The Greens would lead us back to the stone age if they got the chance.

All trade is good, free trade is best. Nothing else matters.

The greens can't lead us anywhere, they are not in power!
Many farmers were disappointed with the Howard era free trade agreements, with the US/Australia FTA a Clayton's FTA!
I wouldn't hold out any hope for pragmatism to prevail, given the record of the coalition is one of selling off the family silver, the family farm and indeed, our economic sovereignty.
I mean, which major miner or manufacturer is still an Australian owned and operated entity?
Who was it that visited the granny killing GST on us and why?
Wasn't it imposed to make up for the disappearing corporate tax dollar that migrated offshore, with corporate Australia. And when did that happen?
Had the Howard Govt possessed between them, a single ounce of pragmatism, tax reform would have looked very different.
We would still likely have dairy cooperatives operating in much of rural Australia, and most sugar mills would still be Australian owned entities. And we would likely still have a steel industry!
That said, and given current demographics, the coalition would be very wise to set a different course, and not to further alienate thinking aged pensioners, who could decide to organise and vote as a Govt changing block?
Several one term govts, would force our politicians and parties to become far more democratic, with their ears tuned to voter wishes, rather than powerful media moguls, offshore entities or foreign govts?
Well may we say, God save the queen, cause nothing will save Australia, with a return to the Howard era, and or the policy paradigms, that all but made us a poor southern cousin, of corporate America?
The Howard Govt and their preferred privatisation economic settings were just dumb, and reminded me of the film insane.
A story set in Czechoslovakia, where the inmates had taken over and were running the asylum.
Rhrosty.

Not to worry, all international trade has started to fade already.
In an era of zero to negative growth and energy costs unaffordable
it will force an end to all the trade worries we have.
However it will be replaced with other worries such as how to restart
our own local industries. Everything but everything will become local.

There are several things we should do over the next decade or two and
if we get politicians with enough foresight to see whats needed, first
is to rebuild and electrify the railways and renew coastal shipping.
Lots more of course will be needed, but life wasn't meant to be easy.

Any trade deal signed with the U.S. has only one outcome: Australia is dudded and the U.S. is heavily advantaged. It has ever been thus.

How long will it be before we become one of the States of America? If Tony and Julia have their way, it won't be long!

The U.S. Trojan Horse is already on our soil, Hallelujah.

It's time for the singing of the 'Home of the Brave' each morning in every school.

Bazz

You say “all international trade has started to fade already”

Where do you get your data? According to the IMF, the volume of trade in goods has increased by more than the volume of output in the world economy for 22 of the past 25 years.

Hi Peter, Mmmm! Interesting.

Your article has some interesting analysis but is very scattered. You dive into content but miss the fundamentals.

National Economics don’t change in principle, only the economic factors vary. The incoming Howard government was not defined by its generic policies; it was defined by how it dealt with specific economic issues prevailing at that time.

You are right to suggest that the same policies that Howard used to drive increased national wealth, reduce debt and share the benefits with the nation, cannot necessarily be used to solve the current mess.

But this misses the point. It is only by understanding and applying economic principles to the prevailing circumstances, that the problems can be fixed. I have no doubt that the incoming Abbott government will face even greater hurdles than Howard, but they will fix them.

Any economic manager will take into account the current variables. Abbott is eminently qualified as an economist and will deal with each issue based upon his and his administrations skills. Raising the spectra of restoring Howard policies to the current changed circumstances is just another spin on “the current mob are useless but Abbott would be worse” mantra.

You have hidden this mantra very well but the Australian public is sensitized to it and can see right through it.

If you are going to come up with solutions, you need to make them relative to your assessment of current international trading condition and not hypothesize on what might be if old policies were applied to new trade situations

Rhain, you are probably right in that the figures indicate so.
However a very large amount of that trade is resources such as oil, gas,
and minerals.
Take steel production; Steel production is moving back to the US from
China because the transpacific shipping costs are rising to overcome
the cheap labour in China.
Take furniture production; It is leaving China because furniture is
very bulky for its value and when I recently purchased a lounge I asked
the shop manager how much of the furniture was imported and he said
"Only that table over there". Turns out Australian made furniture is cheaper.

So you can see the trend, as fuel gets dearer the bulkiest goods go
back to local production.

Regional and bilateral trade agreements are poor subsitutes for the kind of multilateral agreements that the WTO administers, but given the failure of the Doha round,there's not much choice.

Bazz

Sorry, I can’t see that trend at all. China’s steel production has slipped back a bit, but global trade is growing as strongly as ever. There is no evidence of a decline in trade in coal, iron ore, wheat and dozens of other products. If China is becoming less competitive in some areas it is because its labour costs are rising as you would expect in a country that is becoming more prosperous.

Australia’s real imports rose 8.5% a year in the 10 years to 2012, while real gross domestic product rose at 3.0% a year.

There is no persuasive evidence to support the theory that rising transport costs are choking off word trade

Rhian;
I can see the point you are making but while the bulk of trade is not
changing there are starting signals of a change.
China's growth has fallen from 10%+ to 8% and no doubt will fall
further. After all it cannot double its economy in the next 9 years.
There just isn't the energy to do it.
They have in the last year increased their demand to 6Mbb/day.
They only got that because the US & Eu cut back by about 4Mbb/day.
There has been a cutback in iron ore the last I read.
That may have been because they stock piled a lot.
Certainly Europe has a growth problem and they are China's biggest customer.
So China will continue to show growth as will other "developing"
countries as they can afford the higher costs of energy but that does
not apply to rest of us.
One of the problems with China is the unreliability of their statistics.
Many report sources just accept them at face value.
I just read a book, Tiger Head Snake Tails which was very informative
on how China operates. This new President, Xi Jingping, may make a
difference as he seems to be a pragmatic operator.

Ahh well, it will be interesting to watch and I must go and check a
few later figures than I have seen previously.

Rhian, did you see ABC's Lateline Tuesday night ?

They had an segment about industry returning to the US from China.
They call it Reshoring, ie the opposite of offshoring.

They gave various reasons, higher wages in China, Quality control,
delays in delivery, container costs forcing larger orders than needed.
It appears to have generated a million jobs, I think they said.

It will be interesting to watch.

Bazz

No I didn’t see Lateline, but I’m not surprised. It’s part of the normal process of development that, as countries like China become more productive, their wages and costs increase and they lose the comparative advantage they once had based on low labour costs, and move on from basic labour-intensive processing to more technologically challening production. It happened to Japan and Hong Kong a generation ago.

None of what you say suggests that transport costs are choking off trade