“indentured ring-ins”, “prescience of the free market”, “ravenous coal seam gas explorers”, “national scandal”, “ill-tutored mindset”. It might be fun to substitute insults for arguments, but it is not persuasive.

In what way is FIRB “embarrassingly lax”? Why is pursuit of an FTA “colonial cringe”? What “policy ineptitude” is responsible for the services trade deficit? Where is the evidence for the “omnipresent transfer pricing genie?” Why would “unmediated investment and trade” worsen the current account deficit?

This article contains some interesting ideas, but it would be a lot more convincing if it used a bit more evidence and argument, and a lot less abusive rhetoric and prejudicial language.