-nationals.

Much of "free trade" actually means competition by local companies against multi-nationals.

The small banana grower in the Philippines probably sells his product to a multi-national, who then exports it around the world.

For free trade, read multi-national.

And if we keep importing everything, eventually we just become workforce fodder for faceless multi-nationals, and consumers of their products.

Continuous importation eventually means no identity.

*I wonder how many of the mining companies operating in WA that you enthuse about are actually multi-nationals.*

Oh lots of them. So what? BHP is a multi national. Its the world's
biggest mining company. Its also mostly owned by Australians.
If you have superannuation Vanna, then you too would be a part
owner of BHP. For that is who owns most of the multi nationals.

If a company makes good software, or good anything, why should they
not sell it around the world if they can?

CSL, Boral, CSR, our big banks operating in Britain, Asia and NZ,
many Australian miners operating in Africa, Austal, Amcor, Westfield,
Bluescope, etc, all Australian companies operating in other countries.

*And if we keep importing everything, eventually we just become workforce fodder for faceless multi-nationals, and consumers of their products.*

Well as you can see from the above, we also own many of them. They
send their profits back to Australian shareholders and our tax office
here. Better that way, then as it used to be, when most of Australia
was owned by British investors.

If you don't just want to be workforce fodder Vanna, you are free
to be a part owner in just about any multi national. Just buy
some shares with your hard earned savings. Then they will send you
too, a share of any profits, if they make one

Sadly many Australians would rather gamble away 20 billion bucks
a year on the pokies and other gambling, rather then invest in
Australia's future and own part of our industries.

For those interested, this weekend's Weekend Financial Review
has a 3 page article about what business fears most: no workers!

They are short of engineers, all the trades, healthcare workers,
accountants, you name it.

It just blows me away that parents don't get it through to their
kids, that if they want to do ok in life, so learn a trade, learn
a skill, become qualified in something.

Flipping burgers just ain't going to do it. So we are forced to
import skilled workers by the hundreds of thousands. In Perth they
even had to import such basic occupations as policemen!

That is why economies like Germany, Switzerland and others power
ahead. Their kids learn skills. Australia just hasn't twigged
yet and then we get all the nonsense on this thread, about the
unemployed.

Yabby,

Cross off of CSR sugar. Now owned by an Asian company.

There is a skills shortage, and not necessarily the fault of the population.

Most skills rely on science and maths (and even nurses now have to have part of a science degree) but maths and science have been almost eliminated from education systems (too male).

Someone can actually enroll in teachers training college without having done maths and science in grades 11 and 12. They know very little of maths and science, and when they become teachers, they teach almost no maths and science to their students.

The end results of that system: - In QLD it was found that 15 year old students had the lowest level of interest in science out of the students in 41 OECD countries.

The teachers then expect the public to pay them more and more for knowing less and less, and teaching less and less.

Meanwhile I have never known any teacher to place any priority on purchasing anything from Australian companies.

*Cross off of CSR sugar. Now owned by an Asian company.*

Not yet Vanna, but they have made an offer. But then CSR split, went
to America and made a fortune in cement. That was eventually sold
to Cemex of Mexico for a record price, just before the crash of
the American housing market. My super fund had shares in them,
they quadrupled in value. All money coming back to Australia!
My point was our companies make money in other markets too.

*There is a skills shortage, and not necessarily the fault of the population.*

Well yes it is the fault of the population. There are good reasons
why Asians rush to study. Asia has known hard times, they know
what qualifications are worth. Aussies have really had it too easy,
no worries, we'll just flip burgers, bugger the study. Then they
complain about jobs. Duh.

My niece did engineering, so it's possible to do it at schools etc.
here.

Yabby,

The offer has been accepted, just the paper work to be completed.

Bundaberg sugar has gone (now owned by a Belgium company), and CSR is about to go (to be owned by a Singapore based company). Quite a lot of the sugar industry is about to become foreign owned, including all of the packaged sugar you buy from the supermarket for you coffee, and most of the ethanol if you purchase ethanol blend for your car.

The country that is called Australia is just a potpourri of multi-national ownership.

*The offer has been accepted, just the paper work to be completed.*

Well Vanna, they have yet to send my superfund a cheque. When they
do, they can indeed claim ownership. I will invest the proceeds
in other Australian assets.

*The country that is called Australia is just a potpourri of multi-national ownership.*

Most of the world is now that way, Vanna. We need more Australains
to own some of these assets, less Australians wasting their savings
on the pokies!

Yabby,
It is interesting that CSR stands for commercial sugar refineries, but shortly they will not have any commercial sugar refineries.

For free trade -> read trade with multinationals, many of whom dictate their own terms of trade, and have large advertising budgets to carry out consumer thought control.

If you decry lack of ownership of Australian assets, then most of the time someone imports something they are indirectly loosing Australian assets, because they are more than likely handing over money to a multinational company.

Vanna, I haven't followed the CSR story too closely, but I gather
that they want to invest more in building materials etc, I guess
its more profitable then refining sugar. Clearly they had no
Australians wanting to buy their sugar mills.

As to multi nationals, I have no problem with them. I would rather
that their products are available then not be available.

Elecrolux for instance are a multi national. They operate here
and make fridges, dishwashers etc in Australia. I buy their
products and they have in fact improved, since they took over the
old Email business. Clearly all that research done globally,
has made a difference.

If we want more of the profits from multi nationals to come to
Australia, we are free to buy a share of them.

The thing is, Australians have to get their house in order, to
be able to compete with Korea, Japan, Europe, USA etc. It seems
that the Australian public voted against freeing up the labour
market, preferring the bells and whistles option. Fair enough,
in that case companies have a good reason to not invest here.
That is the price we pay. Short term, our Australian $ is high,
but long term, if it leads to the Australian $ dropping, so be it,
we chose to go down that path.

The lamb that I produce is sold to about 50 countries. Why should
I be against free trade and its benefits? I benefit every day
from buying better products cheaper. If nobody in Australia is
willing to make something that is as good, at a fair price.

Nobody in AU can make anything that can compete with places like china with poverty labor costs. The only way to go is to come up with home grown commodities that do not have a labor cost. [ cow flatulance ] now if you can bottle it i am sure the chinese would find a use for it.
We in AU have not been told as yet, on how to compete with free trade, there has been no suggestions on how to survive the onslaught of commodities from low labor countries. Telling people to bye Au won't work. Manufactures will continue to go off shore as long as there is low labour costs elsewhere. The cost of labour is everything, Can someone explain what the idea of free trade is about.

vanna, what are your thoughts on Australian MNCs?

Should we tell them to pull out of Asia, Europe, US etc and tell local companies in those regions to fill the void?

As for teachers placing a priority on buying from Australian companies...is that their job? Then again, are they advocating "buy foreign brands"?

Tony, if Australia were self-sufficient...then what would we do when new technologies get developed? No slick new phones, TVs, clothes etc. In essence, take us back a few hundred years (when every country would steal from each other or go to war...). If (only if) we wanted to keep up with the rest of the world then we would need to become a research-intensive society as soon as possible (and without the help of foreign researchers).

579, labour costs are probably one of the major reasons why so many companies do their manufacturing in China. Most of the low cost countries now (China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh etc) are starting to demand better conditions for workers with varying degrees of success. China and India for example are moving rapidly to diversify and modernise their industries. How long they will take is anyone's guess.

As for free trade, it basically means just that: free trade. Freedom to trade across regions/countries without any interference. The reality is that free trade doesn't really exist (not even within Australia). There are protections imposed officially or unofficially: safety standards, consumer preference etc etc. Also, the fact that governments around the world intervene on "national interests" and that workers are subjected to varying degrees of restrictions (work in the US, anyone?) means that free trade is at best a goal and one that many people are working towards but as always domestic and international politics find a way to make things ever so difficult.

In this respect the US can be a good example. Internally there are few restrictions (like Australia) yet from what I gather regions (maybe not all) have kept their character/culture: The South, New York, Midwest, Alaska, Texas, Hawaii. Something that will probably occur in the EU too.

Thoughts anyone?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/aust.pdf

Well despite all these claims of China being the source of everying,
only around 18% of our imports come from China.

But then out biggest imports: motor vehicles, petroleum products,
medicines. Not too much from China there.

579, free trade is about producing things, where they can be
produced with a comparative advantage, to the benefit of
consumers globally.

Labour is only one component of many. The Chinese today are the
world's biggest market for European luxury goods. Why? Cause
rich people want to show they are rich, so they will pay 5000$
for a Hermes handbag or 15'000$ for a Rolex watch etc.

Price is only ever one reason to buy something. Cheap consumer
goods which people can throw away if they are a dud, are produced
in China. But for high tech, we turn to Japan, or Germany or
Switzerland or the USA.

When I bought my 4wd, I bought a Japanese one, made in Thailand.
Why? Quality and reliability. Value for money.

I don't buy food products from China, as I don't trust their
food products. But they buy our meat products.

So to cut a long story short, this notion that China will produce
everything is wrong. For a start, doing business there is not as
easy as many think. But with a billion people, they are clearly
a large player on the global scene.

They are also our best customer.

Yabby,
The purchasing price of the sugar mills and refineries was miniscule compared to the amount of money spent over the years on developing the farms, developing the sugar mills, and developing the irrigation projects and ports. The multinational company then steps in, and reaps the profits from all the money previously spent.

For free trade -> read multinationals.

579, Jorge,
Labor costs are not that great and over emphasised. They represent about 20 to 25% of total costs of production. Reducing everyone’s pay by 50% would only reduce total costs of production by about 10 to 12%.

Microsoft actually went to India, not because of low labor costs, but because there were more available programmers, and a less feminist and less hopeless education system. In other words, more skilled workers, and not necessarily less wage costs.

Yabby,

China has been growing steadily at a consistent pace of around ten percent annually - and, consequently, is diabolically polluted. (70 percent of their river systems can no longer sustain fish life).
Do you believe it is possible for that country to continue on the same tack without the reality of such a degraded environment impacting the well-being and productivity of the lower orders who are the ones that provide the manpower for the manufacturing of the West's trinkets?

Poirot, I don't think that the Chinese will continue polluting as
they have been. They are in fact clamping down on many industries
and changing their ways. The thing is, now they are rich enough
to feed their people, unlike 30 years ago. They are also rich
enough to do something about pollution.

I remind you that the West went through a similar period. Today
the air in places like London and much of Western Europe, the US
etc, is much better then it was 100 years ago. London used to
be covered in coal dust, no more.

Vanna, the farms, the ports, the irrigation systems have not been
sold, the way I understand it. Just some very old sugar mills.

CSR did ok out of sugar when they had a bit of a monopoly. No more.
Today anyone can build a new state of the art sugar mill and buy
from farmers. They are not compelled to sell to one mill.

This piece makes much more sense (thankfully) than Holmes' screed on Marx vs. Hegel (and Marx admired David Ricardo in many ways actually, for that matter); but the solution proffered, again, doesn't grasp the essence of the matter: here (the likes of 'comparative advantage' and the other joys of "free trade" aside), simple national protectionism -- however intelligently and diligently adhered-to -- will not long be able to stand up to the predations of international capital in its advanced state of senile decay (which we term "imperialism"). Local production, et al., should indeed re-establish its pride of place in the schema of human society, in general. Where it makes most sense. However to fixate on this particular petit-bourgeois pipedream as the required strategic solution to the present problems of humanity, is to ignore the necessity -- and desirability -- of INDEED rationalizing social production on a world scale: except this time on a *socialist* and democratic basis.

And since the ideologs here will obviously violently disagree on that essential point -- I'll simply stop here. No point wasting my time further with a partisan and unreceptive audience, without cogent feedback first.

Yabby,
The "very old sugar mills" that were bought were some of the most advanced sugar mills in the world, and Australia produced some of the best quality raw sugar in the world (normally in competition with South Africa to produce the world's best quality raw sugar).

The concept that we need foregin multinationals to improve quality and bring in technology is not necessarily the case. When the Belguim company took over Bundaberg sugar (and subsequently Bundaberg Rum) it brought no new or improved technology into the country. In fact it probably took technology out.

After the sale to a multinational, the sugar farmers and mill workers are now left as workforce fodder for that multinational, with probably much less say in their future than they ever had in the past.

Yabby,

This report is just out, although it's based on data from 2007.
It seems China's ecological footprint is ballooning instead of being reined in - mainly due to the new affluence.

http://www.brecorder.com/news/latest/15772:carbon-emissions-swell-china-s-ecological-footprint-report.html?limitstart=0

*The concept that we need foregin multinationals to improve quality and bring in technology is not necessarily the case.*

Vanna, it certainly is the case, but not in every case. As to the
workers and farmers, I can't see why anything should change for
them. They operate under the same system and rules as before.

Poirot, yes China is increasing total carbom emissions, as does
every developing country which develops. The question was about
pollution in their environment, their rivers etc. They are trying
to do something about it, unlike before.

So what is your point? Should the peasants stay in the fields, with
no development?

Yabby,

My point is that the peasants would be wise to retain their knowledge of the diversity and self-reliance inherent in a pre-industrial existence, because if China keeps chugging along at its present rate they're going to need it sooner rather than later (if their environment is still capable of supporting them).

*the peasants would be wise to retain their knowledge of the diversity and self-reliance inherent in a pre-industrial existence*

I am sure that they will Poirot, for of course the bulk of the
population still lives as poor peasants. China shared the same
problem as India, ie an ever growing population and ever smaller
plots of land per peasant.

At the moment the whole global story is playing out just as
Darwin predicted it would. Either we'll innovate our way out
of our problems or the whole lot will crash one day, due to
a lack of resources. If that happens a bit sooner or a bit later,
hardly matters, in the bigger scheme of things.

I certainly don't lose sleep over the things that I cannot change.
I also am on no guilt trip about the resources that I do
consume, but they are not large.

The thing is, the global population keeps increasing at around
a quarter milion a day and we can't even solve that one between
ourselves, so I hardly think we'll come to agreement on anything
else. The laws of nature will prevail.

China expanding?

Has it occurred to anyone here that China has smothered the family farming and manufacturing sectors in the countries it exports to, plus the flow-on retail merchants. Ignoring absurd government statistics, this has caused 25% unemployment in Australia and the US (as measured by Ryan Research and some of the contributors to GlobalResearch.com); and other countries would be in a comparable position.

This represents a 40% reduction in each government's income tax revenue, and 30% of retail. This represents an inexorably downward spiralling of these economies.

How is China going to continue expansion while 25% of its market populations cannot purchase on a discretionary basis? It cannot. Moreover, it has papered over the trade gap with underpaying its own workforce. This is a powder keg in an arsonist's hobby house. There are many other insoluble problems.

Anyway, I stopped writing here a few years ago because of the abysmal standard of intellect and deficient knowledge base in most bloggers, but happened on Gilbert's thoughts and returned thinking things might be looking up.

Nope. Same ol' same ol'. I'll come back in a few years.

Tony

where on earth do you get these numbers from? You call ABS data "absurd", but you chuck wild numbers into the ether with no proper sourcing or explanation.

At the height of the great depression in 1931-32 Australia's unemployment rate averaged about 20%.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/110/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=3round.asp

Do you serious believe unemployment now is 25% higher?

Rhian

Wrong. In the Great Depression Australia's unemployment was a sustained 15%, but with brief rises to 20%.

Since 2001, every three years, I have surveyed, door-to-door, a demographic coridor on the Sunshine Coast; an area reputed to be more prosperous than most.

In 2007, when the Bureau recorded 2.3% unemployment I found 19%. Why? Because I used the same definition of unemployment used since 1893... 'Not having a job that pays a livable wage'. If consistent definitions are not used the statistics become meaningless. Moreover, in the 2007 survey almost 90% of participants selected the same definition. A little democracy would resolve this.

The Bureau/Centrelink uses a definition that identifies a person as employed if he engages in one hour of training or work in a week. It also excludes all people on work-for-the-dole, or are on CDEP, or on a whole raft of training programmes and mentoring.

If you accept that as legitimate then you are as despicable as any of the elitist academics, social scientists and pseudo-executives who sneer at the thousands who have committed suicide over not being able to look after their families.

I can tell you one thing; I am in contact with workers across Australia, and with their organisations, and the fury is palpable. The day will come, and probably quite soon, when ordinary Aussies take their lives and futures back; and history suggests that when that happens the sector responsible for 3 million jobs lost will become the target.

This thread is ended for me.

Dear Tony Ryan,
I worked in factories from the ages of 14 to 42, and you sound to me like a typical (usually Irish), though with symptoms of megalomania, union boss who, like your "workers across Australia, [and] their organisations, can't see outside the box. You've got beyond your particular industry but now it's the country--nationalism--that you should be superseding. Just as you expanded from industry to nation, can't you see you now need to go from nation to globe? You can't unscramble the egg. No country can become economically insular again. Even if it could (and Australia would have a better chance than most) the rest of the world wouldn't let it. Compared with the unemployed living the high-life in Australia, Chinese workers (and others) are barely approaching that standard. The only chance, in my view, for countries to regrow their cultural distinctiveness and have a decent life, is to get rid of the profit motive worldwide. I'm for getting rid of capitalism, not hoarding the wealth behind tariff walls. It's the capitalists you should be after, the obscenely wealthy across all countries. But I suspect your agenda is ideologically opposite to mine.

Grok

"Local production, et al., should indeed re-establish its pride of place in the schema of human society...... However to fixate on this particular petit-bourgeois pipedream as the required strategic solution to the present problems of humanity..."

Not the solution, but an important part of the picture. Among other things, we could also look at a single global currency value, a balanced cooperative/competitive economy and not to mention a decentralized, directly democratic system of governance tiered upward from the small neighbourhood to the global scale.

Also, I am not just an advocate of "national protectionism": I believe that it is important to protect local economies down to the level of the small neighbourhood.

You say Marx admired Ricardo. Did Marx offer any meaningful analysis of comparative advantage and free trade?

Tony Ryan,

I think that you are an interesting character. People may not always agree with you but you are obviously a talented wordsmith. Why don't you try posting some articles yourself to OLO?!

I looked for your "e-booklet on the Seventeen Elements of the Globalisation of Australia" but couldn't find it.

Gilbert only

It's not on-line yet. There is some suggestion it should remain in-house.

Contact me on tonyryan43@gmail.com and I'll send it as an attachment. Please keep it to yourself.

Tony

Tony

Abusing people who question your data does not enhance your argument.

I said “At the height of the great depression in 1931-32 Australia's unemployment rate averaged about 20%.” That exactly what the data in the paper I linked to show.

It seems to me your definition of “unemployed” will include full-time students, retirees, full-time parents and homemakers, part-time workers, those uable to work due to diasbility, travellers and anyone who is unhappy at their income. That is not consistent with any definition of unemployment that any reputable statistical agency would use, and looks to be simply a device to make “unemployment” look as bad as possible.

The ABS data do have limitations, but as well as the familiar unemployment count they also identify under-employment, which includes people wanting to work longer hours; and detailed analysis of people not in the labour force. These surveys capture the broader employment picture, but again present an unemployment/underemployment picture nowhere near as bad as you present.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/44CFFE8B36AD60B8CA2568A9001393EC?opendocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6220.0Main+Features1Sep%202009?OpenDocument

You have yet to provide verifiable sources – credible or otherwise – for the numbers you use. As well as your unemployment figures, you have yet to explain:

“3 million jobs lost”
“40% reduction in each government’s tax revenue”
“30% of retail” (of retail what?)

Some blurb from The Australian Protectionist Party:

<The federal registration of the Australian Protectionist Party bodes well for the future of the Australian people as we face ongoing dangers to our nation from an increasing refugee influx, Third World immigration, foreign ownership of our economic assets, and Islamic extremism.>
http://www.protectionist.net/

So despite your denials, I reckon I had you (or at least your party) well and trully pegged: fascist! (I wouldn't be surprised if one of my brothers was a member)

And to think, that's where a large chunk of the Australian Labor Party has ended up.

But why so secretive, Tony? There's nothing wrong with using xenophobia to win power is there? It worked for Hitler.

Thanks for the warning above; I'll be sure to keep a low profile should you lot ever gain a majority, or it'll be the gas chamber for me.

Should you change your mind about not posting here, I'll be happy to give you some intellectual engagement.
I don't have the time, but such is my loathing of all that you stand for, I'll find the time.

Rhian, I think you are setting your hopes far too high, to expect
any kind of rational discussion from Tony.

He has yet to explain how 3 cows create a job.

Methinks this is a typical bit of Larouche politics/economic
claims. ie. Make some wild claims about numbers and repeat them
as gospel, but don't let the details interfere with the
rhetoric.

Even Squeers need not be concerned, for these fringe cult groups
are not taken too seriously by the majority of the population.

They simply add a bit of colour to our colourful world and are
best seen as that.

Squeers, I have heard no mention that Tony is involved with the Aust Poectionist Party. (You're not are you Tony?) You've got to be careful not to make wild claims as well.

Ah, you are naive GH.
BTW, with this comment, above: <And to think, that's where a large chunk of the Australian Labor Party has ended up>

I meant that that was where a large chunk of the Labor Party "vote" ends up, with neo-conservative parties like this one. That's why Labor has to play the bullsh!t boarder protection card, otherwise half its constituency would go hard Right

Of course I don't know Tony Ryan, and it could be that he and the hierarchy have a respectable agenda (I doubt it) and are just utilising the ignorant paranoia and selfishness that is undoubtedly well represented among the working class. That's what all parties do after all. That's why none of them stand for anything any more, they all just court the popular vote, the puerile do-nothing centre. Democracy is the tyranny of manipulation and ignorance. Soulless populism.
It's curious (and disturbing) how left and right are capable of such blithe ideological reversal..
Though I'm a pacifist, you can't get much further left than me, and yet during my blue-collar days I was always extremely dubious about manic unionism, that is its introverted agenda, indifference to violence and want of philosophy.

Dear Yabby,
these "fringe dwellers" have a big following and are influential.

Yabby

I guess you're right. I wonder who is persuaded by this approach? Tony himself, perhaps.

Some of you might like to check out this article that was published on OLO on Wednesday.

Might help you sort out a few issues especially Squeers.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11238

Dear GH,

While I don't pretend to comprehensive formulations of, or solutions to, the world's economic ills, I have an infinitely more sophisticated understanding of the concomitant social crises than you do with your inane prescriptions. So please, rather than patronising me, I suggest that "you" should "sort out a few issues", by reading a lot further afield than OLO and new age manuals. Indeed, you'd better start at the beginning!
I do not and have not defended free trade per se, but have been critical in this thread of economic naivety and nationalism, which are untenable and unconscionable respectively.
For me, capitalism is an abomination that no economic tinkering can redeem. I base this conviction on a broad and complex understanding of political/philosophical/psychological and economical arguments, as well as patent ecological, ethical and economic realities. But all these are as nothing against prejudice. I could spend a great deal of time laying out my arguments, well supported, as I say, by primary and secondary evidence/authority, but time is a luxury I don't have, and in any case my arguments would be consummately despatched in one or two lines of blind indignity by the benighted ideological slaves to the system OLO has in her stables and Australia en masse in spades.
So I advise you to interrogate your well-intentioned ideas further, to see if they are sustainable and equitable for "all" humanity. Tony Ryan, like all union bosses, only concerned with getting the best deal he can for his closed shop, regardless of its being viable or ethical in the broader context.

Squeers, Sorry about my previous comment about sorting out issues. That wasn't appropriate.

You wrote,

"Short of dismantling global capitalism, it seems to me the least conscionable thing we can do is stoop to protectionism again"

"dire impact of tariffs on poor countries"

"Free trade is probably largely responsible for comparative world peace of recent decades"

"In practice, protectionism is a form of insular nationalism"

And there was that ridiculous link that you provided.

and then you write,

"I do not and have not defended free trade"

So I'm not quite sure where you're at. Is the free-trade/protectionism discussion best understood in terms of there being limits to growth maybe? Or is it all just irrelevant, capitalist, bourgeois, rearranging-deckchairs-on-the-Titanic rubbish?

Dear GH,
first of all, the link I provided above was not "ridiculous"; it contained some cogent opinion (at least as cogent as anything here) that popped up at the click of a mouse. I didn't have time for rigorous research but was pleased to find my own views corroborated so spontaneously.

Free trade will finally consume the entire planet

My position is one of frustration and a sense of helplessness in the face of a human world that is impossible to defend, perhaps on every level. I'm sure many people feel the same way. When addressing these manifold ills, I try to think beyond the immediate problem as it presents itself to "me" or "us" (Australia). If capitalism has accomplished one thing, for good or ill, it's globalisation. The whole world is connected economically so that no nation can be an island and all are subject (beneficiaries and victims) to each other's influence. We have to think of the world as one. There are no countries, it's a world system. Think of the different world cultures as suburbs. In this world-community there are stunningly wealthy neighbourhoods as well as utterly destitute ones and everything in between (and the distribution of wealth is as random and unmerited as national boarders), but beyond all these there is vast capital that represents the surplus drawn from all the activity. That surplus capital is the raison d'etra of the whole set-up; humanity is not the object, but the means. Cannot you see that in the global context protectionism/nationalism is akin to narcissism? A curmudgeonly rather than neurotic narcissism, but nevertheless mere grist for the mill. Tony Ryan's constituents are not the romantic battlers that exist only in myth, they're four-wheel driving, boat-toating, beer-guzzling, bellicose (when they've got a skin-full) narcissists and it's Tony's job to maintain the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed (oi oi oi). Free trade will finally consume the planet (or all but). Protectionism is a redundant nostalgia. The capitalists are the new aristocracy and we are their cattle.
Marx was right, the only hope is revolution.

Squeers, I definitely see where you are coming from. The current system is frustrating on so many levels, especially with the big players that we have right now: big business and national governments - I wonder which of the two is more competent.

Also, the fact that we are now in a globalised world makes us, like you said, think and act in a global context, for better or worse.

I do hope that things change, for the better of course, but how would we go about doing this? There are people who want change, but if taking the comments in this discussion as a guide, there are many different ideas as to how to apply that change. Revolution is a word I sort of dislike, especially when it is mixed with the ideas of Marx...it brings up images of the Russian, Cuban, Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions - all of which were accompanied with bloodshed and tyranny. As well as past/current insurgent groups in Nepal, Peru, Malaysia, Cambodia, India, Colombia - granted not all of them are strictly Marxist in their ideologies but bloodshed is always a common factor.

Then again, a revolution can happen slowly and there are even examples of peaceful (as far as I'm aware) revolutions: the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Aye Jorge, there's the rub. Revolution always proceeds by its bad side, but the powers that be will not hand over their wealth and power without a fight. Nor do I see any signs of fight. Things will no doubt have to run their course before meaningful change comes about. Of course there's every chance we'll wreck the planet or kill each other off before the system is "ripe" for change. All the failed revolutions took place, don't forget, in a dominant capitalist world and were thus, I think, doomed to fail. I can't see any reason to be anything but pessimistic about the future. If you're interested, I've also commented (incongruously as the thread is about arts) on these themes here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11265