Friedrich, thank you, it is something for you to aspire to,

However, comparison to Castro, oh, cutting, and me, a clean shaven non-smoking soul with greater aspirations for everyone, including Cubans, than the misery inflicted on their wasted lives in one of the last remaining Stalinist labour camps.

JT_dontmesswitme “Mr Rouge, you didn't think I would ACTUALLY leave for good did you? “

Who ever you think you are, your opinion is inflated.

I do not have a clue who you are.

My memory does, however, recall, the individual receiving a significant period of suspension for trying to circumvent Mr Young’s suspension notices.

So you might be that same wizened one. Alternatively, you might be Shonga trying the same trick, in which case I am sure Mr Young will identify and suspend you for longer again.

AS for “I urge you to stop this”

Urge all you want, I only have interest in promoting my views. This is, after all, a public opinion forum and we do not live in the sort of cesspool socialist state where you can restrain my freedom of expression.
If you cannot deal with the implications of those facts, then run home to mother and don’t bother to post. I assure you I for one will not cry for your return but nor will I wring my hands over your continued attendance.

Either way – your contribution, be you Shonga or Gollum’s twin, will, I am sure, be equally puerile and irrelevant. So, who cares what you are.
Doubtless, you will soon exercise the same irreverence toward your betters as you have done in the past, then assuring us of the peace associated with a fresh period of your suspension.

I will not "mess with you" but please, exercise control, I would hate for you to mess yourself.

dude, what are you talkin about? I heard about this forum just a couple of weeks ago and your accusing me of bein shonga or sumthin like that. Just chill out bro. Stop acting like you've got something to prove. I know you have an opinion but it's not, no matter what you might think, the ONLY opinion. [Deleted for swearing. Poster suspended for a week.]

Jt,

Bye Bye.

"Is it possible that the Korean GOVERNMENT took action in the economic interests of their countries and ensured that certain target industries were 'helped' assisted PROTECTED.... etc. to get to the point they are in now ?" - BOAZ_David

Just over 20 years ago, Finland was an agricultural backwater dependent on trade with the Soviet Union. Today, the country's key economic sector is manufacturing - principally engineering, telecommunications, and electronics industries. Finland's development into a manufacturing hub is a result of government guidance. The Finnish government's national innovation system has rapidly transformed this small nation into the most competitive country in the world. I see no reason why Australia can't emulate such policies to prevent the complete collapse of our manufacturing sector.

I also believe that Australia needs to understand that it is very possible to develop a competitive advantage in areas where there is no history of comparative advantage. If anything, our comparative advantage in primary goods has made us too complacent. An interesting example - the car industries of Japan and the United States. Japan had the world's most expensive raw materials and fuel, while the U.S. had among the cheapest - a clear comparative advantage to the US. But who won? The Japanese. They broke the rules by turning to competitive advantage, creating the world's most fuel efficient vehicles, faster and lighter per unit of cost. The manufacturing processes were far more fuel efficient too. Today, Toyota is booming while GM and Ford face worrying long-term prospects.

Oligarch, you delude yourself if you think that government has a beneficial effect on industry.

"Just over 20 years ago, Finland was an agricultural backwater dependent on trade with the Soviet Union. Today, the country's key economic sector is manufacturing - principally engineering, telecommunications, and electronics industries. Finland's development into a manufacturing hub is a result of government guidance."

Nokia - the company - has been the driving force behind the transformation of Finnish industry. It was not the result of a government innovation programme, nor did it benefit from either government intervention or protection.

"The Finnish government's national innovation system has rapidly transformed this small nation into the most competitive country in the world."

Pure imagination. Nokia came first, government "strategy" (i.e. massive departments of public servants who believe they know better ways of doing things, despite all the evidence) followed.

It is unfortunately a habit of governments throughout the world to claim credit for the success of business, even when they have had nothing to do with it.

(Fascinatingly, they are always very quick to distance themselves from failure, blaming management and drawing attention away from the multiplicity of disincentives and roadblocks they create that contributed to the failure.)

Governments such as ours cannot nurture innovation with policy, only stifle it with regulation and taxation. The reason is simple: no-one in government has any experience at all in running a company. Even Turnbull was only ever a lawyer and an investment banker, not a real businessman.

Rest assured, Australian business will survive, but be just as certain it will be as the result of individual vision, not a government programme.

I would agree with you Pericles.

Governments are like surfers, they ride the waves.

They claim the honours but the strength of their performance is entirely dependent upon the swell of innovation and entreprenuerial expertise on which they ride just like the behaviour of the ocean makes the surfer (or not, on a flat day).

Oh oligarch, whilst I would agree with the sentiment of much of your post I suggest go read www.nokia.com. They have been around since 1865 and have had a developing background in electronics since the l960s and in radio-telephones in particular.

The role of government should be that of "umpire", crafting the rules of conduct and ensuring those rules are obeyed (compliance).

Government does not innovate, individuals do

Government are not elected or authorised to take commercial risks, individuals, through joint stock companies do.
The reward for risk is profit, that too is the sole preserve of private entities. When Government gets into business, the first thing which disappears are the profits as the politicians protect their election base by ensuring their electorates are feather bedded.
The long term result of feather bedding, skilled workers are not available for innovative real work, the entrenchment of the feather beds produces only a massive social cost by taqx payer subsidy to be borne by those not in feather bedded jobs.