So Chris, What's the GOVERNMENT doing about this?

why attack someone not even in power .. do you think it matters?

this is so pointless .. there's 10 minutes I'll never get back!

This article is nonsense. You first have to prove that China is dumping. Then you have to prove that an Australian industry is being hurt. You need to really show the harm. Show us which particular businesses are being hurt. Then you need to prove the threat to consumers.

Really atm all there is are Chinese SOE's that are run with differing degrees of efficiency that sell cheap goods in Australia. There is no actual evidence of any plan to price out competitors and then ramp up prices. Even if they did that some other low cost competitor from India or some other country would enter the market and offer a better price.

I read Howes's article. It was long on accusations and short on facts. I particularly liked how he avoided any specifics. Much like this article. Stick to cricket Chris.

A good article reflecting growing concerns about the limits of free trade.

The fact that Chinese companies are selling products for less than the cost of raw materials would appear to constitute enough 'evidence' for anyone that this practice is nothing more than dumping, flouting the WTO conventions. Similar has been experienced with tissue paper.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/19/2824624.htm

It's been the bleedin' obvious for some time but the supporters of free trade are so blinded by the dogma they refuse to even concede to obvious risks or breaches/manipulation of free trade provisions including the way goods are valued/costed in terms of domestic prices in relation to dumping and lots of potential winners and losers (see link below).

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2004-05/05rn38.pdf

I hope the Coalition does support the Bill to tighten the Anti-Dumping Laws but I reckon there will be lots of internal bickering given the tendency to see any regulation as the 'enemy' of free trade. The lack of a level playing field is clearly being recognised by other economies including the US, hopefully Australia won't be the last virgin left in the brothel.

Pelican,

Thanks for pointing us to that excellent parliamentary library article which, at least, is addressing important issues related to a free trade deal with China.

So Australians should be forced to buy more expensive goods, so that they don't buy the same goods voluntarily? And this fool has the gall to call "zealots" those in favour of voluntary transactions?

Peter Hume, et al, all he's saying is that there appears to be a problem with dumping because it costs more to produce certain widgets than is recovered in the price. Why should not people make such an observation if they can produce some sort of evidence that this is the case?
Personally , I think its more about "mercantilism" , maybe not Mercantilism in the narrowest most specific sense, but the reality as to the current mode of world trade. Is not the US, for all its bleatings to the contrary, "mercantilist" also, just look at the diddle the AUSFTA turned out to be.
As with the corner shop and the supermarket, what happens when the larger organisation has flooded its opponent out?
Then, do not prices again rise, in the absence of competition?

There is nothing 'voluntary' about slave labour including children, exploitation of labour, competing with subisdies and a less than level playing field. The extent to which these transactions are voluntary is highly debatable and is the stuff of mythology.

PW
Even if the price is less than the costs, so what? If I sell something for less than it cost me, should that be illegal, should it?

So long as the seller and buyer agree, what business is it of anyone else's?

Even if the cheaper products are the result of foreign government policies, so what? All it means is that the foreign government is taxing its own population so as to provide cheaper goods to Australians. Let 'em!

The only reason big businesses are big - apart from support from government - is because they supply what many people scramble to buy.

What this idiot is saying is that Australians should be prevented by law from buying cheaper products. He dreams of a world in an economic stasis controlled by - him, on the basis of his ignorant conceit that he knows better than everyone else in the world put together.

Even if Chris Lewis and Pelican did understand the social processes they criticise - and they don't, or they wouldn't be so hopelessly illogical - it still wouldn't provide any justification whatsoever for their forcing everyone else to obey them.

Pelican
You're in favour of threatening to bash and rape people and lock them in a cage to get them to work under compulsion for someone else's benefit - it's how your beloved government gets all its revenue, remember? You're in favour of exploitation and greed and slavery and child labour - so long as it's the government that's dictating the terms, remember? You think employment is exploitative remember? because it is motivated by profit which you think is immoral. So spare us your disgusting hypocrisy.

You haven't defined level playing field, and as usual you are only thinking in slogans. The only way there could be a level playing field is if everyone in the world had the same conditions, in which case, there'd be no reason for trade. What you're saying is that all social co-operation should be illegal unless and until you approve of it on the basis of your complete ignorance.

You complain about big business getting favours from government at the expense of the population, and here you are advocating for it yourself! Perhaps now you can understand that the reason big business get so much handouts from government is because there are so many people in the population whose thinking is as confused and sanctimonious as yours.

Peter Hume,

I think you owe Graham Young an apology for your comment "this fool has the gall to call "zealots" those in favour of voluntary transactions?".

They were not my words.

Chris
If they were not your words, I owe *you* an apology.

What rot Peter.

The difference is you have this almost religious faith in the markets to fix all ills, that competition will inevitabley lead to the level playing field, and an unshakeable belief in voluntary transactions that very often are anything but voluntary in the real world. You have created a fantasy world where reality is non-existent.

You know very well my faith in governments is limited and have often argued that governments are too wedded to vested interests; that there are some arenas where governments should keep out; and have continually argued for greater transparency and accountability for the money paid to them by citizens.

Libertarianism only works when all parties are free to experience and enjoy the same liberties, it doesn't work when power and money is so overwhelmingly balanced in favour of one small elite group.

Perhaps you should turn your critical eye to your bathroom mirror and really sound out some of the more extreme views you hold in terms of personal liberties and freedom. More slogans no substance.