Formersnag

“If you stop or reduce exports, we can stop or reduce exports” Quite right, and we’d be much worse off as a result. The fact is we’re good at producing some things, other countries are relatively good at producing other things. If we specialise in producing what we’re good at and swap some of it for things other countries are relatively good at, we both win. Economic self-sufficiency is a recipe for poverty, which is why so few countries try it (North Korea is the only exception I can think of).

“We are an innovative people”. Not when we’re protected from competition. There’s a reason why there was almost no overseas demand for Australian cars when we had high levels of protection in the car industry. Few people with a genuine choice would prefer them to the foreign-built alternatives.

“I would end corporate welfare” – I agree

Chris Lewis

Are you serious! If you want studies try the Reserve Bank, and the competition commission for starters. Even the unions stopped arguing for a return to protection, years ago - because the evidence was overwhelming that free trade was by far the better option.

If you want to insist the protection is the way to go then go ahead but remember you will be virtually alone.

Arjay

Although I'm not familiar with the book you cite, you either misunderstood it, or it was nonsense to begin with. The Federal Reserve creating $15 trillion or whatever it was, and lending it out to special interest groups? I think you're getting confused over the present US Federal debt. Can the Federal Reserve actually create money or is that the US Treasury? I think its the treasury but mostly they don't (its what they call printing money), they borrow. Ordinary banks create money supply all the time by the act of lending, but they hae to follow rules set by the treasury/reserve (and international agreements now).. is that what you're thinking of??

Yes, i am deadly serious.

Why would i just want to rely on the Reserve Bank for telling the whole story, warts and all.

There are many facets to policy trends in recent decades, not just the status quo stuff in line with what govts and reserve banks do in regard to the economic demands of the day.

In other words, think tanks should weigh up all the evidence to call a spade and spade to help indicate what policy trends will means in coming years. This requires an enourmous amount of work. Even more importantly, it takes an open scholarly approach that is not afraid to rock the boat.

I, for one, hardly think the evidence thinks that we are all ok.

Why do you think the debate is shifting? Are all of the players advocatign change idiots, or are there real reasons why the balance over govt intervention and market forces may again alter. I think there are valid reasons for challenging the current eco orthodoxy.

One, i have never advocated all-out protectionism.

Two, i hardly think i am alone. I even have some support from OLO readers, notwithstanding Peter Hume.

Three,I am going to do a comprehensive study of recent eco trends, and will let readers make their mind up.

Ah, the Aust lucky country mentality lives on; export coal and steel and she shall be right mate. Oh, i forgot, we had dodgy international student courses (hairdressing and cooking), and we still have the live cattle trade.

“...are wealthier then ever before, live in houses nearly twice the size which they were in
the 60s and have average real incomes higher then they ever were.”
“I doubt if people will fall over themselves to go backwards.”
Except that in the 50's and 60's, one breadwinner on an average wage, working 40-45 hours a week could support a family and a mortgage. Now it takes 2 breadwinners working an average 76-90 hours a week. In the majority of cases, almost all of one wage goes just on the mortgage, while the other breadwinner pays for the bread.
In the 70's, my parents were paying $22. a week (converted from 11 pound, before they introduced variable interest rates) on their very respectable house, when I was paying $50. a week rent on a pretty average house.
The so called 'average' wage has increased, but the median wage, no so much. If 2 median wage earners have the bad taste to marry each other, rather than a high wage earner, their chances of ever owning their own home are slim indeed.
Going backward? We should be so lucky. Onya, Chris Lewis. I'll be happy to donate all my surplus cash. (don't try to spend it all at once).
The only reason Aussies aren't competitive in manufacturing is because we lack about 60 years experience, and infrastructure investment. With Peak Oil a stark reality, this nonsense about shipping raw materials OS, then importing manufactured goods back made from those very raw materials, is going to have to stop; particularly as ships are the largest contributors to pollution and GW.

Chris Lewis

In my earlier post I incorrectly referred you to the competition commission (actually the ACCC). I really meant the productivity commission. Search on free trade - you'll have to go back a ways as the debate is quite old now.

In saying you would be alone, I forgot about a few Don Quixote-like individuals who still tilt at this particular windmill. John Quiggin is pushing this line, I believe, and he's an economist. So there you go, you guys can meet in a small room. Invite the other posters from OLO.

But the plain truth is Australia has been down the protectionist path and abandoned it, because it did not work.. it can work in some circumstances. It worked for a time for Japanese car manufacturers because they were competing fiercely behind the trade barrier. But all it did in Aus was to make the manufacturers waste energy gaming the system. And that's all that happens with any assistance mechanism in Aus, at any rate.

Not only the unions but even the manufactures don't want the old system back (I've spoken to a few). If you want to dream go ahead..