Seen from the point of view of global capitalism as our ineviatbel dispensation, I see little to object to in this article, though the author's pitch is overly directed at the economic positives--for rich countries like Australia--of the free market, with no consideration given to "economic ethics". The expression is not an oxymoron; Adam Smith never intended that capitalism should enrich only the West, or any monopoly, but that it should benefit humanity in general via an "invisible hand". Smith foresaw the dangers of monopoly, but he was also naive about the tendency of the wealthy to carelessly broadcast the crumbs from their excesses. Smith never imagined the bourgeoisie would sweep away the aristocracy, let alone attain the numbers--nearly whole populations--it has, or that the crumbs would also be collected to become business ventures. I've read half a dozen books on modern capitalism lately and like the author here, they all sell globalisation on the premise that the wealth is not going from West to East, but that corporations are curiously parochial. We can all rest assured that despite global free trade, cronyism is alive and well.
Cold comfort, I should think? Yet according to Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" this should be seen as an outrage. It's the West that's gone out and developed global markets, and we've all enjoyed the business, and the reciprocation of cheap goods for centuries as a result. But now that the ne'er-do-wells look like a threat, we want protectionism. This kind of hypocritical nationalism makes me sick to my stomach.

Of course I see the whole capitalist paradigm, in a closed system, as the untenable madness it is, so my take on liberalism verses protectionism really "is" objective--I wish I could say hypothetical!
According to Adam Smith's enlightened liberalism, Western monopolies and glut are unscrupulous.
It would be nice if for once an economist came out and condemned the selfish immorality of protectionism, rather than assuring nervous investors that the free market will always pay them dividends.
Bloody bean counters!

There has never been any correlation found between a country's GDP or GNP, and its Human Development Index figure.

However, there has been a correlation found between increased exports leading to increased imports (so that overall gains are minimal).

There has also been a correlation found between creating surplus production so it can be exported, and this surplus production eventually creating envoronmental degradation of the country.

There has also been a correlation found between free trade and an increasing income gap between the rich and poor in a country.

There has also been a correlation found between free trade and loss of local culture, customs, traditions, sense of community and even loss of local languages.

There has also been a correlation found between free trade, deregulation and privitisation, and eventual loss of ownership of the country by its people.

But we are told to believe free trade is a very good thing.

Chris,
I think that you are right! Although the free market has its undeniable pluses there is a lot of space for abuses but I am afraid that there are things about this theme that we cant comment without proofs .

I realise the answers to industry are increasingly difficult in a globalised economy, and that the principle of freer trade is an important principle for a fairer world.

I also admit that, even with the best of my efforts, i may struggle for the answers, albeit it will continue to comment in a way that tries to take account of various arguments and realities.

But I do believe that free traders, those openly committed to an ideal, should also try to provide more evidence about why we have nothing to fear from recent trends. I suspect they cannot, and that it may be all too hard for them to shift ground.

Agreed Chris Lewis,
I would also ask them to expound--apropos the "principle [that] freer trade is an important principle for a fairer world"--on why we have nothing to fear about depleting and decimating the planet's natural and biological resources in pursuit of an ever-expanding fairer world.
Of course I don't believe neoliberal economists give such matters a thought, and they have no interest in a fairer world, that's just the spin that still lingers since enlightenment days. Their interest is in economic growth and creating new markets, ignoring the manifest reality that endless growth in a closed system is impossible.
The idea that neliberalism is creating a fairer world is also contradicted by the fact that the gap between rich and poor has never been so great, and continues to grow.
All the minor technicalities get ignored.

Squeers, i do not know why some die-hard liberals cannot call a spade a a spade, and recognise severe policy limitations.

If they did, they would also enhance their credentials, even though many of them get quite a bit of attention in major newspapers.

I will again reiterate my commitment to liberalism, but a type of liberalism that recognises our flaws, faults and failings of past history.

Having said that, I am currently writing a piece on freer trade which indicates my concerns at recent policy trends, and the benefit it now gives to authoritarian China.

I think whatever the West does, including what i will suggest, will hardly be a win-win situation.

I don't think we ever get truly win-win situations in such a competitive and complex world, and the environment looks like a disaster in the longer-term.