Rhian, where did i say it must be right if France and the US become protectionist. I point these trends out as facts as an observation made of recent trends.

Also, the US paranoid? It was the US that did most to promote freer trade and the rise of Japan and China, much more than any other Western nation, at least in real terms.

All i am saying is that what was right for last 30 years, may not be right for next 30 years, unless of course you accept the most recent trends. I don't.

You would think that somebody who went to the trouble to write an article about free trade, would go to the trouble of understanding the reasons in favour of it. But there is no sign of that in this article. On the one hand he claims to favour free trade as a guiding light, but on the other, he shows himself wedded to the central fallacy of protectionism, exploded nearly 200 years ago, that free trade actually makes the parties to it poorer. Durr...

While ever Chris Lewis fails to be able to define what he himself calls the right policy mix it is no wonder it will remain elusive. He himself needs to define the *principle* (as opposed to the *political expedient*) by which beneficial free trade is distinguised from non-beneficial. Alleging that it is defined by legislative fiat merely shows base ignorance of what he is talking about.

Amazing that such a garble-brain could have a paid position as an intellectual, but when we consider the strange coincidence of his circular views on the beneficence of armed attacks against free trade, and the fact that his above-market-rate pay and conditions are state-funded, perhaps it is no mystery after all.

Peter Hume, for what it is worth, you really should your comments about my supposed intellectual role, and being paid for such comments alone. You are wrong on both counts.

First, i write because i like to write and am interested in many issues. I was writing for Quadrant when i was a labourer, virtually for nothing.

Second, OLO pieces are worth nothing in universities. I have been told by professors they count for nothing.

Third, I write all OLO pieces in my spare time. I have never been paid for any of my work. I am paid for other work.

As for your smart ... comment about my ability, or lack of it, I don't have any problem with that. You could be right. I am just another simpleton expressing my opinion, for all of its strengths and weaknesses.

I have never read the perfect opinion, and suspect I never will.

Chris

Of course what was right in the past may not be right in future, but you have not gone to any effort to explain WHY that may be so. Does comparative advantage no longer apply? Are there infant industries to protect? Strategic trade issues relating to imperfect markets? Economics not only gave us the theory that supports free trade, it also gives us some cases where the general rule that free trade is beneficial may not apply. But I can’t see you engaging with the economic arguments for, or even against, free trade. You don’t address the issues. The fact that support for protectionism waxes and wanes tells us nothing about whether it is a good idea

Rhian, fair enough. I probably should have done so.

However, I do intend to explain why the situation supporting freer trade is much more complicated today than in past three decades. I will also seek to explain why Aust's eco fortunes in last three decades also owes much to policies in previous decades.

There is only so much you can do in one opinion piece, but i will take your criticism on board and lift my game.

P.S: I am not against freer trade, contrary to what some readers believe. However, I do think there are always policy shortcomings from an open pursuit of any concept in such a competitive world

When libertarians of a former age denied that burning witches has any social benefit whatsoever, the Chris Lewis’s of the world, starting from “the simple truth” that governments will interfere, simply persisted in looking for the “right policy mix” of burning and not-burning them.

Chris is still trying to figure out the conditions on which consensual transactions should be graciously permitted by nothing but arbitrary power for which he is unable to provide any reason but mere power itself.

Chris, the flaw in your idea that the "balance" must lie somewhere between two extremes should be obvious. Only if the two extremes are values worth promoting is there any question of a balance between them. There is no balance that policy should try to strike as between making love and rape, or between murder and not-murder, is there? Those who advocate that anti-social aggression should be banned are not "zealots".

Your task is to identify the rational principle, as opposed to the arbitrary political expedient, that distinguishes the free trade you agree is socially beneficial, from the free trade you allege makes society worse off. And remember that human society doesn't stop at the border.

I find it amazing that someone can publish an article on free trade, allege that it's generally good, and at the same time allege that it can't be permitted without conditions, without identifying those conditions. Your are only displaying your confusion.