This is more like a religious treatise than a rational analysis. There are no solutions offered, just asserted opposition to free trade.

Hong Kong and Singapore are living proof that you're wrong. Free trade generates prosperity, irrespective of whether other countries pursue it too.

...The correlation between public and private debt must surely shed light on the problems caused to the same public by Governments shifting costs across to the community with obsession by “user-pay” as a principal component of public debt management. Another cause of unstainable personal debt is housing. The free market mantra of Governments has totally ignored the social ramifications of our real estate industry free hand to “rort for profit” the public, with a vulnerable human need for shelter. The free hand to rort profits given to this industry, must rate the highest on the list of problems to be dealt with, before our own country falls to the hands of anarchy driven by the desperate. Under-regulation of housing rents throw to the “dogs of capitalism”, a free hand to destitute large slices of our community by the simple principal of “rent rorting” for profit, under the disguise of sound and secure investment. Here is a microcosm of the fatality that free trade has become to society who suffer first-hand under a blind regime of market forces.

I think there are instances where protection is justified.

Especially with strategic industries, knowledge and skills which are essential to an economy. Every country should be able to feed itself, and foster skills in areas like medicine, construction, engineering, agriculture, mining and so on. A country like Australia also has an interest in maintaining its own defence industries and capacity as a precondition for foreign policy independence.

This goes for developing economies too - which may need a period of protectionism to develop their own essential capacities.

That said, no-one is arguing autarky or disengagement from the global economy.

But the rise of China will prompt a recalibration of the world economic order. There is only so much of the world market to go around, and China may ultimately offer developing economies a 'better deal'.

For developed nations this challenge ought mean pursuing a policy of full employment, focusing where possible on the creation of high wage jobs . And that may necessitiate to return to some kind of corporatism: to create those high wage jobs but to maintain stability and contain inflation through co-operation and co-ordination with unions. Full employment means a 'virtuous circle' with higher tax revenues to be devoted to essential services, infrastructure, and investment for the future knowledge economy.

With tens of billions of profits being diverted overseas from the mining industry some kind of public investment in mining is also warranted; as are more robust economic rent taxes.

With less global market share 'to go around' we need to do what we can to 'capture' the benefits of the most profitable sectors of our own economy.

Had trouble working out just what the article was saying and, certainly, as another poster points out, no solutions are offered..

Okay there are high levels of debt but we've just had one enormous shake out when, one would have thought, all the weakie banks and institutions would have gone to the wall. that's the beauty of shakeouts. They asre painful at the time, but they also get rid of a lot of dead wood..

Sorry but I think the markets and financial system will continue to stagger on..

Yes, i am well aware that the article does not offer concrete solutions.

Change will occur incrementally with a bit of this and that. It may be higher taxation for the rich, as one company CEO called for; it may be a bit of protection here and there. It may be more regulation over time.

No one is going to sit down and say we will do this and that, all at once. But over time, trends of change will be noticed. The mood for change is already happening, although more noticeable in the US and Europe which matte3rs more than Australia. The latter will merely adapt to the new demands.

Like the left looked on as change occurred in the past three decades, this time it will be the right that loses out. There era of dominance will be increasingly challenged and both major parties may take up the policy mantra for change, although the degree will differ as always between Labor and the Coalition.

also, i am always amused that comments should somehow conclude i am anti trade or against markets. I just argue that is the balance that will change. Of course, markets and trade are important. Always have been and always will be.

Singapore an example of free trade. Oh yeah, perhaps you ought to read more about Singapore and how it succeeds, including the use of cheap foreign labour.