The mining industries produce nothing, and their profits go overseas.
No manufacturing industry in Australia, means high unemployment and the loss of skilled workers.

YEBIGA

How do you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate governmental activity?
How do you distinguish between the market price, and the fair price, in any given case?

PS You haven't read any Austrian school theory have you?

"The reasoning is scatter brained: on the one hand, globalisation is good yet terrible (there will be tens of thousands of people out of work as a result of the closure); industry protection is bad (yet countries with successful car manufacturing bases do it); and finally, Australian cars are fabulous, but don't sell in sufficient numbers.

Typical socialist rusted-on stupidity.

Binoy and YEBIGA, where do you think the government is geting the money from, to pay for handouts to industries?

Just think for a second. They're not getting it from some secret pocket hidden in the universe, somewhere, are they? No.

So?

Where do you think they're getting it from?

Actually turn your brain on, and *think* about what you're talking about for a second.

Now. What's the answer to the question?

Dearest Jardine,
I am happy to hear a counter argument but
"Where do you think they get the money from" " stupid socialist..."
"What is a fair price" "you have not read Austrian theory"

These are not rational arguments, or even rational assertions.

If you reread the article and my comments and find fault - fine extrapolate
offer an alternative but at the minute , I get the feeling a constructed rational thought may well be beyond you. I am however ready for you to prove me wrong.

Yebiga
" I am however ready for you to prove me wrong."

Well that's very good of you; and likewise I'm ready for you to prove me wrong.

Okay, my counter-arguments are:
1. If you can't say by what rational criterion you distinguish between the market price, and an alleged fair price, the achievement of which is the purpose of a government intervention advocated by you, then you have no rational basis for asserting that any government intervention can or does achieve your purpose. Therefore you can't justify it.

2. If you haven't read any Austrian theory, how do you know
a) it's wrong or you disagree with it?, or
b) the Tea Party movement agrees with it?

"These are not rational arguments, or even rational assertions."
They are questions. You left out the questions marks. The reason I'm asking them is to prove you wrong. I assert that you can't answer them without self-contradiction or fallacy.

For example, once you admit that the government gets the money for industry handouts from its subjects, then I'm going to ask how you know that the benefit, or public interest, or utility, or happiness, or whatever you want to call the ultimate human welfare criterion, is greater from the government intervention than would have obtained if the resources were left in the hands of its owners? How do you know more jobs or industry aren't destroyed than created, for example, in a given intervention intended to save or promote jobs or industry?

But you haven't yet been able to bring yourself to admit where the government gets the money from in the first place. I'm ready to prove you wrong in your criticism of Austrian theory but I need you to answer the question without evasion first.

Go ahead: try answering and see if *you* can come up with a rational argument, because I assert you haven't got one.
1. How do you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate governmental activity?
2. How do you distinguish between the market price, and the fair price, in any given case?
3. You haven't read any Austrian school theory have you?
4. Where do you think the government gets the money from, to pay for handouts to industries?