Agreed,
But, for some reason, Taxation has not been mentioned, State and Federal, that is the killer of Ideas and buisiness in this land, and many others.
People forget to add that cost when calculating economics and it is the worst costing on anyone’s buisiness.
If we do collapse, that would be the reason.
You must take Issue with Jkenno, obviously a highly paid baurocrat comfortable in collecting your hard earn money for very little effort .That is where the do gooder attitudes come from. Destroy you free market, then where would Governments steal your money to pay people like that, almost tempting for me to just throw the towel in and go scrub, And perhaps if the 7 odd million people working said we have had enough of the Parasites, then where do you think the Elite Looters would source their wealth from then. Exactly. The Elites can move to Africa an enjoy their beloved Primitivism away from us. And no running shoes that would be Hypocrisy

Dear All,(and everyone else)

While I've some ideas I'd like some real clarification about who the "The Elites" are. I see this descriptor being thrown around without any definitive explanations about who they are.

Please explain?

I'm not being sarcastic, just want to know who you think they are.

For example are they people who make public statements, develop policy, are media people - and if they are elites what makes them elite as against ordinary people (like you and I)

David_BOAZ "Don't protect lazy or inefficient' industries, but DO protect efficient and innovative from unfair practices which are uncontrollable.”

It is a laudable notion to protect the efficient and innovative from unfair practices.

Unfortunately, it is also true to say the thing which turns the “efficient and innovative” into the “inefficient and stagnant” is the very protection which you suggest.

As for “uncontrollable”.
Everything the rest of the world does and much of what occurs in Australia is “uncontrollable” at government level.
The closest thing to bringing some measure of “control / predictability / regulation” to the trade game is to remove all the government prescribed impediments to free trade and open competition. This is what GATT and subsequent Free Trade imperatives have been about.
It is about the government doing what it should be doing, monitoring the playing field and in Bob Hawkes words "Keeping it level".

Not that implementing such initiative is easy. Resistance from anarchists, socialists and even elected national governments abound. They all demand one thing – the recognition of their own “special case” and protection for their own vested interests, to the point that all the “special cases” end up cancelling each other out.

On the plus side. One of the limitations to innovation is finding the resources to implement new ideas and turn an idea into a marketable product, that being the capital, facilities, materials, processes and manpower.

Should Australia’s traditionally overprotected manufacturing sector sink into oblivion, it would pay to remember we are an innovative nation and new industries will spring up to replace the old. New entrepreneurs will harness our energy and resourcefulness, rent the factories and re-employ the skilled labour from among those freed-up from the old stagnant employers who could only function with handouts. That, in itself will reduce the tax burden on us all. It will also replace the moribund and insecure jobs with challenging new ones

Wow Col... you almost sound MESSIANIC :)

I do see ur point.. but I am thinking that we might not survive the social unrest which could arise if say 20% of our GDP currently produced by Manufacturing, (28% in real terms)is gutted in a short time.

Looking at the 'rate' of attrition of industries in just the past few months alone.. its rather scary.

I just hope that the discussions here do lead some bright individuals to launch out into the big beyond and go for it. Sadly, there are not many people who can do this, they need mentors and a 'framework' to grow in. If the framework is destroyed.. how could they make it ?

I am of the view that I myself am 'ok' in the sense that I can survive with my current assets, and land, on which I can grow my food, and catch eels at the retarding basin :) (I joke not) but those who have put their faith in 'the system' ... shudder... those who think 'life owes me a job'.. and there are so MANY of them.....

Of one thing I'm absolutely sure... survival can only be achieved by re-discovering our 'family' and kinship networks.. and maybe by smaller close knit communities.

Anyway, you seem to have a good handle on the many variables, am I right in assuming you are a 'Pan' Millenialist ? (ie.it will all pan out ok in the end) I'm not so sure.. I like to know all the details.

Let me leave you with one specific question: Given that the Chinese are increasingly broadening their product base and going hi-tech/value added also, where should 'we' go to earn a crust ? Some specific directions pls

cheers

Pericles,

My suggestion is to introduce a reasonable salary cap to the developed nations so that the wealth may become more evenly distributed. Bill gates owns countless billions of dollars, while giving away a small percentage of his income under the guise of looking charitable while in truth only aiming to improve his reputation for a hope of further return.

With his money alone we could fix world hunger. The top 2% of wealthy people in the world have more money than the bottom 98%.

My suggestion is to limit the expanse possibilities of multinational companies such as McDonalds, those who would sell their own grandmothers for a bob.

My suggestion is that those people who can spare a dollar a day, feel the obligation to sponsor children from highly disadvantaged communities so that we can give back something for our cheap shoes etc.

I am not a communist, I believe people should be able to gain wealth, but not excessive wealth. I believe that charity extends well beyond our own country. This is my belief.

Col, I think that economics is a social issue.

tubley, there is no question that you are a deeply compassionate person, and you deserve respect for that. But compassion is an emotion, and unfortunately the world turns every day on economic realities rather than warm-and-fuzzy wishful thinking.

You snarled at me "'The market, oh the glorious free market; it will save us all'. What crap"

I don't know who you were quoting, but it wasn't me, nor anyone else on this thread. So 'fess up, you introduced what is known in the trade as a "straw man", didn't you?

The fact remains that if the developed countries were honest in their trade dealings and withdrew the support they give to their own markets, there would be sufficient economic incentive for firms in those developed countries to dive in, invest, and grow the local economy to the benefit of the people. As has happened over the years in countless other countries.

Whether you like it or not, capitalism (mostly) works. The Guardian, a newspaper not renowned for its conservative leanings, commented in a November 2005 article on "[China's] extraordinary economic growth, titanic industrial expansion and pell-mell sprint towards capitalism which have lifted 400 million Chinese out of poverty in a generation."

>>My suggestion is to introduce a reasonable salary cap to the developed nations so that the wealth may become more evenly distributed.<<

And how would you justify this impertinent intervention into the affairs of another sovereign territory? How would you set it? In whose interests? Sorry, this is cloud-cuckoo-land.

>>Bill gates owns countless billions of dollars... With his money alone we could fix world hunger.<<

Bill's liquidity is around $50billion. There are 3 billion souls on the planet surviving on $2 a day. Giving it all away would support them for just over a week.

Economies grow as the result of a ton of factors, but one of those is incentive. How would you create the incentives necessary for people to invest their life in growing a business, if you are simply going to give the results away to someone else?