Jardine,

we can agree the "Joe" has done the proper thing in knocking back the sale to ADM of Graincorp.

You asked me to verify where the Austrian school are Say's law believers; "Say's Law and Austrian Economics", Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, date 2009, sure you can read as well as me, it says that Say's law is necessary for the Austrian Business cycle theory to be true...and more, I think that it also says that economic crashes are good and necessary.

http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_2_4.pdf

before you continues to give advise to a sector in dire straits, you need to understand the basis of your own economic philosophy.
The rural sector can do without commentators offering economic advise that do not understand the underpinnings of their own economics.

just a little more for you mate:

Scroll down to 6th paragraph.

http://mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp

When you learns the truth about your economic philosophy, you will then be in a position to offer advise to the real world. As it is now, you assume you know and like all many commentator's assume away the real world .



Rural Australia and rural industries need people with sound knowledge of economics so good results can be achieved with a new agenda. We all know more about the Austrian line, and I like it less than I did.

Nev
Thanks for that.

Note that:
1. “There is no specific “law” that Say pronounces in his book” (p.48)
2. “nowhere in the chapter does Say make the “supply creates its own demand” statement.” (p.50)
3. ‘The popular definition [i.e. not by Say] of Say’s Law is: Supply creates its own demand’(p.50)
4. i.e. neither Say nor the Austrian school ever proposed or defended Ben’s misrepresentation of Say

Thus I have not failed to understand the basis of Austrian theory. Rather I suspected, correctly as it turned out, that you were misrepresenting both Austrian theory and Say’s argument.

Furthermore, Ben has not established any relevance as between Say’s and Engel’s laws on the one hand, and reduced farm profitability on the other, because he has not established that the problem of reduced farm profitability is because of free market economics, because the methodology he has used – mere correlation - is *not capable* of proving what he is contending for, because it is not capable of showing causation.

He merely assumes what he is trying to prove - problem caused by free markets. He ignores the obvious possibility, and the common ground, that the huge increase of myriad governmental interventions *definitely cause* reduction and destruction of farm profitability. Thus his argument is merely circular; simply irrational.

My own take on Say’s law and Engel’s law is that, in this topic, such talk casts more shade than light. Obviously if you are so confused that you blame free market economics for governmental imposts (Campaigner), or think in a circle (Nev), you won’t be any clearer thinking in terms of jargonesque third-hand misrepresentations of economic theories which are complex and contentious, and not immediately related to the question of farm profitability.

Let’s talk plainly and cut to the chase. If you are not making a jargon- and illogic-covered cry for mere handouts, then
1. What specific policy are you proposing and why?
2. Why do you say that the problem it is intended to solve, is caused by free markets rather than government interventions?

Jardine you continually miss the point this is all about.
You must look at the reality and that is what is being discussed, The issue is the CURRENT VERSION OF FREE TRADE THAT IS BEING PURSUED BY OUR GOV"T AND SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS IN AUSTRALIA.
Yes I have said all along the problem is how the Gov't has implemented a free trade that disadvantages business, i have stated how other countries policy has disadvantaged Australian business because we do not have the same policies to offset them.
We have the reality of the USA pushing A VERSION of free trade that ensures that only aspects of free trade policy that benefit its own industries are being pushed.
I have stated earlier that I have no problem with free trade if it was able to be operated in its entirety with all Govts following the same song book but the REALITY is this does NOT exist and I put it will never exist.
The school of reality shows how current free trade theory operated in Australia is failing business is exactly what the Author is talking about. The fall out is Companies bailing out of this broken system, Ford, Qantas, Hienz ect . the multinationals see the advantage of using brands that were Australian and consumers assume have the Australian standards and manufacturing or processing the goods overseas to pick up the advantages of low standards, environmental costs, wages and conditions that are imposed here as well as the support and protection offered.
Deregulation in Australia has failed to include the imposts to business that put Australian business at a huge disadvantage to facing competition in both domestic and international markets like labour ect.
If we had a system like south africa we would be extremly competitive in all markets with low living standards wages and conditions but this type of lifestyle comes with a huge cost, and I dont fancy living on a farm surrounded by razor wire and dobermans .

The reality is as I keep saying is that our Government and ITS version of free trade disadvantages business but forces business to subsidise the wage earner in the form of min wage , OH&S and social policy like water and land clearing.
YES this is the Government but it is part of the free trade it seeks by letting imports in that dont have these costs.
I dont live in theory and theory wont sell my produce and my buyers dont ask for fruit grown in theory.
Going broke because we believe in a system that MAY deliver more efficient allocation of resources while delivering the most efficient product because products entering our markets are less efficiently produced but have been received govt support or have workers living like caged animals seems to be to dumbest outcome but that is the reality.
I have never asked for handouts, bailouts or money to give producers ADVANTAGES over competitors. I have said that what is needed is whatever it takes to ensure we are not DISADVANTAGED because of the reality of trade.
Again all the competitive advantage and efficiency will not beat competition from protected industry and lower standard producing countries.

You can waste your time trying to argue for dropping the wage rate to even the USA equivalent let alone China, Argue that we should have the right to do what you want unhindered on your property, use all the water from a river that goes past your farm ,let in all the boat people then kidnap them to work on your farm ( like the Thai fishing industry) but the reality is this wont happen.
We have a huge amount of regulation that should be scrapped because it makes no common sense, I totally agree.

bartb
What specifically are you proposing?

"I have said that what is needed is whatever it takes to ensure we are not DISADVANTAGED because of the reality of trade."

Being what?