Its interesting that nobody is mentioning plain old union greed, as
a reason why many companies would think twice about investing in
Australia.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/laundry-staff-on-420k-a-year/story-fn59niix-1226027697866

We've seen that attitude right here on OLO. Screw em for all you
can get. We have some of the world's highest wages, highest
minimum wages, cushiest working conditions with every bell and
whistle imaginable. Work choices did attempt to address that,
but to no avail.

So why should I and others invest our hard earned savings in
Australian manufacturing, if you lot want to then screw the company
for every dollar that you can get?

The above is a great example of union power gone mad, yet once again.

,"...most of this $ 15 trillion created by the Fed has gone into NON productive enterprises."

Arjay, aren't "NON non productive enterprises those that employ non productive people?

Isn't the ratio of productive people over unproductive ones the index defining social wealth?

I can assure you that Economists produce nothing nore than hypothesis fit for idiots.

But no one should advocate going back to the past; i never have. All i have said is that the balance needs to change a bit.

Of course there are strengths and weaknesses in all sides of the debate, including by bosses and unions.

But Australia needs research to improve our understanding of where we are heading based on recent trends. I am going to have a go, although i am sure it will take much of my spare time.

Whereas once i was referred as a lunatic right winger when published 4 times in Quadrant in 14 months, now i am one with John Quiggin.

Ah, how times change; yet my argument has always been consistent. Aust, and the Western world, will go along with the madness, until they are all sick of living in debt.

Yes skeptic,the non productive enterprises like central banksters and the derivative markets.The derivative market is at least three times bigger that the real economy and your super is tied up with this mess.This means many could lose 2/3 rds of their super.

Geoff of Perth, is absolutely right. It is impossible to continue with constant growth for ever and it will stop globalization.

The assumption that growth is perpetual and will continue forever is the downfall of this article.
It does not take into account the diminishing resource of oil, which peaked in 2005 and has leveled since then. The global population has continued on its inexorable way and is tipped to reach 9 billion, before it too plateaus.
Globalization will decline as the world economy depending on cheap oil also declines.

The world's motor vehicle count is now over 1 billion; vehicles in China grew by 27.5 percent to 78 million last year.
It took 24 years to go from 500 million to a billion vehicles and that the global vehicle fleet grew by 35 million last year, those 35 million new petrol tanks that hit the road last year should give some insight into why it will become increasingly difficult to keep up with new demand for oil.

In round numbers, global oil production in the year 2008 was 30 billion barrels, and the population was 7 billion.
The consensus is that in the year 2050 oil production will be about 2 billion barrels.
The same amount of oil production occurred in the year 1930, when the population was 2 billion

In the year 2030 there will be 13 billion barrels produced.
The figures are there and cannot be disputed but the BUA lobby is ignoring them.

It will not matter whether there is protectionism or not, the level of imports will drop.