It all sounds too hard and too expensive. It would be much easier to move offshore and take advantage of cheap labour where these educational and technologic costs can be avoided.

Besides, the more companies that move offshore, the less the demand for Australian employees will be in the future.

Dear Narcissist, yes.. but we would be faced with a very serious problem. The unemployed unskilled people in Australia.
Manufacturing accounts for a fairly sizable chunk of our economy and employment. If we had 100,000 people out of work, who were in a very BAD mood at the prospects for the future, and who decided to ORGANIZE themselves, and take action....well it could be very ugly mate.

SLAVERY and our COMPLICITY. We have to recognize that 50c an hour for Chinese workers is basically slavery in all but name. The standard/cost of living in the areas where the Factories exist may be lower than ours, but this is when you eat at the absolute bottom rung of the food chain.

I suggest that rather than emphasize 'PROTECTING' Australian workers, we alter the attack to LIBERATING CHINESE SLAVES, by punishing Chinese manufactured goods until wages and conditions improve for chinese workers.
By continuing to purchase goods made under these conditions, it is the same as purchasing Rubber at a time when it was procured from plantations which used slaves, and the same would apply to Cotton at a particular point in time.

It might be argued that our standard of living will be reduced if we have to pay more for chinese goods. Sure, to a point. But the other side of that coin is this. What impact will there be on our society when many thousands of unemployed people face a hopeless future and cannot afford even the basics of life now?

Is it not preferable for all of us to face higher cost of some goods, and all of us have jobs ?

It's a little simplistic to say its all about low wages, this is not true for a lot of manufacturing.

Shipbuilding for instance, wages in Korea are higher than Australia but they can buy our iron ore and coal, make their own steel and build a better, cheaper oil tanker in half the time, hence we don't build oil tankers.

Apple computers made in Singapore, by robots. Not touched by human hands.

Mitsubishi Air Conditioners made in Thailand, again not touched by human hands.

High Tech manufacturing plants, subsidised by Govt. Its called Industry Policy, we used to have one thats why, for now, we still make cars.

Unfortunately we need an educated, skilled workforce something that has neen ignored for too long.

Networking in our modern society is the No1 tool to manufacturing success.
The Chinese have a great networking system that is able to exploit situations that we Australians must envy.
The ability to open a chinese resturant in a country town then employ only Chinese,is what networking is all about.
The Norwegians have networked to go from poor fisherfolk to owners of some of the largest ships in the world.
Australia's fixation on employing overseas people and money highlight what is wrong with Australian business.
We should have the largest fishing fleet in the world except our government has decided to allow other nations to fish our grounds and force Australian fishermen only very limited access to our grounds.
On top of this the Taxation Dept has creamed off any profit that a successful operator make.
Australia could be a greater country if it started looking at it's own self interest,and stop getting more and more people to take the jobs that locals can do.

Boaz, continuing to repeat the same deluded story will never, ever make it accurate.

>>I suggest that rather than emphasize 'PROTECTING' Australian workers, we alter the attack to LIBERATING CHINESE SLAVES, by punishing Chinese manufactured goods until wages and conditions improve for chinese workers. By continuing to purchase goods made under these conditions, it is the same as purchasing Rubber at a time when it was procured from plantations which used slaves, and the same would apply to Cotton at a particular point in time.<<

How, in the name of everything mathematical and logical, can you possibly imagine in your wildest dreams and most far-fetched fantasy that refusing to buy Chinese manufactured goods, or making it more difficult/expensive for Australians to buy Chinese goods, will in any way, shape or form improve the conditions of Chinese workers?

Only by continuing to support the free trade of their products will you give them a chance to improve their lot in life. An act which, incidentally, has the additionally beneficial effect of keeping our own cost-of-living low.

It is win-win, Boaz. And absolutely nothing to man the barricades about.

A decade or so ago I worked in a factory in the pulp and paper industry in Melbourne, it is still in existence. The bulk of the machinery in the conversion section was second hand when first installed 35 years ago, I understand that this is still the case. Looking at the photos of the recently deceased Ajax plant, the same Dickensian feel is there. Maybe Australian Management should take a good hard look at itself. A late friend in the shipping industry in Melbourne told me that the saddest part of his then job was to quote for shipping entire factory units to China. We all know where the jobs went. Thank you little Johnny Howard and crew.

Richard42

The article reads like a publicity blurb for “Manufacturing 101”, predictable and common place.

Steve Madden “Apple computers made in Singapore, by robots. Not touched by human hands.
Mitsubishi Air Conditioners made in Thailand, again not touched by human hands.
High Tech manufacturing plants, subsidised by Govt. Its called Industry Policy, we used to have one thats why, for now, we still make cars.”

All those computers and air conditioners – lots of robots and not many employees, in that scenario, you are right, wages, high or low, just don’t matter.

Both those places would rank as having better access to the worlds “market place”, Singapore is at the cross roads of Asia and Thailand is a lot more convenient than say Melbourne.

On the bright side,
Australia speaks English (well most of us anyway),
We have a stable history of Democratic government (great when assessing investment risk)
We do have some innovative individuals.

So we are left with what else?
Well maybe city rates and taxes and property rental costs.
However, we do also have some comparatively draconian EPA laws.

One problem I can identify with which dogs Australian Manufacturing; he historic notion, built up around protectionism, that the “market” is the “domestic market”.

Only by accepting the opportunity and challenge of a greater international market place, investing up to service that market, will any “manufacturing” industry. anywhere (not just Australia) have a future.

Richard42 “shipping entire factories to China”. I recall the brief history of Celltech factory in Coburg, designed to make mobile phones. After 18 months, it was shipped to Hong Kong, lock stock and barrel. The problem was not that it could be manned cheaper in Hong Kong but the regulatory environment and manufacturing scale for production was set to domestic expectations and not as part of an international vision. One thing with the multinational corporations, they do have international visions, rather than a “keep to my own backyard” culture. It is not JH fault and it would be worse with more restrictive employment conditions.

BD, I think you still don't get the idea of the global economy
and comparative advantage. The Chinese might be great at making
those things, bought by the millions, at zilch cost. So let them
make those, consumers benefit and they are clearly voting with
their wallets to buy them.

Industry simply has to adjust, make things where there is a short
run, not made by the millions. Specialised equipment, mining
equipment, niche industries etc.

Workers need to adjust too. They need to find work in industries
screaming for staff, where we are highly competitive. Mining, the
meat industry are just a couple that spring to mind, where there
is a huge shortage.

Manufacturing in fact is not such a large part of the economy,
services dominate.

Given your interest in religion and given the huge profitability
of the US bible belt preachers, where rattling the tin on tv
brings in hundreds of millions, perhaps you need a career change!

Forget manufacturing and launch a new services career in Aussie
bible belt TV tin rattling, our economy could benefit by multi
millions :) Much better that our true believers spend their
money here, rather then send it to those US evangelists!

As somebody pointed out, its all about attitude.

We've heard the "need to be clever" mantra for a long time.

What we really need is some decent politicians who will not sit on their hands as they currently do, but fight for Australia. Train Australians. Stop kowtowing to China. Stop acting like Third Worlders and digging holes all over the country for foreigners to make money out of our raw materials.

What happened to Barry Jones's clever country? We didn't (and don't) have any clever politicians to get it going, that's what!

Start putting the blame where it belongs - on dud, time-serving Australian politicians. Non-achievers and disinclined learners, the lot of them!

I WAS RIGHT and EVERYONE ELSE WAS WRONG!

Ok.. having said that and now that you are reading this:) to prove me wrong, my headline worked. My sign 'BLAME CHINA' was correct. (with explanation) My sign could just as well have said "BLAME GREEDY SEGMENTED INTERESTS IN AUSTRALIA" (Graziers and Mining) because politicians dance to their tune. (and donation)
PERICLES Taxing Chinese Slavery would be a temporary and targeted measure.
1/ TEMPORARY it would reduce as Chinese labor rates improved.
2/ TARGETED I can't see much point in taxing silly little things like hammers and spanners, but the government could identity particular industry segments LIKE RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGY and many others and use the targeted slavery disincentive to promote such valuable far sighted industries here.

You see.. YABBY..and others....mantra 'GO HI-TECH' has one fatal flaw..the CHINESE and INDIANS are ALSO doing that.

RUDD woffles as follows:

"I don't want to get to the stage where this country doesn't make anything any more,"

"But the ALP leader vowed no return to the risky "picking winners"
Then

Instead, a Rudd government wants large-scale offshore investment; to boost workforce skills; and to dramatically increase research, development and innovation.

"That's not picking a winner, (it's) facilitation with muscle," he said

COMMENT: err Kev.. actually no, its the same political BS which pretty much means "I want the power" and I'll spin it anyway which works.

PICKING "winners" is how every South East Asian country SUCCEEDED, just because we flopped once does not mean it's unworkable.
It flops because of 'mates rates' and industry/political buddies getting in the the action.

EVALUATION SHEET.
Howard ........ d-
Rudd........... d-
Greens......... Not relevant (led by a bloodsucking deviate)
Dems........... who ?
Family First... Unknown quantity.

P.S. He who calleth Pauline Hanson a 'bloodsucking_Racist' gets back what he gives.

Like it or not. WE HAVE TO ADJUST.

Globalism is a reality. Put quotas on the Chinese DVD players and computers and what happens? Lower income people can no longer afford these goodies. No government could last long under that scenario.

I deal with industrial electronic equipment. None of it comes from China. Nor does the automatic robot equipment which China buys from the west. A little of that is actually made in Australia and exported to Asia. Why? Because, I suspect, lower income and lower standards go hand in hand. When China can produce to western sophisitication and quality its workers will demand and get western wages.

The problem is how to manage the change. Some take the knocks adjust and bounce back. We expect all people to adjust individually when many can't. That is where goverments can take an initiative as well as developing conditions where employers can make the change and those who have can prosper.

LOGIC yes..adjust we must. Australias HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of unskilled or semi-skilled workers will have no problem 'adjusting'. With all their entrepreneurial skills they obtained in the factories where they mostly did a variety of repetitious work requiring a body rather than a brain.. yep..no problemo :)

But as the patron saint of the Media Pauline Hanson says 'as long as there is a level playing field'.... Logic.. if you are playing soccer and the ref is pre-disposed to penalty you twice as much as the other team, and you have had 4 players sent off for dubious reasons.. you don't adjust, you walk off the field or you THUMP the damn referee.

Here is why we have to decide 'MANUFACTURE or....TOURISM'

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20890429-5000117,00.html
CHINA GOES ON LONG R&D MARCH.
Which is code of course for 'we intend to take every industry we can from you'

Without a solid and innovative manufacturing base, what the heck would we have higher education in engineering for ? and to what would it be connected ?

I say.... grab the referee and politically knee kick him in the sternum repeatedly until he agrees to give equal treatment to both sides.

Nothing anyone has said has dissuaded me from the basic fact of CHINESE SLAVERY and our complicity in promoting it.
I think you said 'Chinese workers will demand more'..HAH ! That IS the problem mate.. they can't. They are more likely to be charged with Pharlungong-ism and carved up for organ donation.

Everyone ridiculed MALAYSIA when the pegged their currency to the US$ at a specific rate, during the Asian economic meltdown, but I respond "When were you last in 1st world KL International Airport" ?
(where you realized Tullamarine is THIRD WORLD)

David

Perhaps the Malaysian action was the right thing for them. We can't THUMP the damn referee. We have to do something else. Of course unskilled displaced workers can't do it by themselves. That is why I wrote that governments have to help those who need it.

We do have a manufacturing base here and a lot of it is a solid and innovative but it is endangered and too small. Some sections are not moving in the best way. This needs proper management by governments.

Bemoaning the changes will do us no good al all. And that is the thrust of the article.

Manufacturing industries in Oz are past critical, to say they are in intensive care would be closer to the mark. Anyone who has studied units to do with manufacturing/engineering (to relate specifically to Australia) will understand the issues and problems.

Simply, if we took the raw materials we exported to Asia, and overseas generally, and 'value added' - our economy would go ahead in leaps and bounds. We don't have the visionaries capable of doing this. In time may be, but not at this juncture in our history.

The Ajax Bolt Company is a case in point. Will we begin to see more frequently, major product liability claims arising from shoddy, poor quality fasteners produced overseas which will in future be holden' our Holdens together? If we can't afford the right grade of bolts for our Fords, what can we afford to suffer as a consequence ?

Japanese quality systems are par excellence, who knows what the case will be with Korean, (some) EU and Middle Eastern suppliers in future? I don't allude to the principles regarding those in a concept of War On Terror, but simply that the mighty God Dollar drives a hard bargain. Fractions of a cent savings per unit cost mean the earth to bean counters.

It will not however, be much consolation to the parents of a teenager whose daredevil driving skills were the straw that broke the con rods back, and more so at the grave side.

Cue the corporate lawyers ad nauseum.

Dear Logic, the kind of 'thump' I'm talking about is political.

Alby has some good points. Resources+Value Adding+World market orientation=economic success.

The chinese have people dedicated to obtaining the various approvals for international marketing etc... and their production is often reduced to just one simple bit in a bigger system, and then there are other factories which put all the 'bits' together to make a widget.
There asset is cheap labor for huge volume low cost output.
We can do the same.

EXAMPLE 1/ HAMMER I did say in another thread that we should not make hammers, because they make them so cheap. BUT.. if it was fully automated, Raw Material-> Factory->zip,bang,clunk then off to world wide export markets. But, we could produce a hammer with some little feature which sets it apart from the average crappy chinese hammer.

EXAMPLE 2. Electronic Transformers. ahh..this one is a no-no. Its one of those components which is very hard to automate unless it is a simple thing. Machines which can do Winding, taping, pin wrapping, etc start around $200,000 each. The Chinese can have this one (even though I actually do it myself, in low 100-500 of quantity)

EXAMPLE 3. Electric Scooter. (Kids type) With these, we could actually compete. I make controllers (speed controls) and can make them competitively if I use the same 'self-destructo' design parameters they do.

EXAMPLE 4. Electric Old Geiser Scooter 3 or 4 wheel type. We can compete here too, but Local manufacturers ( I only know of about 3 all of whom are struggling) need to look more at 'volume' to get a return.
One even makes his own wheels.

EXAMPLE 5. "Import Replacement". There are many opportunties here. (but I do keep some secrets :)

FINAL THOUGHT. It doesn't matter what the product is, it usually has a lifecycle to maturity. If it has patent protection ok for a while, then it can (and will)be copied. Or.. it will be copied anyway with slight differences to avoid infringing patent). Bottom line the market is dynamic, not static. CONSTANT innovation and R&D is needed.

"You see.. YABBY..and others....mantra 'GO HI-TECH' has one fatal flaw..the CHINESE and INDIANS are ALSO doing that."

You miss the point BD. The Chinese go high tech in industries where
things are made by the millions, which is only a certain% of
goods. The niche industries, smaller runs etc, just in time fast
delivery, all these areas they are less then competitive.

My point is, look at Swiss manufacturing, or German or French,
etc. They all still exist, they all still thrive, they just
don't target the low margin mass consumer market.

Australian manufacturting needs to do the same, ie focus on consumer
needs, to make a living.

So your talk of "slave labour" is ridiculous. Life is relative
and Chinese factory workers in fact have never had it so good and
its getting better for them. Consumers, including poor ones, benefit
hugely and are clearly voting with their wallets in agreement.

“So-your-talk-of-"slave-labour"-is-ridiculous.-Life-is-relative
and-Chinese-factory-workers-in-fact-have-never-had-it-so-good-and
its-getting-better-for-them.-Consumers,-including-poor-ones,-benefit
hugely-and-are-clearly-voting-with-their-wallets-in-agreement.”

Yabby, I don’t suppose you watched China Blue on SBS the other night. It was a documentary about young girl working in a Chinese clothes manufacturing factory.

She is about 18 and walks in and asks for a job. They say “we are very strict here, you start at 8am and you must be on time” apparently they dock their pay for every minute they are late. Then they say “ you work until 12 o’clock [which, naturally, I thought was the lunch break] then you have a break and come back and work until 2 or 3am”!!. They are allowed two toilet breaks a day.

So this girl’s job was to cut loose threads off jeans for 18 – 19+ hours per day.

They live in dormitories close to the factory. They are fed by the factory, the cost of which is docked from their pay. Other items are randomly deducted from their pay.

They are often paid late, if at all. The factory “holds back” their first month’s pay as a disincentive from leaving. As the factory never gives them “permission” to quit, they never get that first month’s pay anyway.

The documentary covered a period in which the factory was trying to get an order finished which was late, so they HAD TO work 2 days straight, even though the workers had not been paid their previous month’s pay.

In China trade unions and strikes are illegal. The factory was owned by an ex chief of police who drives a Mercedes Benz and accuses the workers of wanting to feather their own nest!!.

And according to you Chinese factory workers have never had it so good, and its getting better for them. You CANNOT BE SERIOUS.

And these conditions are what our political leaders are telling us we must compete with. Yabby, as you don’t consider this slave labour, I trust you’ll be the first to put up your hand to work for 19 hours a day for next to nix which you are likely not to get anyway.

OK but what can be done about slave labour without depriving the people of their videos and plasma screens?

Experience shows that all exploitative regimes eventually fall or improve with time. Sometimes, like the USSR when we are least expecting it. At least the Chinese are not threatening us.

"And according to you Chinese factory workers have never had it so good, and its getting better for them. You CANNOT BE SERIOUS."

Tao, umm I am actually serious! I am sure that there are huge
amounts of things wrong in China. I am sure there are many
shocking examples. But go back 20-30 years and people were still
literally starving in China. There are good reasons why they fled
the countryside, into the factories. What we now have in many
parts of China is an actual labour shortage, so wages and conditions
are pushing upwards, or workers have the option of going elsewhere.

GDP is going up in China and in general people are far better off
then they were 30 years ago, so yup, they have never had it so good!
Turning the lives of 1 billion people around is not so easy, it
will take time, but things are on the improve and heading in the
right direction, from where they were before. That is my point.

Us buying goods from China not only benefits us, in particular
our poor, but also workers there, whose other option is close to
starvation in the countryside. No wonder they grab the factory jobs.

There is still lots we can do. Consumer pressure on brands to pay
fair and reasonable wages to employees is one way to do it. One thing
that brands worry about is the image of their brand name. Having them
shamed for exploiting labour, is a great way to do it, so there should be more of it by Western consumers.

So Yabby, you will be volunteering to work 19 hours a day, 7 days a week for virtually nothing? Oh, thats right, you are not starving so you are not FORCED to do it. Whatever spin you put on it, it is still slave labour.

The flaw in your conception that things will improve is this - if wages and conditions go up, capital will move elsewhere where conditions are worse and profits are better, just like it is leaving Australia and other Western nations.

THANK-YOU Tao :) you just again demonstrated the value of this forum by providing information which I did not have at my fingertips. Onya mate.

YAPPY... :) youuuuu.. grrrr.. so easy for one who does NOT have to work those hours to woffle on about grandiose philosphical economic points.. but in the mean time... people are being dehumanized.

The point I'd like to make is as follows:

1/ (Celeste) Do we feel comfortable with our plazma screens if we know they are manufactured under such conditions ? (actually such items would not be very labor intensive, more automated.) Ok.. it's not all the same.. Clothing..footwear ? yes.. anything where labor is such a big part of the manufacturing process.

2/ WE can make a difference by highlighting such SLAVERY and injustice at the Chinese consulate. (OR.. closer to home and TRAM :).. on the streets of Flinders st Station or Parliament house)

So..lets see.. items for protest now include.

A) 1-Nation/Culture/Race.
B) Chinese Slave labor.
C) Multiculturalism is dead. (if not quite, then lets kill it quick)
D) Brand Clothing manufacturers who STILLLL charge $80 per shirt yet exploit Chinese garment workers, at an obscene fraction of the cost.

They.. are the true villains in todays society.. here is the strategy.

a) Build a brand.
b) Get work done by slaves
c) Sell at a 'designer' prices and reap much slavery based PROFIT.

We consumers don't get the garment cheaper.. we just pay the same and marketing companies get the big bucks.
We should protest outside the HOMES of the managers of such companies !

Whilst it would seem that Chinese factory workers experience employment conditions which would not be acceptable in Australia, before going evangelical and thumping the our chests in righteous indignation maybe we should ask a couple of questions

1 Are the Chinese factory workers complaining?
2 Would their employment conditions be better or worse without those factories?
3 Does anyone in China want to turn back the clock to the days of Mao and then the gang of four and their style of social benevolence?
4 How do people in North Korea view the factory conditions in neighbouring China?

Yabby uses the phrase “getting better for them.”

Trade based strategies give people immediate employment and more important, they also give them genuine “hope” for a better future.

China has hundreds of thousands of new millionaires who would not be so wealthy except through application of capitalist market economies, millions of others are being elevated from the abject poverty created by enforced socialist doctrines through trade and employment in those factories. Doubtless, as has been seen in other countries, post WWII Germany and Japan for instance, as their skills levels rise, so to will the added value of their effort and their incomes.

It is always good to remember the world is not a perfect place, injustice exists everywhere but so too does opportunity (except where it is crushed by the jackboot of the state).

I believe in the natural goodness and compassion of man. Others believe every man will, by nature, exploit the workers under his control. I suspect we are merely projecting how we, as individuals, would behave given the choice.

The manufacture of consumer and low tech products is problematic. Owing mainly to economies of scale and similarly no large domestic markets, as in the US or Japan. "Buy Australian" just does have the same economic impact and might unjustfly keep an infiencient manufacture in business.

Nonetheless, value adding involving enhanced technologies can prove profitable, such as, rutile sand to areospace metal. That is, we differentiate ourselves in world markets with products requiring enhanced transformation, but assembly is a different story.

We do have many domestic SMEs. But let's fact it, these modest manufactures often are just familial tax dodgers. One might have twelve lines and with only ten showing in the ATO set of books. Free lunches, cars and trips, written off against the company books in fictitious business related activities. It is an oppotunity to have deguised income, independent of declared profit.

Herein, for Australia's benefit, manufacturers might best look at business-to-business production, heavy industry and importantly niche high tech. We might let small buisness stay as hangers-on or employ these quasi-business people (now employers) as employees in more productive endeavours.

The small provider is more a way of life and is a low productivity employer of labour. All-in-all, this might not be the most productive solution. Good for government in the employment stats, though.

Design and consultancy, for offsore manufacture, plus services, is where opportunities exist for a well educated mudium sized country. Here, we must stay advanced on the innovation curve.

Tao, whilst watching a TV doco about conditions in one Chinese
factory might have pushed your emotional buttons and your sense
of justice, its a long stretch to then assume that they are the
same all over China. To see exploitation (girls held in brothels
for example) you only have to watch our very own current affairs programmes, right here in Australia.

If I was living in North Korea, where the State controls everything,
then conditions in China might well look amazing, thats why many
try to flee over the border into China. Would I prefer the choices
and options in China, compared to North Korea, where I was a slave
of the Govt? Absolutaly!

Fact is the figures show that China is booming and things are
getting far better then they used to be and heading in the right
direction. 7 million new cars were sold in China this year,
compare that to 10 years ago. The best thing that could happen to
your exploited worker, is for somebody else to build another
factory down the road, offer her the option of a better job, with
better conditions. Any employer who trys to force workers to work
incredible hours, is going to have a quality problem with the
products that they manufacture. Tired workers will make mistakes,
fair enough.

Why do you have a problem with capital moving to the third world?
How can they ever develop anything, without capital flowing there?
There is plenty of capital flowing into Australia too, into those
sectors where we have a comparative advantage, like new mining
developments. Wages are at record levels, unemployment say in WA
at record lows, capital investment held up by a lack of employees!
So much for the Chinese stealing our jobs. Fact is, we simply don't
even have the labour to fill the jobs being offered in our competitive industries!

BD, between starting your own online Aussie Church, to take the
true believers local money, you could always start a "rent a
demonstrator" company, as you seem to have a passion for
demonstrating :)

Considering Labor thought the Lima Declaration was a binding protocol of some kind and they started the demise of the manufacturing industry in Australia, its only fitting they repair the damage.

Pity that Rudd, only now, espouses the need One Nation identified 10 years ago.

A number of people on this forum seem to have a problem with other countries improving their standard of living.

Could these be the same folk who presume to tell the emerging economic forces of China and India what to do? Don't grow your population, don't use fossil fuels, don't cut down trees - the list is endless - when this was precisely the formula by which today's rich nations grew.

International trade has been and will continue to be the life blood of economic growth.

Boaz's bleat:

>>...but in the mean time... people are being dehumanized<<

... simply does not stack up. Life expectancy - which is a pretty handy cover-all for economic prosperity, improved health care, improved nutrition etc etc. - has moved from 41 years in the 1950s to 71 years today (China) and from 39 years in the 1950s to 63 years today (India).

If we feel threatened by this, and its potential to impact our own standard of living in future, that is understandable. Short-sighted, but understandable.

The reality is that only way we can prevent other countries from improving their standard of living is to declare economic war on them. Refuse to buy their products. Raise tariff barriers. Insist they conform to some arbitrary notion of energy management, simply to make up for our own profligacy in the past. Clearly that is not an honourable position.

Nor is it tenable. Protectionist policies such as those advocated by Boaz will cripple any remaining Australian industry, and reduce our standard of living at one fell swoop.

Banning imports, or raising tariffs, has a natural consequence, which is to shut ourselves out of export markets. Our prices rise, as the only suppliers to the domestic market will be of the high-cost domestic variety. And as soon as they realise that they have no overseas competition, up will go the prices still further. Meanwhile, our earnings fall, as there will be ever smaller markets to service with our products.

Learn. Adapt. Survive. That's the only workable formula.

Yabby,
“pushed your emotional buttons and your sense of justice”. I often find that people are patronizing when their own argument is lacking, which yours is.

“its a long stretch to then assume that they are the same all over China” Apparently, it is a long stretch to assume that they are not: Check out http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/

After investigations last year by China Labor Watch, three reports issued in September and December 2005 detailing working and living conditions in 13 toy making factories in Dongguan City, Guangdong province (there are apparently 8,000 toy making factories in mainland china). Many of the conditions were similar to those in shown in China Blue, a summary of which follows (extracted from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/toys-m25.shtml ):

*13 – 15 hour day was common, one day off per week (sometimes only one night!)

*During busy periods mandatory all night shifts of 16 – 19 hours were common, and only one day off per month was allowed.

*Overtime was virtually non existent, even though an 8 hour work day is mandated.

*Only one factory paid workers in accordance with labour law.

*Many employers withheld the first month’s wages and workers were often paid for the first time at the end of the second month.

*Workers producing small plastic heart-shaped children’s rings had to complete 10,000 operations a day at or one every three seconds. Workers passed out from exhaustion. The constant repetition left workers with bleeding and blistered hands and fingers.

Tao, I think you are living in dreamland, if you think that a third
world economy, where people used to starve, is going to change into
a first world economy, with our kind of Aussie cushy conditions,
with just snap, crackle and pop!

I remind you that not long ago the Japanese were still working a
6 day week. The Americans generally still only take a couple of weeks
holiday a year. Read up on the history of industrialistion of
Europe and America, some pretty rough conditions existed, before we
finally progressed to what we have today.

Even today, there are plenty of farmers, who at seeding, when the
pressure is on, will do a couple of shifts to get their crops in,
working 19 hour days, right here in Aus!

Yup, things are grim in China by your standards, but they are
massively improving by their standards. The Economist website tells
me that hourly cost of labour between 2000 and 2003 went up around
60% or 14%-15% a year. Admitadly off a low base, but the direction
is what matters, everything is relative.

Even trade union membership is increasing in China. They might be
mild trade unions by our standards, but people are joining.
(see Economist 21st September 2006)

Recently I saw a documentary about China, where Nokia, who have
phones manufactured in China to their standards, did an audit of
the factory. Workers conditions were checked, if the company did
not comply to Nokia's wishes, they would lose their contract. There
is no reason that more Western companies cannot do the same.

You and other Western consumers are free to apply pressure to
companies dealing with China, to make sure that the workers
producing goods, are receiving reasonable conditions. Any top
company today takes notice of what their consumers think, if they
don't, they will soon go under

Oliver “modest manufactures often are just familial tax dodgers.”

Maybe you could explain the benefit of this particular “tax dodge”.
To benefit from tax avoidance one has to either hide an income which does exist or create a cost which really does not exist. Maybe you can explain how running a SME achieves one of these requirements.

“We might let small buisness stay as hangers-on”

who is “we”

and if “we” shut them down what happens to their “employees”

“Design and consultancy, for offsore manufacture, plus services, is where opportunities exist”

A factory lifecycle, design consultancy will exist for around one or two people for 1 year on a factory employing thousands, with a useful life of 40 years. With every other developed nation competing for “design and consultancy” contracts the “opportunities” are not going to employ thousands of school leavers or regular workers every year, merely a handful of individuals who have reputations and skills which precede them.
Oh the services – I hope you are not going to suggest call centres!

Pericles, agree with your post in its entirety.

Tao – you seem to have an opinion on everything, maybe you would like to express it in terms of the four questions I posed in my previous post.

Yabby – “if the company did not comply to Nokia's wishes, they would lose their contract. There is no reason that more Western companies cannot do the same.”

I saw the same program and you are right, trans-nationals can and obviously do pay attention to such details.

Through trade not only do goods move but ideas and values move too. Through Nokia demonstrating how they value employees, the standards and values of Chinese employers will change, over time.

China is going through an industrial revolution. The privations which exist now reflect the same as existed in the UKs industrial revolution of 2 centuries ago.

I would note from that revolution came Cadbury’s model factory and employment practices at Bournville, the “Truck Acts” and a host of other elevations in employment conditions as the “natural goodness and compassion of man” prevailed.

Col

I respect your opinions on the conduct of business, you are obviously far more advanced than I. I also concurr in general terms with what you are saying.

There is however a problem with globalism in that at least in the short term many jobs are being lost. Perhaps this is temporary and definately the workers in newly industrialised countries are benefiting, pehaps not as much as we think they should.

But this is little consolation to the family who have lost income, or to the older worker who may not find themselves able to adjust. Organic economic growth does not seem to occur quickly enough, particularly for those at the end of their working cycle. I myself have been through this and was fortunate to have falled back on my feet but others have not.

Have you any thoughts on what we could do here. I have to admit I cannot myself offer any such advice.

Col,

I was simply referring to the opportunity of running two sets of books, cash economies and disguised income, especially in the small family business. Less chance of being caught-out with illegalities. I this frame, I do not assume all income is recorded and perks are maximised.

"We" is just a generic term to describe what Australia might do.

Employees can be redeployed and their past bosses can find more productive employment too. J Curve.

Look at Texas and California, without the power of sovereign state, each state has about the same population, but a larger economy than Australia. We are too small to produce many global consumer products, but we do have the capacity to contribute to R&D more than we do.

Of course, many SME owners can manage a good living under the radar of the transnationals. Just the same, improving personal circumstances might not be best in the aggregate interest of the country.

By design and consultancy, I refer to performing potential activities abroad by major construction companies and specialist consultants. We, oops, Australia can service the demand for our expertise.

When it comes to an emphasis on services and exporting know-how, I think Australia has already rightfully become involved, especially since the emergence of several Asian economies.

Nor would I suggest we scrap SMEs altogther, but selective divestment could be valid.

O.

Col, I will take the challenge (or is that the bait?)

“1-Are-the-Chinese-factory-workers-complaining?”

Yes. The Chinise Minister for Police announced that there were 87,000 demonstrations and protests last year, up from 10,000 ten years ago - http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11152. This is only those who have the gumption to complain….so far. The factories have measures for intimidating those who do complain, and apparently even if people were to take their complaints to authorities (who are one and the same as the factory owners, or have connections), nothing is done about them. No doubt state repression (recall Tiananmen Square) would affect the numbers who vocally complain and demonstrate. The state is now beefing up the army to deal with growing unrest http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/chin-d05.shtml.

“2 Would-their-employment-conditions-be-better-or-worse-without-those-factories?”

Would you better off with asbestosis or mesothelioma?

“3-Does-anyone-in-China-want-to-turn-back-the-clock-to-the-days-of-Mao-and-then-the-gang-of-four-and-their-style-of-social-benevolence?”

Would you prefer a car accident or plane crash?

4 How-do-people-in-North-Korea-view-the-factory-conditions-in-neighbouring-China?

Heart disease or a brain tumour?

These attempts to make the abhorrent working conditions of millions in China appear more favourable by comparing them to the worst possible living conditions are obfuscatory.

The question we should be asking is, why, when we have technology that would enable us to raise the living standards of all people in the world, when we are producing more than we ever have (and wasting a lot of it), are human beings still being subjected to these slave labour conditions, which are slightly better than starving?

Your words: “China-is-going-through-an-industrial-revolution.-The-privations-which-exist-now-reflect-the-same-as-existed-in-the-UKs-industrial-revolution-of-2-centuries-ago.-

I-would-note-from-that-revolution-came-Cadbury’s-model-factory-and-employment-practices-at-Bournville,-the-“Truck-Acts”-and-a-host-of-other-elevations-in-employment-conditions-as-the-“natural-goodness-and-compassion-of-man”-prevailed.”

Consider the logic of your statements.

Everyone has known for decades of the oppressive regime in China, which is what makes investment there so attractive - they have proven that they are willing to put down any resistance. China is a massive cheap labour pool ripe for exploitation. Multinationals go to China SPECIFICALLY for cheap labour. They TAKE ADVANTAGE of the conditions. Yet somehow you think that multinationals are going to voluntarily, out of the “natural goodness” of their hearts, increase wages and conditions. If multinationals want to pay decent wages, why don’t they continue manufacturing in Western countries where wages and conditions are good (relatively speaking)?

cont...

...cont

From the article quoted in my last post –

“China Labor Watch executive director Li Qiang noted that as factories frequently had four or more clients, multinationals often claimed that if laws were broken, they could not be held responsible for the work orders of other companies. As he observed, however, the CORPORATIONS PAID CLOSE ATTENTION TO EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CHANGES IN COSTS—CHANGES THAT COULD AND HAVE LED THEM TO MOVE PRODUCTION TO OTHER PLANTS AND OTHER COUNTRIES AS SOON AS PROFIT RATES FELL FRACTIONALLY. This belied their professed inability to stay informed of working hours or pay levels.”

So it is a race to the bottom, to the lowest prices, to the lowest wages. Even if Nokia ameliorated some of the worst abuses (which is debateable), to quote Yabby “it is a long stretch to then assume it is the same all over China”. Even if there are some bleeding heart capitalists in China (which again is HIGHLY debateable), they wouldn’t stay in business long because they must compete with others. The old “market forces”.

And why, if the “natural goodness and compassion of man” prevailed, have conditions returned to those of 2 centuries ago, largely at the behest of Western capitalists? The improved conditions of workers did not arise “naturally” out of the capitalists’ hearts, they were fought for, and won from their overlords, by workers. Conditions won by Western workers in the post-war boom were concessions made by capitalists, aimed at staving off socialist revolutions which had been brewing around the world in the early 20th Century. Those conditions are now being systematically stripped back. Western workers are being pitted against Chinese and Indian workers.

Again, why, when we have the technology to raise the living standards of all people in the world, when we are producing more than we ever have, are the living conditions for increasing numbers of people in Western nations, and all over the world, becoming more tenuous and insecure? Why, if the “goodness and compassion of man” has prevailed, is this situation tolerated, and in your case, excused?

Tao,

Sinologist, Lucian Pye, states, with China, the issue is not left and right (read socialism versus capitalism), rather, its a matter of control versus freedom. Herein, China will continue to open up, provided the powers-that-be feel things have not run away from them. Its the reins not gains that really count. Note, I have conducted business in China.

The Middle Kingdom does not like to pay deference to others (read the US and UK). Australia has an advantage in this regard, as we tend not to play the role of "the Wise Men from the West".

Yappy.... you have some good points, but let me indicate one weakness in what you shared.

If WESTERN countries force the conditions and pay by contract... ok, but China is not run by Westerners, only some bits are. (Joint ventures). The Chinese have uncountable indigenous economic players and I suspect these are the ones featured in the SBS doco.
I'm encouraged that union membership is increasing and that pay is also, but, China is very adept at 'looking' good for the sake of propoganda.
I'd love to know the actual PROCESS by which their pay went up. Labor shortage ? if so, more labor...lower wages again.

PERICLES, I think I can prove mathematically that taxing Chinese slavery is an economically viable option. Unfortunately, I don't have all the needed info :) yep..thats a cop out.

But... consider this.
If 20% of the manufacturing workforce is made redundant, most of them permanently due to age, the dole cost would be astronomical. If dole is $200/wk and Jobless workers=50,000 then the weekly cost would be $10,000,000 a week or around $500million annually. Now.. consider the alternative, Taxing chinese goods at a 10% rate ? We import $3.2bln of clothing items and $2.4Bln in Computers from China. Taxed at 10%=$500 million.
The thing is, if we don't tax them, WE pay the dole, if we DO tax them, we still pay but INto revenue rather than taking it.

The impact of the tax though, is to make Chinese goods less attractive, thus preserving jobs here. No dole payout, and added government revenue from the tax paid by the now NON redundant workers to spend of health.
Now.. I know we sell them 12Billion worth of Iron ore, which is probably locked into contracts which include reference to our import trade with them. I don't know if there is any binding clause saying we will not add any tax to imported product.

But then...I also don't know if there is any clause allowing them to change suppliers when a new one comes on stream. So, ....details details.. We need Faustino to help us here.

Logic – “I respect your opinions on the conduct of business,”

thank you, although I doubt I am any more “advanced” than anyone else.

RE “lost income … the older worker who may not find themselves able to adjust …Have you any thoughts on what we could do here.”

I returned to Australia from Texas (failure of second marriage)I was aged 51, without much, a house in Australia with a mortgage still on it, a 20 year of Celica in the drive way but a group of fine and wonderful friends.

I have plan A, B, C and D to deal with the question we all face “how do I find financial security in a changing world” ? (which is, essentially, the question you are asking).

I will not bore you plan details, other than to say

One is what I have done in the past (consultancy work) and have been eager to get away from (too much of a roller coaster) but produces cash (plan D).

Plan C, has been a fizzer.
Plan B, the hedged bet, has been a modest success, has paid me back more than it cost in cash and does produce a reasonable “recurring income”.

The one which has been slowest to evolve and which, in hindsight, has cost me the most (in terms of cash and time) will yield me the "financial security goal". I will call this plan A.

Plus a few other ventures which did not get to be “plans”.

So to do my best to answer your question “lost income and ability to adjust”, there are no choices for anyone.

I suggested recently, for SHONGAS friend, get a goal, build a plan or do what I have done, get several plans to service my one goal (to “find financial security”).

No one thing will work for everybody but something will always work for somebody, preferably something which they are passionate about.

As pericles eloquently put it “Learn. Adapt. Survive. That's the only workable formula.

Well just to piss everbody else off :), I've kind of achieved
financial security and I did it by competing with the Chinese,
in the global marketplace. I did it by focussing on consumers
and their needs!

Tao, I don't know your age, but go back some years and
"Japanese junk" was a common phrase. The Japanese were doing
what the Chinese are doing now, focussing purely on price and
producing alot of el cheapo rubbish.

The market is far more complex then that, as the Japanese
learned over time. Yup there is a market which races to
the bottom, based purely on price. Then there is the mid
market, which is about value for money. Then we have the
snob market at the top, where people are prepared to pay
for exclusivity.

What employers soon learn, is that hiring the cheapest workers
can in fact be very expensive. They can easily ruin expensive
machinery. They are too stressed to produce high quality
products. The company is only as good as its employees, so
it pays to pay higher wages and obtain the best workers.
Smart employers recognise that and their products will appeal
to the value for money sector, who are sick of buying products
that they have to throw away due to quality problems.

Over time, I think that what happened in Japan, will happen
in China. Employers will realise that el cheapo is only one
small sector of the market.

Personally I am not an el cheapo customer, but a value for
money customer. I don't want the cheapest dvd, but one that does
the job and lasts. That means paying better workers higher wages,
spending more on materials etc. I don't care if it costs an
extra 20%, as long as I know that I don't have to throw it on
the scrap heap after a short time.

In short Tao, you are ignoring the realities of the marketplace.

Col

I too went through major problems and came through them.

But I consider that I may have been lucky. Yes I know that luck only comes to those that perform but I enjoyed a reasonable share. I do worry about those who have dificulties. Intelligence, which is something you clearly have is a matter of genetic luck. I know many who cannot survive without help. And there are a limited number who can be self employed.

There is a lot of reason in your argument but I think there are many who cannot get there in the way we did.

And Tao

This cheating of the tax system is not something I could recommend. The tax department has a way of catching up with cheats. I personally follow the advice of an honest accountant and sleep at night.

Yabby,

“Why-do-you-have-a-problem-with-capital-moving-to-the-third-world?”

I didn’t say I had a problem with it, I said that the problem with your conception that things would get better was that once wages and conditions go up, capital will move somewhere else. My statement was not an expression of my subjective “problem” but of the objective reality of capitalism.

“The-market-is-far-more-complex-then-that,-as-the-Japanese
learned-over-time.-Yup-there-is-a-market-which-races-to-
the-bottom,-based-purely-on-price.-Then-there-is-the-mid
market,-which-is-about-value-for-money.-Then-we-have-the
snob-market-at-the-top,-where-people-are-prepared-to-pay
for-exclusivity.-

What-employers-soon-learn,-is-that-hiring-the-cheapest-workers
can-in-fact-be-very-expensive.-They-can-easily-ruin-expensive
machinery.-They-are-too-stressed-to-produce-high-quality
products.-The-company-is-only-as-good-as-its-employees,-so-
it-pays-to-pay-higher-wages-and-obtain-the-best-workers.-
Smart-employers-recognise-that-and-their-products-will-appeal
to-the-value-for-money-sector,-who-are-sick-of-buying-products
that-they-have-to-throw-away-due-to-quality-problems. “

“In-short-Tao,-you-are-ignoring-the-realities-of-the-marketplace.” Really? Lets have a look at some Japanese market realities shall we?

Japan has had 15 years of economic stagnation after its meltdown.

Many Japanese companies are using China as a cheap labour platform. In 2005, Japanese exports to China grew 8.9% - down from 29% in 2004, while imports from China rose 15.7% resulting in its largest bilateral trade deficit with China of $28.66 billion.

There has been growth of low-paid part-time and contracted labour in Japan. In 1990 ‘non-regular’ workers made up 18.8% of Japan’s workforce rising to 30% in 2005. Most are young, unskilled female workers.

Canon now employs 70% of factory staff as “non-regular” workers, up from 50% five years ago, and 10% a decade ago.

Over the past 10 years, the number of full-time jobs has fallen by about 4 million.

Last year Sony announced plans to slash 7% of its workforce, or 10,000 jobs by 2008.

In 1998 workers pay accounted for 73% of corporate earnings, in 2005, 64%.

The net debt of Japanese households in 2003 was 317% of disposable income, compared to 185% in the US in 2004.

Yes, things are getting better for Japanese workers. The suicide rate from 1997 onward has risen from approximately 22,000 to 30,000 per year. In 2004, there were more than 32,000 suicides. Many are middle aged or elderly males facing financial difficulties. The number of people in their 30s committing suicide jumped by 17% to 4,603 in 2003 as compared to the previous year. Among elementary and middle school students the suicide rate increased by 54%. Yes, that’s right 30,000+ people per year KILL THEMSELVES because life is SOOOOOOOO GOOD in Japan.

COL..... r u currently in Queensland ? I'm trying to recall, but I think at one stage u said ur in Melbourne right ?

You should come to the Demo I'm working on mate :) wont be huge, just a photo opportunity mainly.

Yappy.. again.. valid points. Right now I am faced with a customer who is telling me "Well..we need a reduction in price, we want to try to keep this job in Australia" HAH...that company does over a million bucks worth of business with just one company alone which brings these parts from China. In my game, I can't follow ur line, the Chinese stuff is usually damn good.

I'm still going to milk the "TAX CHINESE CAPITALIST SLAVE OWNERS AT CUSTOMS" thing for all its worth though. I can't wait till I'm less busy.

OH.. just a quicky... for those who so often criticize the 'Church' for many things, ask yourself this, when was the last time your local rotary or lions club raised a million dollars in one night for Aids orphans relief.. and chaneled it through Bono's ONE.ORG
This one did: http://www.willowcreek.org/default.asp
Sorry...thats off topic, but its exciting.

Tao, whichever way you want to argue it, fact is that Japan is
one of the wealthiest countries on earth, with wages some of the
highest on earth, standards of living close to some the the
highest on earth. All this from a country which was producing
"Japanese junk", using so called exploited labour, not so long ago.

Harakiri is part of Japanese culture. Losing face is a major issue
in their culture, so suicide is considered "honourable" You are
trying to judge their society through your eyes, which is where
you are flawed.

So globalisation has worked extremely well for Japan and its
citizens.

On the other hand, if you think that the Japanese are so hard done
by, perhaps your criteria for judgement should be as to who are
the happiest people on earth? I recently read a survey which suggested
that it was the Nigerians. Based on those paramenters,
we would need corruption, starvation, exploitation and a host
of other nasties to achieve the happiness of the Nigerians!

Perhaps you need to navel gaze just a little bit more :

Tao I see you have tried to answer, however, all is not as one would assume.

Q1 – demonstration is China – terrible, what was the response? I know what the response would have been in 1989 and worse before.

Parallel, 1926 general strike in UK with the treatment of Tolpuddle martyrs some 100 years previous.

A demonstration in China in the pre mid 1990’s would have seen the entire family placed into one of the most repressive prisons system on earth. That people feel free to demonstrate is indicative of an improvement in circumstances over those when they dared not.

Q2 – your responsive question is not an answer
Q3 – see Q2
Q4 – is ungrammatical nonsense.

I suggest you try again and when I say “try” I mean "think" too.

I recall Chinese embassy officials running through London with hatchets intent on killing the “capitalist running dogs” in the name of the “oppressive regime in China,”

Re “which is what makes investment there so attractive “ Prior to 1990 the regime was so repressive no one invested in China. It was only through some liberalization of their attitudes that China attracted any investment.

You need to put things in an historic context, tao. The world did not start the day your Mum hatched you.

That China is moving forward displays the “goodness of man” however, my view does not deny that evil men exist, I could list thousands of them Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu as well as the criminally deluded like Trotsky and Che Guevara.

My reality accepts, we move forward from where we are.

Only simpletons presume that whining about something will make it magically disappear or that everything is, like it looked in our early childhood, a rosie playground.

Japan, they say one generation creates, the next builds and the third squanders, Japan is experiencing its third generation with pre-eminence of authority since WWII.

Economies also go in cycles, another generation and Japan will wake up to its moribund state.

Logic “but I think there are many who cannot get there in the way we did.”

I was not advocating a strategy of “do what I do”, in the literal sense but in the figurative sense.

If every individual did not rely exclusively on the income of a single employment source but on a range of separate and different employment / income sources, their dependency on the security of one is lessened and thus their overall personal security and financial security is enhanced.

Certainly one reason for not being specific about what I did was to separate my own actions from the process and the process is to look for multiple income streams. For anyone those might include

1 a principle job
2 a partime job
3 an excursion into network marketing (not everyone’s cup of tea)
4 a hobby based income, like craft skills or maybe writing a book. (a passion which pays)
5 Developing investment skills and incomes from real estate or shares investments (shares is always too scary for me, personally)

The list is limited only by ones imagination and courage to try. But the process is what I have done, I have endevoured to manage my time to service more than a single source of income.

David – I am in Victoria, I don’t generally do “demo’s”, especially when I am not sure what the reason for it is.

I find debate a far more constructive practice than mingling with “the great unwashed”, as they tend to assail my nostrils :).

Col

"I find debate a far more constructive practice than mingling with “the great unwashed”, as they tend to assail my nostrils"

You present a very well thought out and sensitive argument and then spoil it with comments like these. Please desist, it gives us all a completely wrong impression of you.

Yabby,

"Harakiri-is-part-of-Japanese-culture.-Losing-face-is-a-major-issue-in-their-culture,-so-suicide-is-considered-"honourable"

This may be so Yabby, but what is the reason for the increased "loss of face" which is leading to increased suicide rates? That is the issue we are talking about.

“All-this-from-a-country-which-was-producing-"Japanese-junk",-using-so-called-exploited-labour,-not-so-long-ago”.

Did you not read my last post carefully? Japanese companies are now using exploited labour in China, which is one of the reasons why conditions for Japanese workers are deteriorating. “Competition” drives wages and conditions down.

The fact is Japanese companies “can’t afford” to continue employing people for life, on such good conditions anymore. Regardless of whether the Japanese ruling classes have managed to resist implementing, for the moment, job losses and reduced working conditions on the scale seen in the West, inroads have been made, and the pressure is on them to undertake even more “reform”, just as it is everywhere.

"On-the-other-hand,-if-you-think-that-the-Japanese-are-so-hard-done-by,,,”

It was not me who introduced Japan into the discussion as a beacon which Chinese workers should look to for comfort in their oppressed desperation, but you. The "market realities" I listed refuted your claim that everything for Japanese workers was honky-dory, illustrating in fact, that it is getting worse for them, just as it is getting worse for Western workers. As I said earlier, when wages and conditions go up, capital moves elsewhere – TO CHINA for instance!

“perhaps your criteria for judgement should be” happiness

So, because objective facts do not support your arguments that (a) working conditions in China are not akin to slave labour, (b) such conditions are not widespread, and (c) that things will just get better for them naturally, you attempt to change the criteria to subjective feelings measured by some unnamed survey.

You will recall Yabby, that I entered this discussion disputing your assertion that working conditions in China are not slave labour. Nothing you have added has confirmed your assertion. By attempting to excuse and rationalize the existence of such blatant examples of exploitation of human beings for profit, all of your arguments have implicitly acknowledged that it is slave labour. Perhaps it is you who should do some navel gazing.

Tao, I've heard plenty of extremely left wing Europeans refer to
themselves as wage slaves, despite their many cushy conditions.

To me slavery happens when you have no options, no choices, like
in North Korea. In China, Japan, Europe and the West, people
have options and choices. Starting your own business is possible
for starters. Buy a broom and bucket, "Tao's Cleaning Service"
can begin if required! Move to another job! etc etc. Slaves
don't have choices.

Things still are honky dory in Japan. People still live great
lifestyles. Yup Japanese companies have moved some production to
China, but then Japan is aging, they don't have the labourforce
anyhow. Yup employment for life was ended, but then it never made
sense in the first place. Companies don't have markets for
life, so how can they provide employment for life?

What amuses me about this debate is that the left havent really
twigged as to what is going on, on a global scale. All we hear
about is those evil corporations and the poor workers. Meantime
if I look at the top 20 shareholders in most large companies, one
thing stands out, the owners are superannuation funds, be they
Australian, American or European. Those funds push profit making
to the limit, on behalf of their owners, ie the workers. Workers
in Australia alone have about 1 trillion $ invested in their super
funds. So its really Western workers who are the beneficiaries of
exploiting Chinese workers! Now there is some navel gazing for you :)

Yabby, what would happen if everyone started their own business at the same time?

Col

”Q1-–-demonstration-is-China-–-terrible,-what-was-the-response?-I-know-what-the-response-would-have-been-in-1989-and-worse-before.

Parallel,-1926-general-strike-in-UK-with-the-treatment-of-Tolpuddle-martyrs-some-100-years-previous.

A-demonstration-in-China-in-the-pre-mid-1990’s-would-have-seen-the-entire-family-placed-into-one-of-the-most-repressive-prisons-system-on-earth.-That-people-feel-free-to-demonstrate-is-indicative-of-an-improvement-in-circumstances-over-those-when-they-dared-not.-“

Your Q1 was “Are-the-Chinese-factory-workers-complaining?” My answer was - Yes. Chinese workers participating in 87,000 protests are obviously not happy with their conditions. What part of that don’t you understand? Multinationals are exploiting Chinese workers, and those workers are pissed off about it, and complaining.

Given that the “natural-goodness-and-compassion-of-man” prevails, by your logic, those Multinationals should be voluntarily paying more for the products of the Chinese factories so they can pay their workers more. But that ain’t gonna happen.

Your contrast of the oppression of the current regime with that of earlier periods, while a clever attempt to put a favourable spin on an answer to your question that didn’t suit you, does not change the fact that Chinese workers are not happy with their working conditions NOW and this unrest is growing. As I pointed out in my initial response, to counter it, the regime is planning more repressive measures. In Guangdong province late last year authorities carried out a massacre of farmers during a protest.

“Q2-–-your-responsive-question-is-not-an-answer
Q3-–-see-Q2
Q4-–-is-ungrammatical-nonsense.”

“2-Would-their-employment-conditions-be-better-or-worse-without-those-factories?
3-Does-anyone-in-China-want-to-turn-back-the-clock-to-the-days-of-Mao-and-then-the-gang-of-four-and-their-style-of-social-benevolence?
4-How-do-people-in-North-Korea-view-the-factory-conditions-in-neighbouring-China?”

All of these questions were, essentially, the same attempt to obscure the objective reality of exploitation with subjective relativity, and therefore, nonsense.

What you are saying is that workers should be happy that they are being exploited because it is better than (a) if they were starving on the land, (b) if they still lived under Mao, and (c) if they lived in North Korea. According to this logic, if they compare their conditions to your examples, they must be happy. But according to the same logic, if they compare their conditions to ours, they must be unhappy. Same objective conditions, different subjective feelings.

Whatever you think they SHOULD feel, the fact is they are being exploited, and are angry about it as anyone would be. As you would be, given that you “choose-to-cut-your-swathe-through-life-without-the-fetters-of-an-employer”.

And the fact is that their exploitation benefits capitalists.

You are right about one thing - Workers need a historical perspective.

"Yabby, what would happen if everyone started their own business at the same time?"

Tao what would happen if everyone stayed in bed next week? The thing
is, as money pours into China, domestic demand rises, including the
need for services. More and more people can become self employed,
as is happening. Over time that will put pressure on factory owners
to pay higher wages.

"And the fact is that their exploitation benefits capitalists."

Interesting then, that those capitalists happen to be Western workers
with money invested in super funds :)

Yabby

“To me” - so the criteria we are using is your opinion

“slavery-happens-when-you-have-no-options,-no-choices”.--“In-China-….people-have-options-and-choices”.

We return to an earlier-point. Would you “choose” to work under conditions like those in China? No, I doubt it. Probably because you have other “choices”. I know I wouldn’t – because I (currently) have better “choices”. So why do you think anyone else in their right mind would “choose” to work under such conditions if they didn’t have to? I’d really like a thoughtful answer to this one.

If they don’t have better-options for putting food on their table, they are effectively FORCED to take what they can get under conditions imposed by someone else. You-can-dress-it-up-whatever-way-you-like, but it is FORCED LABOUR for someone else’s profit, or slave labour. That the slave is not owned by an individual slave owner, or that there are no physical restraints or whips, is immaterial. The economic system enslaves an entire group of people while a select few profit.

“people-have-options-and-choices.-Starting-your-own-business-is-possible-for-starters.”

“More-and-more-people-can-become-self-employed,
as-is-happening.-Over-time-that-will-put-pressure-on-factory-owners
to-pay-higher-wages.-“

This solution is always posed by people like you and Col, but it is fundamentally flawed.

Theoretically, under capitalism “anyone” can start their own business because they are “free”. But practically, if “everyone” did, we would be going backwards to a more primitive economic-system.

Capitalism is based on goods being produced on a large-scale by many people (i.e. socially) using technology, large-plant and-equipment built by many people (i.e. again, socially). In that respect it is a progression from earlier economic-systems. The socialisation of labour is what enables us to produce vastly more than could be produced in earlier-modes of-production. It is the collective excess-production of all workers (i.e. what they produce over and above what is required to keep them alive) that is appropriated by capitalists as profit.

If everyone started their own business we would be regressing to a system where everyone produces their own goods on a small-scale with their own small individually-owned tools, and then trades their limited excess-product for someone else’s limited excess-product. There would be no collective excess-production for capital to appropriate to itself and “grow”. Capitalism would no longer “work”.

So, while the cry of capitalists is that “anyone” can take the initiative, start their own business and “make it”, the reality is that these capitalists’ “success” is reliant on the fact that not “everyone” does so. Capitalism has room for a small percentage of people to start their own business (of which 4 in 5 fail in the first few years), but that is not a solution for masses of people.

More than that, in order for capitalists to be able to pay workers a fraction of what they actually produce, thereby appropriating the excess-production as profit, they REQUIRE that the majority of people have little option but to work for one or another of them. Because logically, if people had other “options”, they wouldn’t trade their labour for a fraction of what it is worth under such abominable conditions.

"And-the-fact-is-that-their-exploitation-benefits-capitalists."

Interesting-then,-that-those-capitalists-happen-to-be-Western-workers
with-money-invested-in-super-funds-:)”

No worker ever benefits from the exploitation of other workers

For starters, Australian workers do not have the “choice” to invest in superannuation, the base rate of superannuation is “compulsory”. Those that “choose” to contribute more do so, not gleefully, or to be fabulously wealthy, but because of fear that they will live in poverty in their old age. Likewise, those that invest in small shareholdings, or investment property. These people are not “capitalists” in the true sense of the word because they are wage earners i.e. they must work for a living.

Ultimately, any perceived “gains” made by Australian workers in their superannuation funds will be no more than the loss of their collective excess production (which should have been spent on their collective wellbeing) that has been appropriated by capitalists.

Secondly, the massive pool of cheap exploitable labour in China, India etc. only serves to drive down the wages of Australian workers, so their share of the product of their labour is constantly being eroded. On top of this, given that “compulsory” superannuation payments are a percentage of their wage, the amount of superannuation they are paid is being eroded in the same process.

What-is-“given”-with-one-hand-is-taken-away-with-the-other.

Tao, in 1990 I hired a young 17 year old girl in my business, fresh from school..
Whilst her friends blew their wages on clothes, cds and makeup etc, she saved
her pennies. One day she mentioned that she had bought 4000 Westpac shares,
at the time they were 3$. She reinvested the dividends. Her hard work then
and diligent saving means that her 12k$ is now worth 150k$. Anyone could
have done it! That is capitalism to me, anyone can save their pennies
and risk losing it, but also risk gaining from a business venture. Why
should somebody who takes that risk, not be rewarded for taking it?

Anyone who provides capital for a business venture can be called a capitalist,
that includes your workers with super. They can choose which fund their
money is in. Most happen to want one with the highest returns. If returns
to capitalists are so easy to make, as they exploit workers, as you claim,
why don’t workers build their own factories with their Super money?
Most clearly don’t want the hassles or the headaches.

Yes people in China have choices. Most come from villages where they
used to grow their own food. Yup we are all forced to make a living,
main thing is we have choices in how we do it. Perhaps working in
factories is far easier then trying to grow your own for some.

An interesting article in Wednesdays AFR about China. Key points
were that wages have doubled in the past 5 years, as employers are
forced to compete for labour. Minimum wages and welfare payments
have also risen. The savings rate is high, almost double the world average.
Elsewhere I read that 330 million Chinese now have a mobile phone.
Internet access is huge, retail sales increased by 14% as rising incomes
spurred consumer spending. Look at the mega trend, as a nation the
Chinese have never had it so good!

If only 20% of Chinese factory workers started their own businesses, factory
wages would zoom up some more due to even greater competition for available
labour

“That is capitalism to me” Again the criteria by which we measure these things is your subjective judgement/opinion.

“anyone can save their pennies
and risk losing it, but also risk gaining from a business venture.”

Did you not understand my last posts? Of course theoretically “anyone” can, but practically, not everyone can. And those that can gain from a business venture are dependant on those that can’t.

“Why should somebody who takes that risk, not be rewarded for taking it?”

Why should someone who works not be entitled to the full value of what they produce?

Why should someone else, who employs workers, be able to appropriate for themselves as private property part of the value of what those workers produce?

“Yes people in China have choices. Most come from villages where they
used to grow their own food. Yup we are all forced to make a living,
main thing is we have choices in how we do it. Perhaps working in
factories is far easier then trying to grow your own for some.”

Would you work under the conditions such as those in China? If not, why not? If working in factories for 16 – 19 hours per day, 6+ days/week for very little return is “easier” than farming, how hard must earning a living from farming be in China?

With regard to your figures cited from the Financial Review, the Asia Development Bank published a report this year about employment in Asia. The following extracts are from an article on the report here http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/asdb-m09.shtml

““The-outlines-of-an-Asian-employment-crisis-are-already-taking-shape,”-the-ADB’s-chief-economist-Ifzal-Ali-said-at-the-book-launch.-“Strong-economic-growth-alone-will-not-solve-the-problem.-Even-in-countries-that-have-achieved-relatively-high-growth-rates-of-output,-employment-growth-has-been-disappointing.”

The-ADB-study-notes-that,-although-the-region-has-made-some-advances-in-the-reduction-of-poverty-over-the-past-two-decades,-some-1.9-billion-people-still-live-on-less-than-$2-a-day,-either-unable-to-find-work-or-earning-too-little-from-the-employment-they-do-obtain.
The-bank-pointed-to-a-“huge-global-oversupply-of-labour”-resulting-from-the-integration-of-China,-India-and-Russia-into-the-world-economy.

“Asia’s-success-will-sooner-or-later-be-eclipsed-by-the-pressures-of-a-huge-‘reserve-army’-of-unemployed-and-underemployed-workers-who-are-constantly-driven-to-seek-out-employment-at-sub-standard-wages-in-order-to-survive,”-Ali-said.”

“One-of-the-most-significant-findings-of-the-ADB-study-is-that-the-percentage-increase-in-employment-during-the-1990s-for-every-percentage-point-growth-in-the-gross-domestic-product-(GDP)-was-lower-than-in-the-previous-decade.-The-largest-fall-was-in-China—the-world’s-fastest-growing-economy—where-growth-of-3-percent-in-the-1980s-produced-a-1-percent-increase-in-employment,-while-a-growth-rate-of-almost-8-percent-was-needed-to-achieve-the-same-result-in-the-1990s.

The-problem-appears-to-be-worsening.-In-2006,-it-is-estimated-that-about-25-million-new-urban-jobs-need-to-be-created-in-China-to-accommodate-new-entrants-to-the-labour-market,-rural-migrants-and-workers-laid-off-from-state-enterprises.-But-according-to-the-latest-estimates,-only-11-million-new-jobs-will-be-generated.

The-ADB-has-found-what-it-calls-“disappointing”-results-so-far-as-income-inequality-is-concerned.-In-China,-the-Gini-index,-which-provides-a-statistical-measure-of-inequality,-rose-by-13-percentage-points-between-1981-and-2000.-Inequality-has-also-increased-in-India,-both-between-urban-and-rural-areas-and-within-urban-areas.”

“In-examining-the-causes-of-these-phenomena,-the-study-noted-that-the-increase-in-the-effective-size-of-the-global-labour-force-had-not-been-accompanied-by-a-surge-in-capital-for-investment.”

““In-other-words,-it-is-quite-likely-that-unemployment-driven-by-the-adoption-of-new-technologies-and-heightened-competition-among-firms-will-continue-to-be-serious-problems.”

Just-how-serious-was-underlined-in-a-recent-speech-by-the-head-of-one-of-India’s-leading-industrial-and-engineering-firms.-Delivering-the-Hatfield-lecture-at-Cornell-University-last-month,-Ratan-Tata,-the-head-of-the-Tata-Group,-pointed-out-that-of-India’s-billion-plus-population-20-percent-are-under-the-age-of-20.-By-the-year-2040-the-country-would-have-the-world’s-largest-working-age-population,-surpassing-even-that-of-China.”

That is some mega trend!

Yabby, your comments are simplistic, impressionistic opinion with little basis in objective reality.

You might have managed to plan and save for your retirement, however that is more due to the fact that you lived in a prosperous country during the post war boom than anything else.

You appear to base your beliefs about what is possible for everyone on your own personal experience. World economic conditions are changing. For example, young people in Australia today have less and less chance of even entering the property market. House prices are astronomical, and job security is getting scarcer. As the report said 1.9 billion people in Asia live on less than $2 per day. You ignore these realities and offer Pollyanna nonsense to starving people. Worse than that, you have the UNMITIGATED GALL to DECIDE FOR THEM THAT THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY ABOUT IT.

There appears to be not much point in continuing this discussion with you.

Tao you still don’t get it, but I didn’t think you would. Of course there still
is poverty in Asia and there will be for a long time. Fact is that socialist
interference is one of the major reasons for that poverty. As countries
haves switched to market economics, things have improved, as multitudes
of figures show. But your ideology does not want get its little mind
around that.

Go back 20-30 years in Asia and starvation was one of the largest problems.
Compare North and South Korea, that’s what your ideology does. Even
the Chinese had to accept that and give up on their State owned factories.
Your ideology is flawed!

Yup, anyone can go and buy some shares in a company and thus be a
provider of capital and benefit from taking that risk. You have written
nothing to disprove that. The 1 trillion $ in super is exactly that, workers
benefiting from being capital providers, effectively they own most
large companies these days, if you look at the share registries.

If workers want the full value of what they produce, they are free to
take the full risk in owning the business. That is their choice. That
risk includes losing their jobs, if they lose the markets for their
products. Consumers rule as they vote with their wallets!

Yup, houses are expensive in Australia. Its not building them but
land cost that is the problem. So why don’t Govts release more
land? Fact is that a lot of Govts restricted land release, as the
chardonnay set believed in high density living, which was a huge
mistake. Those beaurocrats clearly can’t run anything.

Sure job security is getting scarcer, markets are not guaranteed,
so why should jobs be guaranteed ? Selling your labour is just
like selling anything else. If markets want x and you produce
y, you won’t sell it, consumers rule. The same with labour.
So find something that consumers do want. In the end its
consumers who vote with their wallets and pay for your labour,
not companies

Tao “All of these questions were, essentially, the same attempt to obscure the objective reality of exploitation with subjective relativity, and therefore, nonsense.”

I recall, when a student, subject to examination by my professional body, fellow wannabes, of the idler and dullardly type, upon exiting exams, justified their lack of competency in answering by blaming the questions. You are repeating the habits of the tardy non-thinkers here tao.

Unable to construct a reasoned answer, your default position is to decry the question.

As for “Workers need a historical perspective.”, you really should get over this “class” fixation.

Everyone, worker, master, gentleman or thief benefits from an historic perspective. That said, even prissy self-righteous wannabes need an historic perspective, I suggest you go get one.

“And the fact is that their exploitation benefits capitalists”

No, the point is, the economic enhancement and improving life style of Chinese workers has benefited through capitalism, in contrast to the way which the tyranny of “collectivism” failed and repressed them.

That is what really catches in your throat, capitalism has prevailed over the ashes of the “socialist workers states”, from Central Europe to the Pacific. All that is left is the retarded despots of Cuba and North Korea (plus a couple of minor despotic plutocrats in the remnants of the fragmented Russian Empire).

Tao, I am not sure but I would guess, you most likely younger than me but I can say, truly, you are an anachronistic testament to the failed policies and politics of socialism.

Get real and accept the truth.

“Capitalism is based on goods being produced on a large-scale by many people”

No, “capitalism” is based on allowing the market for any good or service to naturally balance, through forces of supply and demand, with free movement of participants, instead of them being controlled and manipulated by an inherently incompetent central planning bureaucracy.

That is why governments should not own production resources or services. Because the conflict of interest between being regulator, to ensure “free movement of participants” (= anti-monopoly laws) and participant with vested (usually monopolistic) interest.

TAO.. r u serious mate ?

{Why should someone else, who employs workers, be able to appropriate for themselves as private property part of the value of what those workers produce?}

Very simply....because he risked his total life savings to create a venture which could have seen him in the poor house till the end of his days..thats why. Retaining a portion of labor value/production value as private propety ...for goodness sake man..it depends on how big a portion, and it depends on how much can be done with the remaining, and how many job opportunities there are, workers can pick and choose where they work, Employers are stuck with, blessed, cursed with their own economic creations.

OF FARRRR greater importance than an employer/capitalist benefiting from each person working for him, (ps. they also benefit, feeding their families and buying homes and cars and wide screen TVs) is a VALUE SYSTEM which places the welfare of others over that of our selves.

BIBLE THUMP TIME. (Romans 12)
9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

This is addressed to the Church. But the Church is also a community.
Whether or not one is PART of that community, I don't think you can argue with the values it promotes above...... or can you ?

BD,

“{Why should someone else, who employs workers, be able to appropriate for themselves as private property part of the value of what those workers produce?}

Very simply....because he risked his total life savings to create a venture which could have seen him in the poor house till the end of his days..thats why.”

I thought it was Jesus who said words to the effect – store not up for yourselves treasures on earth … and … sell everything you have, give it to the poor and follow me.

Where in the Bible did he say risk the treasures you have stored up for yourselves on earth to create a venture, exploit your fellow man (e.g. poor people in China), take a portion of what he produces as reward for your risk, and accumulate more treasures?

Don’t answer, it is a rhetorical question. Any answer you give will be a hypocritical lie, excuse or apology for humans exploiting other humans – don't talk to me about “values”.

Col, you delude yourself about what capitalism is, as could be expected from an internally contradicted mind:

“No, “capitalism” is based on allowing the market for any good or service to naturally balance, through forces of supply and demand, with free movement of participants, instead of them being controlled and manipulated by an inherently incompetent central planning bureaucracy.

That is why governments should not own production resources or services. Because the conflict of interest between being regulator, to ensure “free movement of participants” (= anti-monopoly laws) and participant with vested (usually monopolistic) interest.”

If the market “allows” for any good or service to “naturally” balance through forces of supply and demand, why would it need regulating? Why does a government need to ENSURE free movement of participants if it is naturally balanced through forces of supply and demand? Why would anti-monopoly laws be required? If monopoly is a natural outcome of capitalism, isn’t that naturally good? Isn’t government regulation just another form of control and manipulation?

Marx's issue with the relationship to owning or not owning the means of production is interesting. Wherein, Hugo produces ten units and keeps only eight. Marx saw this as exploitation.

Just the same, if everyone just kept only what they produced personally, it would prove hard to develop more advanced economies. Moreover, progress, is related to having the capacity to produce a surplus, permitting an intelligensia to research, invent and innovate.

Since the 1950s, especially, we have been in an era of managerialism, where huge salaries are paid to often less knowledgeable but politically savy persons, whom are rewarded far in excess of technicians and scientists. It is Peter Drucker, I think, who said the specialist/expert should paid more than her/his manager. The manager actually has a lesser role in creating surplus value (and often the least accountable).

Oligopolies are often twigged to support massive salaries to senior executives, diverted from junior staff and customers. It is easier to maintain high margins and milk revenue, expense accounts.

The catch with massive is salaries is paying a million dollars on a painting is the same as investing a million dollars in production.

If spending on production stimulates invention, and, therefore, a worker can product thirty units and keep twenty-five units, he/she is better of than in a primitive economy, keeping (and perhaps latter bartering)ten out of ten units of production.

Expenditure on no productive luxury items is problematic, as often items have only virtual value. Also, trying to maintain sunset industries, after their expiry date is quetsionable, where subsidaries are required.

All-in-all, it seems a balancing act between stakeholders serving in general their own best interests. All will work better, if there is opportunity to share in a bigger pie created by higher production. Both Marx and the Capitalists do not fully realise this circumstance. Neither, works optimally to achieve the highest levels of productivity and surplus value

Tao “Col, you delude yourself about what capitalism is, as could be expected from an internally contradicted mind:”

Who cares what you think Tao, all I know is I have a firm grasp on what works and what does not.

Your incompetence laden drivel requires an over-regulated bureaucracy, with the state owning, planning, directing and stuffing up everything, does not work; all it does is ensure no one is allowed to aspire to anything more than mediocre.

“Why does a government need to ENSURE free movement of participants”

because monopolies can occur. To curb the negative influence of monopolies, government through anti-trust and anti monopoly legislation, helps ensure the “free” in “free-market”.

As history shows us, the worst monopolies are those owned by government

So, to reasonably exercise the role of arbiter, the government needs to divest itself of any “vested interest” which would create a conflict of interest, theredore “governments” should not own or manage productive resources or commercial undertakings.

Oliver “share in a bigger pie created by higher production.”

The “bigger pie” comes not from “higher production” but from “greater productivity”

The issue with greater productivity is the process is invariably facilitated through increased capitalization of the production process.

The problem is, a greater automated factory invariably requires fewer people to achieve the same output.

The good news is, those fewer people, usually have, overall, higher skills and can expect to benefit from better incomes.

Through those better incomes, comes the “sharing of the pie”.

Another “sharing of the pie” takes place through the nature of markets, which allow for free, competitive movement of prices.

The improved productivity results in cheaper production which results in lower consumer prices.

Lower consumer prices means more opportunities to spend on different things.

The people displaced from employment in the first factory are absorbed into different emerging industries, servicing the markets which have become viable from consumers spending on different things.

Along the way everyone ends up better off.

Those who have sought to stop improvements in productivity have, throughout history, failed

Oliver,

It is refreshing to come across someone who at least thinks about such issues.

You are right that progress is related to producing surplus which frees up a section of the population from manual labour for intellectual work. However there is no rational reason why the intelligentsia should be entitled to a better standard of living (i.e. a greater share of the productive wealth) than the most menial workers, whose manual work is what enables them to do ‘brainwork’. Nor is there any rational reason why that surplus should be privately owned, and used to accumulate more privately owned surplus. In fact, it seems entirely reasonable that the product of the collective labour of all people belongs to those who produce it, and that they ought to be the ones who decide to what ends any surplus is put.

The inevitable counter-argument to this is that the specialists/experts would not be motivated to do their thing without financial reward, however most people who have a deep interest in some creative/innovative/specialist pursuit would do it for free, for the love of it, and for the achievement itself.

The other side to this is the wasted potential of the millions of people who, through the circumstance of their birth, or otherwise, are limited in their own creative endeavours by lack of opportunity, and the necessity to work long hours at mind numbing tasks. Who knows what potential benefits and treasures to humankind lie atrophied in the minds and bodies of production line workers and menial labourers etc. who currently have no inherent value as humans to our society other than the profit they make for their employers. We are all the lesser for it.

Col,

“Why does a government need to ENSURE free movement of participants”

because monopolies can occur. To curb the negative influence of monopolies, government through anti-trust and anti monopoly legislation, helps ensure the “free” in “free-market”.

Did you miss my question? Aren’t monopolies, being a natural tendency of glorious capitalism, naturally good? If all of the players in capitalism are” free”, then shouldn’t they be “free” to buy out, or destroy by competition, anyone else and therefore monopolise the market? It would appear that government regulation is a restriction on these freedoms.

And don’t bother reiterating your point about governments being holders of monopolies, your point has been taken, and I am not arguing for government ownership in the bourgeois sense, or the Stalinist sense for that matter (although in the classic straw man style of yours you would like to pretend that I am so that you can argue against it). The fact of government monopolies does not negate the fact that capitalism tends toward privately owned monopolies, otherwise, why would we need laws against it?

It is completely irrational to say that a “free” market is “naturally” balanced by the forces of supply and demand AND that this balance requires ENFORCEMENT by government.

You apparently pay lip service to the concept of freedom, only invoking the notion when ‘unfair’ competition in the form of monopolies limits YOUR ability to get a piece of the action. Perhaps you are afraid you can’t compete with the big boys.

Tao just as we have laws to curb the actions of people who abuse, steal and rape. We have laws to curb monopolies, except apparently for labor unions.

Carrying on like a pork chop that

“It is completely irrational to say that a “free” market is “naturally” balanced by the forces of supply and demand AND that this balance requires ENFORCEMENT by government.”

Just does not cut it.

Government is the regulator, to make sure the rules of business conduct are adhered to through legislation and that those who would seek to abuse and cheat are appropriately restrained and or punished.

Enron was a case in point, where initially the Accounting rules were manipulated and distorted by the liars and cheats using “mark to market” valuation inappropriately on a vast scale (to say nothing about setting up bogus entities and debt shelters etc). That is what that house of cards was built on and that is how they managed to swindle millions of people, by corrupting the accounts which others relied on as being "fair and true".
When Andersens signed off on those Enron accounts as "fair and true" they signed their own metaphoric "death warrant", as history has observed.

I believe in the natural goodness of man, I also believe in the fallibility of man, yourself as a case in point.

Doubtless in tao-world, with tao as the “supreme leader”, your governance would need severe restraining. Oh that is the stuff of nightmares.

As dearest Margaret said (partial quote) “not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

She was right and you are wrong.

The role of government is to provide the regulatory framework which minimizes the opportunities for liars, thieves and cheats to exploit the rest of us and to exact appropriate punishment when they do.

As for “Perhaps you are afraid you can’t compete with the big boys.” I am afraid of no one.

The question Col, is, what is wrong with monopolies? Monopolies do not only occur because people abuse, cheat, lie and thieve as in the case of Enron, monopolies are a natural tendency of capitalism. Anti-trust legislation is designed to curb this natural tendency i.e. it is a response to a certain phenomena. Yet even “respectable”-capitalists break those laws anyway e.g. Microsoft.

Interestingly, you seem to want “rules” which potential monopolists should abide by to safeguard you from exploitation, but decry any attempt by workers to ensure that employers abide by “rules” to safeguard them from exploitation. In-fact you express the classic position of the petty-bourgeoisie -the small-business person who is squeezed between big business/finance capital and the workers and feels attacked from above and below (most of the ones I know are constantly moaning about interest rates and wages… oh, and of-course taxes criminally wasted on maintaining the luxurious and exorbitant living standards of the indolent loafers – the single-mothers, the young, the unemployed, the sick, the elderly).

So it appears that your view of the ideal of freedom arises from your position in the social pecking order of capitalism. If you were a large-capitalist you would want no fetters or rules limiting your ability to monopolise markets i.e. “freedom”. However, as a little-capitalist you want rules to curb the freedom of the big capitalists to monopolise, but no rules curbing your freedom to exploit workers. Your ideas of “freedom” and “rules” are unprincipled.

While your outlook apparently serves your immediate personal purpose, it is worth noting that it was the petty-bourgeois layers, decimated and impoverished by WW1 and the-Depression, who supported the Nazis in Germany, and their promises to crush the working-class – which they did on coming to power. Fascism was actually a response of capitalism in crisis to the rising workers movement –as we know, the first victims of German fascism were workers and their political organisations. It was the destruction of the workers-movement which paved the way for the Holocaust – there was no organised social force left with the power to stop it.

So it is no accident that, as the capitalist system lurches from one crisis to the next, the likes of Howard and Bush, who derive the majority of their electoral support from the petty-bourgeoisie whose social position is becoming more and more precarious, are fomenting racist and xenophobic sentiments against Muslims and refugees , promoting religious backwardness at the expense of science, disregarding civil and human rights (beefing up sedition laws, enacting “anti-terror” laws which mean we can be locked up with out charge, spying on us, locking people, including children, up in the desert and on islands, perpetrating and condoning torture), dismantling workers protections and attacking their organisations, and even launching aggressive wars and occupations of neighbouring countries.

However according to the big capitalists who all politicians really vie to represent, they haven’t gone far enough in securing the right to unrestrained profit. It might be time for the nominal “lefts” to take the reins, reintroduce conscription to aid further imperialist conquests and make further industrial relations “reforms” against the interests and wishes of their traditional support base. Not coincidentally, the ALP has just elected “Dr Death” as leader. I don’t know what the British bourgeoisie will do, their “lefts” have already done their bidding and are on the nose with the population.

But I digress. The important point Col, is that you should examine your ‘personal’ beliefs in the context of the economic reality – you have a specific class outlook which arises from your relationship to the means of production. Your hissy fit accusing me of wanting to be a “supreme leader” is just another straw man, and a diversion from the fact that you hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously, but cannot rationally explain why you do. This wishy washy opportunistic and unprincipled way of thinking of yours will inevitably lead you to accepting the unacceptable – fascism – the stuff of nightmares. In fact you are already on the way.

Tao “It was the destruction of the workers-movement which paved the way for the Holocaust”

“While your outlook apparently serves your immediate personal purpose”, tao, most would suggest it was the Treaty of Versailles which initiated the process. As for the “workers movement “ versus the “fascists”, there was nothing to choose between them. Both were the vehicles of small envious men making desperate and ruthless grasps for power.

Where Lenin ascended in Russia, through the terror of revolution and a secret deal with Germany, Hitler was later elected in Germany, supported by secret deals with Stalin.

The workers party, sponsored by Russia, was as ruthless and despotic as the fascists. I recall Stalin was, before he become a “Father of the Nation”, a terrorist bank robber and in his “political career” he displayed the same concern for people as is generally demonstrated by bank robbers and terrorists.

Lenin said “While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.”

Whilst that is a strong stance, it also displays the cynicism which lays at the heart of socialism and communism, since he did also profess “The goal of socialism is communism.”

He had different thoughts later

“All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all. I am just like everybody else.”

I guess he realised, that despite “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”, everything does come back to the “individual”

Lenin said “Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.”

Margaret Thatcher observed (previous post) “not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

She remains right.

I have examined my personal beliefs, unlike Lenin, I support your right to be an individual.

Even if that means you choose to remain a “useful idiot”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Tao “potential benefits and treasures to humankind lie atrophied in the minds and bodies of production line workers and menial labourers etc.”

Those who atrophy lack a couple of rare skills

1 the insight to see a future potential. A single quick example, among millions, Bill Gates and Microsoft

2 The gonads to see it through, despite the risks. I know of one such individual, a particular car dealer who, according to his employees has exactly that quality.

This is why you presume some folk who labour in menial jobs everyday “atrophy”.

I guess if you had a modicum of the “insight” and a functioning set of gonads, you might think differently.

Oh and forcing them to follow the “peoples socialist party line” is the last thing any one should do if you expect to unlock any of those “potential benefits”.

Such an expectation demands people to be treated as individuals, not as sheep, to be herded and directed by the state.

Most of the significant inventions and improvements of the past 300 years are the products of either

1 Capitalist innovators or
2 The Military research expenditure of capitalist nations

The trolls of communism merely duplicated what they could.

Even Stalins 5 year plans were structured to buy existing heavy engineering technology from the "running dogs of capitalism". If the communist/socialist cause was so elevating and liberating, Stalin and his successors in oppression would have been exporting technology and inventions, not stealing and coping them.

I haven't been looking at this debate for some time. How did it get onto Marxism? It has been said that Marx claimed to be an expert on the working class but never did a day's work in his life!

Tao you are going over the top. Real life is full of good and bad, success and failure and compromise. No system is perfect nothing is completely fair. Governments surely should regulate those who are doing harm to others but allowing invention and initiative to flourish. This is difficult and mistakes will always be made.

I have been a worker and in later life a very minor capitalist. I have seen much and like to think I am a Practical Idealist. But flexibility as Col points out so often leads to the best result. I would rather live in Australia than for example. in Cuba, North Korea or Iran

Well Tao is yet to state his clear agenda, but reading between the
lines it sounds kind of obvious.

Perhaps Tao has Mao's little red book under his pillow :)

Market economics is not perfect, but its far better then
govt by idealistic, beaurocratic fanatics!

Innovation is the key and innovation happens when people have
options and choices, not when some committee wants to run
their lives

Col,

If Lenin made a secret deal with Germany, how do you know about it? What evidence do you have, and who provided it to you? You wouldn’t be blindly taking the word of those who wished to discredit him and the Revolution would you?

You seem intent on conflating Stalinism with Marxism. Have you actually studied both of them in depth? Do you understand the difference between Stalin’s theory of Socialism in one Country and the theory of International Socialism? Did you know that there was actually an opposition to Stalin within the Bolshevik party, which he exiled and/or exterminated?

I’m not quite sure what you mean by the following:

“Lenin-said-“While-the-State-exists,-there-can-be-no-freedom.-When-there-is-freedom-there-will-be-no-State.”

Whilst-that-is-a-strong-stance,-it-also-displays-the-cynicism-which-lays-at-the-heart-of-socialism-and-communism,-since-he-did-also-profess-“The-goal-of-socialism-is-communism.”

and

“Lenin-said-“Under-socialism-all-will-govern-in-turn-and-will-soon-become-accustomed-to-no-one-governing.”

How does this amount to cynicism? In a nutshell, Marxist theory posits that following the international working class revolution, workers will dominate society, suppressing capitalist classes, and reorganise society on the basis of human need, eliminating privilege (i.e. classes). Once a classless society is established, the State will no longer be required to enforce inequality and will wither away. Simply put (but probably not exactly correct), socialism (the lowest form of communism) is the domination of the working class (a workers state), communism (the highest form) is the absence of the state. Given these distinctions, there has obviously never been a “communist State” as the term is a nonsense. Anyone who suggests that there has ever been a communist state obviously doesn’t understand Marxism.

”He-had-different-thoughts-later-

“All-our-lives-we-fought-against-exalting-the-individual,-against-the-elevation-of-the-single-person,-and-long-ago-we-were-over-and-done-with-the-business-of-a-hero,-and-here-it-comes-up-again:-the-glorification-of-one-personality.-This-is-not-good-at-all.-I-am-just-like-everybody-else.”

I-guess-he-realised,-that-despite-“A-lie-told-often-enough-becomes-the-truth.”,-everything-does-come-back-to-the-“individual”

I would need a reference for this quote in order to put Lenin’s words into context, but to me he sounds like he is criticizing the glorification of himself as hero. Hardly the image of a man intent on gaining personal power and accolades as you so often accuse him of.

As is so often the case, Col, your simplistic assessment reveals your ignorance. But what else should one expect from a person who reduces complex social phenomena to the presence or absence of gonads? Especially given that gonads refers to both testes and ovaries. LOL

Well, still no clearcut answers as to Tao's solutions for the
world. Clearly a bit of verbal masturbation does not cut it
either!

Tao, time to put up or shut up. It really is.

Oh and by the way Col,

Dear old Margaret has outdone herself recently in her public mourning for the death of a military dictator and mass murderer.

She was “deeply saddened” by the death of Pinochet.

An exemplary fellow he must have been, overthrowing an elected government.

At the time of his death, Pinochet was facing some 300 legal cases related to the crimes carried out by his regime and stood accused of embezzling tens of millions of dollars in state funds and funnelling them into overseas secret bank accounts.

Yes, dear old Maggie had campaigned for his release when he was arrested in London calling him a “great friend of Britain”.

Mmmmm……says it all really, that you choose to be guided by the moral compass of dearest Margaret.

Tao “If Lenin made a secret deal with Germany, how do you know about it?”

At the time it was made it was secret. After its occurance it became common knowledge

“By aiding his return to Russia, the Germans hoped (correctly) to disrupt the Russian war effort. . . . . Lenin fulfilled his promise of peace by accepting the humiliating treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Mar., 1918).”

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Lenin-Vl.html

One of about 800,000 references to “Lenin Return to Russia”

As for “Stalin’s theory of Socialism in one Country and the theory of International Socialism”

As Lenin said “the goal of socialism is communism” and international socialism lead to Stalinism.

Talk is cheap, theories are ten-a-penny, physical outcomes are what people suffer. From socialist “theories”, the horrific outcomes of communist realities are well documented.

Re “Col, your simplistic assessment reveals your ignorance.” As spoken by one of Lenin’s “useful idiots”

“She (Margaret Thatcher ) was “deeply saddened” by the death of Pinochet”

Margaret Thatcher is entitled to her view, maybe she knows more than you or me about the alternatives to Pinochet at the time, I am not sure.

I would note, Thatcher came into UK politics and reached the pinnacle of power by standing up the communists (Scargill & Co) of the NUM. You also overlook, she stood up to the right wing military dictatorship of Argentina with the unambiguous support of the British population and the Falkland Islanders.

I would further note, the Soviets were terrified by her resolve, which did much to stop Brezhnev’s imperialist ambitions.

“says it all really, that you choose to be guided by the moral compass of dearest Margaret.”

Margaret Thatcher was one person who supported and served a process of democratic evolution.
Stalin and Communists leaders made the political process their slave and ordinary Russian citizens slaves to that process.

If your deluded support for the corrupt politics of socialism (leading to communism) is any guide, you are not fit to judge anything which Margaret Thatcher has said or done.

Col,

“At-the-time-it-was-made-it-was-secret.-After-its-occurance-it-became-common-knowledge

“By-aiding-his-return-to-Russia,-the-Germans-hoped-(correctly)-to-disrupt-the-Russian-war-effort.-.-.-.-.-Lenin-fulfilled-his-promise-of-peace-by-accepting-the-humiliating-treaty-of-Brest-Litovsk-(Mar.,-1918).””

Oh, so you mean the “secret” treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where they negotiated an end to hostilities with Germany. You mean the peace talks at Brest Litovsk that the allies refused to join after which, Trotsky appealed to the workers of Europe and the rest of the world over the heads of their governments. He wrote, “We conceal from nobody that we do not consider the present capitalist governments capable of a democratic peace. Only the revolutionary struggle of the working masses against their governments can bring Europe near to such a peace. Its full realization will be assured only by a victorious proletarian revolution in all capitalist countries.”

Secret indeed.

Trotsky insisted that he would publish the goings on at the peace talks, and wrote that the Soviet government had a dual task, “in the first place to secure the quickest possible cessation of the shameful and criminal slaughter which is destroying Europe, secondly, to help the working class of all countries by every means available to us to overthrow the domination of capital and to seize state power in the interests of democratic peace and of a socialist transformation of Europe and of all mankind.”

So, according to you, Lenin and the Bosheviks were shifty because they, on behalf of a weakened and exhausted Russian, and indeed European, population, negotiated an end to the slaughter of the capitalist war. Criminals!!

Or, did you mean the politically motivated and unfounded rumours that Lenin was in the service of the Germans, circulated by his opponents within Russia, which those truthful and honest capitalists attempted to bolster with some forgery:

“In 1918—that is, after the October Revolution-a press bureau of the American government triumphantly published a collection of documents connecting the Bolsheviks with the Germans. This crude forgery, which would not stand up under a breath of criticism, was believed in by many educated and perspicacious people, until it was discovered that the originals of the documents supposed to have been drawn up in different countries were all written on the same machine.” http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/ch27.htm

...cont...

A bit similar to the forgeries from Africa regarding yellowcake and the “sexed up” dossier don’t you think?

Or do you simply mean the agreement for safe passage across Germany in return for the release of some German prisoners of the Czar, which was the only way he could get there and, I might add, was assiduously documented by Lenin.

That the Germans hoped Lenin would disrupt the Russian war effort, does not in any way prove that he agreed to do so for the benefit of the Germans. Any continuation of this slander is mere speculation and innuendo, another of your stocks in trade. Lenin had his own reasons for ending the war such as putting an end to its barbarism.

“She-(Margaret-Thatcher-)-was-“deeply-saddened”-by-the-death-of-Pinochet”

Margaret-Thatcher-is-entitled-to-her-view,-maybe-she-knows-more-than-you-or-me-about-the-alternatives-to-Pinochet-at-the-time,-I-am-not-sure”

Here we have the ultimate delusion, and apology for your hero.

So, at the time, do you think she thought there was an alternative worse than a military coup which ousted an ELECTED government? At the time, do you think she thought there was an alternative worse than a military dictatorship? At the time, do you think she thought there was an alternative worse than thousands being “disappeared”.

How about in 2000, when she CAMPAIGNED FOR HIS RELEASE? In 2000, when she called him “GREAT FRIEND OF BRITAIN”. So a MILITARY DICTATOR who OVERTHREW AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT and DISAPPEARD THOUSANDS is a “GREAT FRIEND OF BRITAIN”.

With friends like that, who needs enemies? Certainly not the Chilean or British working class.

Oh, the spineless squirming contortions you put yourself through to save your hero – “I am not sure” he says. What are you not sure of? Could it be that you just wish to avoid admitting that dearest Maggie considers military dictators her great friends

Tao the “secret” was Lenins return to Russia, not the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

The rest of your rant, based on your inability to read and interpret English, is a complete waste, which I will ignore.

Anyone who has a mind to defend a raging loon like Trotsky, is suffering serious personality issues.

As for
“Oh, the spineless squirming contortions you put yourself through to save your hero – “I am not sure” he says. What are you not sure of? Could it be that you just wish to avoid admitting that dearest Maggie considers military dictators her great friends”

Nothing spineless about it. I note we have a thread here which attempts to cast a different light on Chilean history. Davfid Flints article “Pinochet's coup d'état” is a thread which, to date, I have not bothered with, simply because I find the South American continent a compost heap of degenerate politics, the legacy of Spanish and Portuguese colonial history.

Briefly reading David Flints article he recalls Allende was about to expropriate and nationalize wholesale areas of the Chilean economy, with support and weapons from. Recalling the East-West politics of 1970’s, anyone who formed a bulwark against communist hegemony was a friend. A common enemy makes for strange bedfellows.

That South America could have been colonized by the British, it would have had a better chance of developing responsible government and public institutions than what has occurred, far fewer revolutions for sure, just compare the past 200 years of South American history to Australia to understand what I mean.

Before going too deeply into the excesses of Pinochet, let us not forget the excesses of every government of the style which you espouse here and check how many dissenters have died or disappeared in the prisons of the Gulags, KGB and Stasi etc.

So wail and squawk all you wish. Margaret Thatcher had a better functioning set of gonads than you and she was not afraid to use them.

You might consider your own politics as the stuff of revolutions but I simply consider them and you “revolting”.

Dear Celeste,

I have read your article with great interest and find that you make some vary valid points.

I work in the Car component Industry and we are deeply committed to Lean Manufacturing and to having a go, yet over the last 2 years we have had to lay of 150 of our 500 employees due to the facts that.

1. Seven out of ten cars on our roads are imported.

2. Our cars manufacturers are making big cars and due to the petrol prices small cars are more desirable.

3. The majority of our own management drive a company car without Australian car parts in them, point being that we should lead by example.

As our Economy is doing so well by selling our natural recourses to China and the likes, let’s rake some of these profits back into our own manufacturing industry, let’s face it we can't all close shop and go and live in Western Australia.

Thanks ones again for your observations.

Excuses to Mister Rouge for any mistakes, as I also am one of the unwashed and smelly.

Abel Tasman, being "deeply committed to Lean Manufacturing and to having a go" is not the same as delivering products at a competitive price. If you are uncompetitive in the market, there are few choices.

The government might decide to prop you up in some way, using taxpayers' money to keep your colleagues in employment, but extracting the cost of doing so from my pocket. Ultimately, this makes you even less competitive, as i) the subsidy will not last for ever and ii) you have no chance to improve productivity, since you are stuck with too many, too expensive people.

The car manufacturers might decide to prop you up by buying at uncompetitive prices, and to pass on the cost to their buying public via higher prices. This suffers the same problems; they can't do this forever, or they will go out of business too, and again there is no incentive for you to improve productivity.

Otherwise, the only possibility is to lower the cost of production by increasing investment in capital equipment and reducing the number of employees.

To suggest that we divert profits from successful Australian companies to unprofitable ones - “let’s rake some of these profits [from natural resources] back into our own manufacturing industry” is a recipe for disaster. Both will ultimately go broke, and we will be no better off.

Furthermore

"Seven out of ten cars on our roads are imported"

Perhaps because they meet the needs of car buyers for quality and cost.

"Our cars manufacturers are making big cars..."

Perhaps we are even less competitive making smaller (cheaper) vehicles.

"The majority of our own management drive a company car without Australian car parts in them"

I suspect the accountants might insist on this, for their lower total cost of operation.

When faced with economic realities, you can hide your head in the sand, whinge that it is unfair, give up in despair, or you can do something different. I have worked in ten different businesses during my working life, have been sacked once and made redundant three times. Change is good, not bad.

“The rest of your rant, based on your inability to read and interpret English, is a complete waste, which I will ignore.”

Again, as could be expected from you, you bury your head in the sand. That way you don’t have to contemplate anything that might challenge those childish beliefs you cling to.

“simply because I find the South American continent a compost heap of degenerate politics”

So, not only does Maggs have military dictators as friends, she trawls the compost heap of degenerate politics for them.

Mmmmm…… I’m trying to recall some saying. Something about judging the calibre of a person by the company they keep.... Dearest Margaret, the degenerate politician of the compost heap.

Enough is enough, Tao.

I was puzzled why, on some threads but not on others, I was having to scroll right to read full sentences.

Then I realised that it is your habit of using hyphens to cheat the word count.

This extends the right hand boundary of the browser window, and following posts extend their paragraphs accordingly.

In one earlier post on this thread you used 471 of them to create a document that would otherwise be 751 words long.

I wouldn't mind quite so much if you actually had something interesting or constructive to say.

Please. Stop.

Sorry Pericles,

Sometimes I can't help myself - particularly when responding to simplistic statements which require a lot more elaboration than the word limit allows. I do try to only use them when I am quoting someone else.

Anyway, I think I am just about finished with this thread.

After reducing Col's hero-worship of Margaret Thatcher to the equivalent of sleeping with military dictators, my job here is done.

Well Tao, clearly your job was to make yourself feel good, as
you havent achieved much else :)

Luckily for us normal people, supporters of Trotzky, Lenin
etc are rarer then hens teeth, so their ideas will stay
no more then a fantasy in the minds of extremely few
and really don't matter a bit.

The Economist has published alot of stuff on happiness
in its last edition. Clearly envy is a huge problem,
people are often more concerned that somebody else has
more, rather then focus on how good they really do have it.

So be envious Tao, for that sums up what your politics
seems to be about.

Meantime the rest of us can get on with enjoying heaven,
which is here and now :)

Tao “Anyway, I think I am just about finished with this thread.”

Sneaking away with your tail between your legs (rhetorically speaking)?

”After reducing Col's hero-worship of Margaret Thatcher to the equivalent of sleeping with military dictators, my job here is done.”

I have several “heros”, Mozart, Canaletto, Celini to name three more. Doubtless tao would suggest they are all petite-bourgeoisie dilitantes (especially Celini) and I would say who cares. The small minded ramblings of the petite-envious matter nothing and if someone thinks that “my job here is done”

You call this a job? You have a funny or pretty light on perception of what a job is.
If you think this is a “job” then you would not last 10 minutes in the working world I inhabit

This is to a job as foreplay is to sex.

This is a pure diversion to mess with the likes of tao and see how far they can be pushed into declaring the complete inadequacy of their leftist views.

Take all your theories of Marx, Engle’s, Lenin and Trotsky, pile them one on top the other -

Then watch as the success of capitalism basks in the glow of the flames coming form that pile of theories, the fire lit by the excess of Stalin and Pol Pot.

The observed and recorded facts are these,

every socialist state has fallen because

A it cannot and never has delivered the quality government to the people it is supposed to represent or has produced the “human satisfaction” levels delivered by the “Capitalist system” and

B it ends up the oppressive tool of dictators of the vilest form imaginable (include Castro and KIM Jong Il, the remaining legacy, with all the dead tyrants)

If we are talking about “finishing the job”; certainly I am prepared to take credit for having “done a job” on tao (and I didn’t even break into a sweat).

Pericles says "If you are uncompetitive in the market"..... which market ?

Mate... if the market has loaded dice it won't matter how 'competitive you get UNLESS you also use LOADED dice !

So, I repeat "BLAME CHINA".

What is their loaded dice ? Well of course we all know that already, its labor rates which are sustained not by market forces or worker advocacy but by a regime which resists any change which could make them less competitive.

Ok.. I'll add "BLAME AUSTRALIA". Part of China's loaded dice is our reluctance to use our resource abundance and value add. We have a government filled to overflowing with Hezekiah's (remember that bloke who showed the Babylonian envoys all the treasures of the Jewish temple) who take the view "Disaster ? but not in my lifetime ? oh.. cool" and the short term "Dig it up and SELL it quick" mentality will surely rebound in the future after all our treasure has been sacked,sold off and squandered and we are left with an empty national temple, and blank, mindless stares on our faces.

Taiwan DID it.
Korea DID it.

Did what ? They, with populations similar to ours but WITHOUT natural resources, tooled up their countries for growth and competitiveness and now..... we go from 3rd world Australia to 1st World Korea and Taiwan.

BLAME UNIONS. Yep..I'll add that one too, but not all unions, just those who have deliberately and maliciously targeted 'where the money is' and had infiltrated every level of the IR spectrum including the arbitration side to basically enable them to run this country.
The activities were nothing but ORGANIZED CRIME in everything but name.
When I discovered just how pernicious the CFMEU/(BLF in drag) and others have been, one could be forgiven for wanting to spit on them.