Indeed Chris, the struggle for the 'right policy mix' is an arduous one with the conflicting extremes of Left and Right forever battling for the 'moral' high ground.

'... most appropriate balance between markets forces and government intervention. In the real world, people and nations have real concerns from their economic interaction which have to be addressed..."

That is it in a nutshell. I wonder how long free trade concepts will dominate global economics. Free trade is not the panacea of all ills as it's proponents claim, it can foster an environment in the developing world that is anything but free as reflected in your Taiwan example.

Industries of various shapes and sizes (auto,clothing,agriculture) are lost to many nations due to cheap labour and incentives in the form of subsidies provided by governments like China. Blind freddy can see that subsidies and incentives are hardly in the 'spirit' of free trade. A recipe for disaster and we have to ask why do governments keep inviting disaster?

While each nation does not necessarily need to have a domestic presence in all industries, self sufficiency does more for economic wellbeing with trade as required (not as demanded by outside interests). Biosecurity and regulations regarding the use of pesticides like DDT,, presence of pathogens like E.Coli (eg. recent freeing up of apple imports from China) are overridden as quickly as a CEO will vote for his next yearly bonus despite falling share prices.

Protectionism is a dirty word because economists, the media and governments have made it so. Once a bandwagon gathers momentum it is easy to disown the benefits of self sufficiency, public ownership of some essential assets etc. Offshoring and foreign ownership of essential services must be the biggest travesty and betrayal by our political representatives.

The biggest obstacle to discussion around global economics is adherence to dogmatic views of Left and Right ideology. At the moment the Right is streets ahead. We have the appearance of government regulation but little positive impact in the economy and the habit of repeating the same behaviours that led to the GFC.

Cont.../

Forgive a quote from a movie- 'Wall Street' character Gordon Gekko which sums up the current world economies perfectly:

"The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bull... You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it. You've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you."

Chris,
Your example of the practices of Foxconn did bring to mind many instances I have read pertaining to the Industrial Revolution in Britain.

Britain's revolution had a similar impetus to China's except that it in Britain it seemed to evolve with almost no political or government intervention. Whole families were corralled in unhealthy and soul-destroying work environments - the collective slavery of the new capitalism. This was only addressed when government stepped in with various Factory Acts to curb the excesses of private enterprise as to their widespread disregard for their workers' welfare.
But as Squeers has pointed out, that in the West it was this intervention and all those since that has sustained capitalism, and contributed to our continued rapacious behaviour.

Thanks Poirot.
The further point I was trying to make is that we are as directly responsible for the abominations in China as Victorian consumers were for "their" working classes. It's a global system and no good our waxing sanctimonious about conditions in China if we're not prepared to cease trading with them until reforms are put in place.
The problem of course is that we're addicted to growth and cannot afford to back-up the human rights we claim to believe in. As long as wealthy countries like Australia fail to act against the evils perpetrated by global capitalism, it will go on. We're encouraging a return to economic liberalism--with a micro-thin veneer of humanity on top--by stealth.
Full-on protectionism is worse and akin to Fascism. At the working class-level, with its roots in xenophobia rather than ethics, protectionism is the socialism of fools: "safeguard my job against the people who are competing with me".
The Australian government should be prepared to act ethically, and Australians should be willing to gird their loins in support of a more humane and sustainable world. Other countries might just follow suit. Don't forget that the rise of China et al, that we're all so nervous about, is dependent on Western consumers.

Failing that, we should cut the humanitarian pretence (especially on days like today, when we celebrate "what" exactly---Schadenfreuda?) and just confess that we're a miserable nation of self-seeking, amoral hedonists!
Of course that excludes those who think it makes it ok if they go to church and pray..

Squeers,

Here's something William Cobbett observed in 1824 after a tour of the mills and factories in the counties of northern England. Commenting on the inhuman conditions and alluding to the lack of personal liberty, he wrote:
"Nine hundred and ninety-nine thousands of the people of England have not the most distant idea that such things are carried on, in a country calling itself free; in a country whose Minister for Foreign Affairs is everlastingly teasing and bothering other powers to emulate England in "her humanity..."
While the practices in China are not "our practices" we close our eyes and our consciences to the workplace ethics employed by China. These ethics are cut from the same cloth and follow the same pattern as those practiced in early industrial Britain.
As long as the "stuff" keeps flowing so cheaply onto Western shelves we are content to ignore dubious foreign work practices and the unsustainable environmental degradation associated with their manufacture.
Lastly, we cruel ourselves by losing the skills and productive impetus that comes from nurturing our own manufacturing base.

Squeers,

I agree 100%. We, as commentators, have real reason to expose how our purchasing habits aid the mess, exploitation and so on.

I did not elaborate upon this, but would hope people would see this through my indication that the Chinese company produced Western owned products.

That is why I attach socialist sources so people can read further, beyond my article.

Liberal democracies, which I support, can play a role in many ways.