Now being aware of the authors employment, I read one of his earlier articles on the failure of the USA politicians and the GFC.
That article glossed over the real story of the GFC. It appeared to be typical blame shifting by the right.

The principal problem that led to the GFC was excess private debt and deregulation of the financial market. The debt, particularly on credit cards, was often necessary to create demand as governments strove for budgets surpluses. Banks sold CDOs to people looking for triple A rated (falsely) investments whereas others were sold mortgages they could not afford. Fraud was the principal problem and it was fraud by those in the financial industry.

Most people do not realise that for any economy with a current account running in balance, then any government surplus results in a loss of private financial wealth. That does not mean that asset values cannot increase but any such increase in such a circumstance will be due to the reduction of bank prudential sense. Such build up of private debt leads to a later slow down as people get into trouble and decide that they need to get their personal balance sheets under control.

The author needs to read William K Black's blogs at New Economic Perspectives (NEP)which often deal with control fraud and Gresham's Law. Black's book, "The Best way to Rob a Bank is to Own One" would be of help.

The other contributors to NEP are also well worth following. They are well across the European problems. The sooner the Europeans abandon austerity, and probably for some the common currency, the better.

In my last comment I referred the author, and others, to New Economic Perspectives and the efforts of William K. Black on that site and to his book. Overnight, Black posted a new article pointing out the problems of the game theories of some of the Nobel Prize economists who assume control fraud out of their models. Black's latest article is at;
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/06/roger-myerson-updated-paean-to-plutocrats-as-capitalisms-greatest-treasure.html#more-5571

Plutocrats are the enemy of the general public and their own shareholders.

The following is an extract from the article,
"For a CEO (which is the critical position – a vital analytical point that the game theorists almost always miss) the “project” is not the relevant issue. The CEO will usually be judged on the firm’s reported performance. Even “project” performance, however, is often a credence good where the defects may be hidden or terrible results may be portrayed as spectacularly successful results by accounting fraud. The firm’s success is frequently not dependent on the CEO’s “effort.” It is far more dependent on the CEO’s integrity and ability to select good managers and then delegate to those managers.

The statement in the second bullet point is even more dubious and dangerous – particularly the phrase that Myerson chose to emphasize. Note how much Myerson is conceding. There is a danger that the CEO will deliberately “abuse” his “power.” The reason he would do so is frightening – he can gain at the expense of the firm by abusing his power. But the situation is worse that it appears on its face, for Myerson’s emphasis springs from his assertion that it is rational for CEOs to cheat the shareholders whenever the CEO would profit from that betrayal of his fiduciary duties".

Peter Drucker once reported a finding that all large companies that are successful in the long term are run buy a committee of near equals each with little to fear by speaking their minds. I suggest that each should be well educated in their fiduciary duties and be subject to severe penalties for any breaches.

Three reasons for manufacturing collapse:

1. Population growth has robbed money from research, development and higher education, so innovation has been stifled . For example, 3 billion has been slashed from universities and 3 billion has been found for new roads.

2. Tariffs have been removed

3. The car design mix has not met changing needs.

Best,

Ralph

Chris

I didn’t say we are “all ok”. I said we are, on average, better off under free trade policies than protectionism.

Of course there are services some people regard as not especially productive, or are even destructive. The same is true of some goods (pornographic magazines, nose hair clippers, heroin, alcohol). My point is that there is nothing intrinsic to services that makes them less valuable than goods.

Gambling has made an enormous difference to the lives of some Native Americans, whose sovereignty over tribal lands allows them to build and operate casinos that State laws would otherwise forbid. This creates income, jobs and infrastructure and sustains communities. I’m not suggesting we can or should do the same thing here, but gambling (or mining, or the arts, or tourism) can be a productive economic activity that sustains a community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_gaming

The ethical arguments against live animal trade are worth exploring. My point was that very few of the farming sector’s problems can be solved by protectionism.

You surely know that “most people I speak to” is not a persuasive argument.

It’s true that few countries adhere to pure free trade. Occasionally there are good reasons not to, but more often than not it’s the result of lobbying for economic privileges by special interest groups. Unfortunately, rent-seeking is as old as government. That doesn’t make it right.

Rhian, I generally share your sentiment.

For myself, who is still struggling to understand how best a country can achieve the right balance to both promote freer trade but not be decimated by trends, I just am looking for some empirical analysis that best demonstrates Aust's right approach.

At present, I look at the data and see worrying trends, and no one (including the IPA and CIS) appear capable of tempering my fears.

I realise that what some of the centre-right is correct, such a labour markets and so on, but I think national success is much more complex than just getting govt our of the way.

Chris

Which data are you looking at? There are some worrying trends, but there are also some very positive ones, especially in Australia's overall economic performance compared to other developed economies.

And I'm not sure the negative ones have anything to do with "free trade", still less dumping, which is the subject of this article.

Can you be more specific?