I wonder how the good economist (or is he a robotic drone) explains the phenomena described in PLANET OF SLUMS by Mike Davis. A billion people living in appalling conditions, with no possibility whatsoever of any betterment in their prospects.And their numbers are inevitably growing every day as a result of the destructive processes of globalisation.

The fact of the matter is that globalisation in its current form is quite literally grinding eveything to rubble. In its current form globalisation is the latest and deadliest phase of the drive to total power and control at the root of the western imperial project. And as such it (globalisation) is totally indifferent to any and all forms of life, including human life.

One dimensional media driven and created consumer "culture" rules OK. We are literally consuming ourselves to death.
One of the meanings of the word consume is to destroy. The "destroyer culture".

ALL traditional forms of culture and the planetary ecosystems which support and all the sentient beings on this planet are being trashed.
Have you read the news?

Saul, I wonder if you will read this. If so, Hi!

I worry that the ebb and flow of capital may be too capricious to reflect the reality of the everyday world. In fact, the whole economic setup has the potential to turn us all into blundering idiots.

Consider the following - forests:

*

"Design something that makes oxygen, sequesters carbon, fixes nitrogen, distils water, makes complex sugars and food, makes micro-climates, and self-replicates.

Hey, why don't we knock that down and write on it!"

*

- see what I mean?

Now, isn't it about time that the brainy economists like you, and old plunderers like me got together and learned some new tricks? For instance, we could contemplate the soil beneath our feet - and call that wealth.

- is that too big an idea? Are we too far gone to understand?

Eslake in this article successfully demonstrates that he is heavily indoctrinated, as you would expect the chief economist of the ANZ bank to be. There is no such thing as “free trade”; what is called “globalisation” is a series of bi-lateral and multi-lateral investor rights agreements designed to serve the rich. Globalisation is all about protecting the rich from markets. Free markets are for the poor, as they always have been and always will be. Notice Eslake’s touching reference to the perfidy of ordinary people who lament rising inequality whilst, supposedly, their absolute incomes are rising. If only everybody were to posses the cynicism of the connected and sophisticated.

The key axiom of economic theory is very simple, and Eslake demonstrates it here. It is, “we must make the rich happy because if they are happy nice things will happen”

I don't think Australian businesses should fear globalisation. I'd like to see more outward looking firms that are prepared to become committed and invest in enterprises that can deliver knowledge and skills to developing Countries like Ghana, West Africa that have around the same population as Australia.

Ashante Goldfields is a success story in Ghana with Australian gold mining know-how making a profitable business venture that also gets high praise for applied social infrastructure investment in the local community creating good will, employment and tax revenue.

Export promotion agencies should engage the media and perhaps even documentaries to persuade people of broad benefits of responsible trade and investment liberalisation, by show casing the huge benefits that flow when corporate social responsibility is a core value along with sustainable technology and manufacturing processes.

The anti-globalisation criics have valid points to make when foreign investors make sweetheart deals with brutal dictatorships. The Chineese Government did a weapons for oil deal with the Sudanese government that fueled decades of brutal civil war in the south and to this day panders to a genocidal agenda of a murderous dictator in Western Sudan.

In globalisation the stakes are very high. The good deals can do great good through the multiplier effect. Ethical and well conceived investment that focuses on the triple bottom line should be the only kind of investment that gets the green light.

All stakeholders also need to be made aware of the risks associated with accepting deals where naked greed and self interest are the only selection criteria. AWB's food for oil contracts a case in point. Those bad deals need to be exposed and condemed at every opportunity to bring about change and minimise the enormous harm those deal makers do to humanity

Okay, okay, okay Mr Estlake, you love international trade. We heard that. But in the middle of your piece you do raise the matter of, in your words: "... the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions made by the transportation of goods, services and people ..."
But then you continue right on to sing the praises of increased global transportation of goods etc, without showing how the environmental problem can be overcome. You acknowledge that you are simply hoping that this "valid" concern will not be used to limit transportation of goods. Mr Estlake, you have to bring more than wishful thinking to your argument.
Just think about the extraordinary activity (so profitable for economies) of European water being bottled in plastic bottles and shipped to, say, Fiji, and Fijian water being sent to Australia, and some Australian water being sent to USA, and so on according to how successful marketers are at stretching the truth and inducing markets to want these products.

Ho Hum
You a right that a billion people live in appalling conditions. You are 100% wrong to blame globalisation as the cause.

A few hundred years ago, pretty much the whole world lived like that. Then, through processes that included globalisation, some parts of the world started to rise above the subsistence or near-subsistence living that had been humanity’s lot until then. Gradually, the number of prosperous regions and countries increased, and even though the world’s population rose rapidly as death rates fell, the proportion of people living in absolute poverty increased and continues to rise today. The decline in poverty is not as fast as it could or should be, but globalisation is part of the solution, not the problem.

If globalisation is the cause of poverty, then how come:
Every country that with high living standards is relatively open to trade and investment (I’ll admit there are no pure free traders)
All those countries currently sustaining rapid reductions in their poverty levels (e.g. China, India) are doing so while becoming more open to trade and investment flows
There has never been a country that that has sustainably raised its living standard by becoming more protectionist
More than 100 developing countries have joined the WTO since its inception in 1995. Are they all dupes, or might they be right in thinking they’ve more to gain by being part of a liberal trading regime than outside it

Markob, I understand your cynicism, but the thing that most irritates economists about the free trade debate – as Saul clearly shows – is that trade is not a zero sum game, so we can be both self-interested and altruistic when we advocate it. Machiavelli would love it - free markets are good for the poor, and they’re good for the rich too

Correction - should of course be proportion of people NOT living in absolute poverty has increased over the decades

for long term data on global living standards see Angus Maddison's book and dataset
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/publications/worldeconomy/

for recent trends in people living on a dollar a day see the UN Millennium Development Goals website:

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2006/MDGReport2006.pdf

No prizes for feathering your own nest Saul...this should make your corporate masters very happy with you...even give you a nice bonus to your grossly over-indulgent salary package.

You admit that corporate wealth has increased dramatically with globalisation and indeed world poverty and household income has declined...and you are CONCERNED that globalism is 'threatened'.

The sooner the better, I'd say.

Your cheaper food might just have more carcinogens and toxins than is good for you if you import it from countries with lower health and chemical regulations than the country you're lucky to live in...wake up Australia! Saul too!

If you want cheaper goods Saul, I'd like cheaper interest and less fees from my bank too...yeah, I thought that might be your answer. :(

Martin Luther King's comment about inequity and abhorrent human greed was that 'the world leans towards justice' ... eventually it always does...so globalism and the greed it feeds off will come to its sorry end...thankfully!

We have seen the end to manufacturing industries, primary industries, small businesses galore...the lists go on...all sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed and globalism. Good work Saul!

What have we 'gained' or 'increased'?...well, in this country, we've seen the highest rise and numbers of rural suicide in this nation's history...closely followed by the highest rise in youth suicide across the nation...and so through all age groups. So, some achievement for Saul's globalism...no hope, no possibility of living with much dignity for most in rural industries over the last decade or so...and ANZ forges on with the spin and propaganda and foreclosures on these families...with a great tax reward to boot for the bank and it's economists and 'hatchet men'.

(tbc)

(cont...)

Saul should be hanging his head for supporting this abomination and this self-seeking greed for what he admits is a smaller and smaller group of corporate players...while the masses are increasingly expected to accept less and less.

The greatest 'threat' to globalism is the poverty it has created and the fact that not all humans are as full of #>*^%#! as its proponents and supporters. Some can't live off the misery of others...without coming to the realisation that it's just not ok.

Right now we're seeing the workers of this country being 'levelled' to compete with the workers from China, Malawi, Brazil, etc. I guess you support that too, Saul?

Globalism will end...justice will ensure it. There is no level-playing field and no equity in it...Saul's prattle demonstrates that convincingly.

Meg1

Poverty has indeed declined – surely that is a good thing?

The article does NOT say that household income has declined. It says that profits have grown more quickly than household income, which is not the same thing at all. If total income is growing then everyone can be better off, even if some gain more quickly than others. It’s a common illusion to say that trade and globalisation are zero sum games – that if business is better off households must be worse off, of if western countries are better off then developing ones must be worse off. But it’s not true.

You ask what we have gained or increased. The answer is, pretty much every important measure of economic welfare. We have the lowest unemployment rates in more than 30 years. The number of small business is increasing, not falling. Far from being “levelled” down to match the Chinese, real incomes are rising. Long-term unemployment is the lowest on record. So are per capita bankruptcies.

Meg, where do you think our rural industries would be without global trade? Our rural exports were worth $26 billion last year, and most of our agricultural products are exported. Do you seriously believe that farmers’ suicide rates would get better if these markets were closed to them? Or is Australia to be the only country permitted to export?

You self-righteously claim that “some can’t live off the misery of others.” But that is exactly what you intend to do, if you want to close off access to global markets and investment. Can you name even one country that has stopped being poor by withdrawing from global markets and seeking economic self-sufficiency? Saul has named dozens that have got rich, or at least less poor, by doing the opposite.

Rhian, anyone who says world poverty has declined is delusional…it clearly has not.

Globalism’s a myth as are its suggested merits…global trade has never been slanted more inequitably against Australia by our trading partners…that’s fact…there is NO level playing field for trade and never will be. Saul&Co won’t accept salary packages consistent with a Chinese or Brazilian bank employee, neither will others making policy decisions levelling off only the most vulnerable. Hypocrisy? Yes, do-as-I-say,-but-not-as-I-do…

My suggestion wasn’t that we should withdraw from global trade, but it’s sheer stupidity to ask our farmers to maintain quality food production and then import foreign ‘food’ laced with the very toxins, carcinogens and poor ecological practices banned here …or are you arguing that low quality ‘food’ is ok for ‘us’ rather than ‘them’? There should be financial rewards for good food and sound practices and penalties for poor quality imports…

Take a look at the supermarket shelves…Australian foods…diminishing quickly…where’s the benefit in that? Our defence capabilities are pretty feeble if we can’t feed ourselves self-sufficiently…

Household incomes have declined in Australia…wealth is increasingly concentrated in the pockets of the few…as Saul Eslake concedes…and that’s globalism’s purpose.

As for reduced unemployment figures…there’s a saying you’ve heard about lies, damned lies and statistics, that fits the bill here…they are so fudged they should be sold at a sweet stall fundraiser .

Go into your local Woolies store and ask the ‘check-out-staff’ how many hours they work each week and what security they have for those hours…there’s none. They don’t know from one week to the next what hours they have and they don’t have a full week’s work. Take out part-timers in the work force, for the real picture. Then take a long hard look at the average incomes of rural Australian families…it’s a national disgrace…sure they export Billions of $’s worth of goods to prop up the nations balance of payments, but thanks to Saul’s globalism and NCP, etc. they are left as little more than serfs, living in penury.

I didn’t ask what has increased or declined Rhian, re-read the post…

(tbc...)

(Cont...)

I listed increases in suicide…directly relative to the introduction of the distortions of NCP, deregulation and the leveling or selling off of all things Australian…

Take a look at the so-called competition in supermarket share…Coles and Woolies…what competition? Look at what these vultures charge consumers for groceries or fresh produce and compare it with what they pay the farmers…another national disgrace festering in the pit of globalism and its craven offshoots…NCP, etc.

You are making inaccurate statements that you cannot substantiate, Rhian. Bankruptcies are increasing – NOT decreasing…so are corporate failures…too much emphasis on partying, networking and back-slapping, etc. to get any real work done in that sector as indicated by the more public examples of corporate debauchery and collapse.

… ‘most of our agricultural products are exported’ again you are incorrect. Some agricultural products, like sugar, are predominantly exported, most are not.

Your inability to comprehend the written word effectively requires that I re-iterate my statement on the excesses of corporatism, globalism and their ilk…living off the misery of others. At no time did I suggest ‘closing off access to global markets and investment’

Indeed however, recent Australian trade agreements with our main trading partners are heavily weighted in their favour and against Australia, especially regarding agriculture, thanks to the incompetent economists, politicians and bureaucrats directing the ‘globalism show’.

You are confused regarding ‘economic self-sufficiency’ Rhian…you’ve just shown incredible ineptitude…unless we maintain a strong stable economy, we cannot survive or grow…nor can we support our own let alone the needs of our global neighbours…you surely cannot be such a monumental fool.

My estimation is that your post is not even worthy of a first year economics student in high school…tragically this is the sort of mindless prattle used to distract any real discussion on the damaging consequences clearly evident from globalism to date.

You might like to check out the national debt for homework, Rhian…not too healthy, huh?

…Nor is the increasing level of individual household debt or the fact that it is significantly attributed to credit cards…all good for Saul.

Meg
I gave data sources to support my statement that poverty is declining. Where are yours?

For the record, here’s the data to support my other arguments that you reject.

The statement that most agricultural produce is exports is based on government data:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/trade_in_agriculture.html#aae

Household incomes have increased at about 6% a year in Australia for the past ten years, easily enough to outstrip inflation and population growth, so real per capita income has risen
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5206.0Dec%202006?OpenDocument

Suicide rates are decreasing:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/952361A2A29BDBB4CA25729D001C09CF/$File/33090_2005.pdf

Bankruptcy data can be obtained here:
http://www.itsa.gov.au

I’m not in the least confused about economic self-sufficiency, I know exactly how damaging it would be for an economy like Australia’s to try to go down that path.

Meg, you simply dismiss any arguments or data that don’t support your apocalyptic view of the world, without giving any evidence in support of your own opinions. Your abuse and vitriol are entertaining, but your arguments have no substance.

Rhian you gave no data to prove that poverty is declining…quite the reverse…and world-wide statistics disprove your theories…what rose-coloured glasses are you looking through now?

In fact your 'statistics' confirm my own statements...

RE: The widening gap between rich and poor in Australia...

[http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1430520.htm

Peter Ryan: ‘A survey out today from the Bureau of Statistics has found that the richest 20 per cent of Australians hold almost two-thirds of the nation's wealth, or an average $1.4-million per household.

The poorest 20 per cent holds just 1 per cent, with around $23,000 per home.’

Farmers share the same average income p/a as self-funded retirees at just $15000pa…I’d call that poverty by anyone's standards…

You need to also check your own reference data which shows that both the suicide and bankruptcy data confirm my statement that both are rising…

To rebound your own remark: ‘Your abuse and vitriol are entertaining, but your arguments have no substance.’

Check your own statistics before placing both feet in up to your knees… : )

Meg
The media report you quote tells us precisely zero about trends over time in income and wealth. They are a snapshot of the situation at a single point in time. If you look at the survey on which the ABC report was based, you’ll see it shows that for all income groups real income has grown, with growth at the bottom of the income distribution, if anything, a little faster than at the top over the nine years to 2003-04:

Mean Income per week In 2003–04 dollars
(ie adjusted using changes in the Consumer Price Index)
Indicator __________1994–95 ___ 2003–04 __real increase
Lowest quintile _______ $181 ___ $226 _____ 2.5%pa
Second quintile _______ $292 ___ $361 _____ 2.4%pa
Third quintile _________ $404 ___ $492 _____ 2.2%pa
Fourth quintile ________ $539 ___ $641 _____ 1.9%pa
Highest quintile _______ $861 ___ $1027 ____ 2.0%pa
All persons ___________ $455 ___ $549 _____ 2.1%pa

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6523.02003-04?OpenDocument

In any event, I never argued that the distribution of income is getting less unequal, thought these data suggest it might. Most importantly the fact that the rich are getting richer does NOT mean that the poor are getting poorer. If my neighbour wins first division lotto and I only win second, that doesn’t make me worse off. In fact, all income groups are getting richer, but some at faster rates than others.

From the global perspective, the UN report I linked to contains the following statement:

“In 1990, more than 1.2 billion people – 28 per cent of the developing world’s population – lived in extreme poverty. By 2002, the proportion decreased to 19 per cent.”

I’d call that a pretty substantial reduction in poverty.

The supporters of the dying ideology that we call globalism have a bad habit of fudging statistics to make them more appealing. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the champions of the theory, disconnected as the are from the broader world, are confident of their ability to reduce the enormous problem of global poverty to a set of figures to prove their case.

For example, billions of people live a rural existence in the developing world, relying heavily on local bartering systems for their needs. Such a life is impossible to measure by world bank or IMF methods. In search of a better life, they then move to a desperate urban slum where hunger, disease, dirty water, rape and violence are the order of the day. But in such a place, even a dollars worth of income can be measured. They are therefore said to have now taken a step forward and upward. The fact that they are often much worse off in real, absolute terms is irrelivent in western statistics - they are now "wealthier" so therefore they must be better off.

Globalism is dying, if not dead already, for the same reason that the last one-world economic theory died (communism). It simply doesn't work. Both represent extremes.

The idea that commerce would eventually trump politics, culture, religion, citizens rights, workers rights, human rights, nation-states themselves and the natural human tendancy to identify with all these things is the grandiose fantasy of the super-rich. Globalism is after all, an idea born at a billioinaire's club meeting (Davos).

It will be interesting to see exactly what replaces it.

Fozz
You’re right that many conventional measures of economic welfare are poor at capturing the true living standards of people who live largely outside the monetary economy, such as subsistence farmers. But there are welfare measures, such as life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy rates or access to improved water that are not so vulnerable to those measurement problems, and should capture any general improvement in human wellbeing. The general trend across developing countries is that these are improving too, though less quickly than they could or should. In places afflicted by Aids, war or tyrannous governments standards are even going backwards, but these unhappy exceptions are not enough to offset the general improving trend.

Why do so many rural poor move to slums in the cities if they are as bad as you say (and I’m not disputing that they are)? The answer is surely that, however grim their urban existence, their rural alternative is grimmer.

I’m no Pollyanna, and recognise that the living standards of billions of people are appalling by the standards we enjoy. Not do I think that globalism alone will solve their problems. But I do believe that the key elements of modern globalism – increased trade and investment and the exchange of ideas - are a necessary and important part of the solution to global poverty, as well as being good for us in rich countries.

Well said Fozz, you’re right to be concerned what will take it’s place as the Saul Eslake’s of this world will continue to roam the world trumpeting the latest ‘ism’ that will allow him to live Orwell’s dream of Utopia where some of us are ‘more equal than others’…and the rest are merely disposable minnows or usable commodities.

Rhian, you’ve again contradicted your own assertion…if I have $150/week and it costs $100 for me to pay basic living expenses for a week, while you earn $2000/week with a more extravagant living standard…having an increase of 2% for each of us means I will earn an extra $3/week while you will earn $40/week extra…

If the cost of living has risen by just 5%, $5/week…my income will be eroded very rapidly…and faster than yours. Considering the cost of many commodities and the variety of essential items has increased more significantly than this example, the result in Australia has been an erosion of middle Australia, becoming a struggling underclass of farmers, lower paid workers, self-funded retirees, disabled and pensioners…while the ‘ism’ circus continues to spin to dizzying heights of obscenity and indulgence for those willing to accept the rule of the jungle and to hell with all else.

Reality for the corporate players means the disparities are far more grossly exaggerated than these.

In fact, the corporate world will even reward you even if you fail to deliver…for some, to the tune of tens of millions of $’s…to excise your ‘services’ from the corporation’s payroll…of course, at the expense of the ‘underlings’.

(tbc.)

(Cont...)

Your assertion Rhian, that ‘welfare measures…should capture any general improvement in human wellbeing’, is a nonsense as the UN has no definitive method of assessing real poverty or increases or declines world-wide. The problem of poverty is so widespread and largely inaccessible, any figures are a guesstimate at best. Governments like that of Robert Mugabe deliberately fudge the numbers of poor and needy for their own ends.

Figures released today from ‘Beyond Blue’ spokesperson, Jeff Kennett, indicated that 6 people per day are suiciding in Australia…higher than the national road toll! (Of course suicide figures are always conservative as many suicides are simply labelled as ‘accidental deaths’, due to insufficient evidence being available for a definitive decision.)

Meg
Again you miss the point. The data in the table already take account of inflation, so the increases are after price changes, or “real” gains. If your income goes up by 3% more that your living costs then you’re better off, even if Bill Gates’ income goes up by $1,000,000 a week.

There is indeed no single definitive measure of poverty, but there are lots of measures that point towards it. The UN’s Millennium Goals (see link above) include a target to reduce by half the proportion of the world’s population living on US$1 A day (in 1990 prices, from memory) by 2015. There is every chance that this goal will be reached.

Fozz is right that financial indicators can be a poor measure of economic welfare in subsistence societies. That why I listed a range of other indicators that also capture welfare improvements. What’s more, they can’t be distorted by a handful of fortunates (in theory a country can get richer on average if most people are poorer but a handful are much, much richer. But no country ever raised its life expectancy if most people die younger while a few live to be 300,000).

Your assertion that Mugabe is dishonest is of course true, but for some seriously dysfunctional countries fairly good estimates can be obtained from independent data. Look at IMF or other data and you’ll find they show Zimbabwe at or near the bottom of the list many welfare measures, and heading backwards rapidly. That seem consistent with what we know of Zimbabwe. Some countries, of course, are too hard to track with any accuracy at all – I don’t think any agency has good data on North Korea (now there’s a country that takes economic self-sufficiency seriously!).

Meg, you seem to associate globalism with suicide. Check out the data in the link I gave earlier – Australian suicide rates are declining overall. Do you have any data to support your argument?

Rhian,

We may just have to agree to disagree on the issue of globalization reducing poverty. I remain unconvinced.

To my mind, the whole idea of globalism is a furphy. I do believe that there will be a united world one day, but I find laughable (and disturbing) the fervent belief of some that money will be the unifying factor.

The exchange of ideas is a good thing. Trade and investment are potentially good things. But trade for trade's sake appears not to have lived up to globalism's promises. Since 1970, world trade has increased by (depending on whose figures you use) between 12 and 22 times. What is harder to measure is the effect. Such a massive explosion in trade should have produced an equally massive explosion in growth but there is a serious disjunct between the two that economists struggle to explain.

Some have suggested that the huge expansion of multi-national corporations (an undisputable "success" of globalization) may go some way towards explaining it. For example, company x owns the mining lease. Company x owns the shipping company that transports the raw material down the coast to my town, to the processing plant which is part owned by company x. The processed material is loaded onto ships owned by company x and shipped accross the tasman to it's final destination - the smelter, once again owned by (you guessed it) company x.

Where was the trade?

The fact that goods have crossed international borders is irrelivent since the whole process is owned by one company or a conglomerate, it is probably more accurate to call it "internal shipping". It lacks the effect of real trade between nationally-based companies.

This process is thought to now account for a good half of all world trade.

The subject of globalization if far too broad for one post, suffice to say that I disagree with most of it. IMHO trade exists to SERVE a purpose. Under globalism, trade exists to BE a purpose unto itself. I see no advantage for the common good in that theory.

Rhian, you’re clearly attempting to justify your willingness to trade off the basic human rights of others for a bigger slice yourself…unconvincingly.

Perhaps Bill Gates is coming to that realisation also…given his recent change-of-heart-activities.

There’s not a snowflakes-chance-in-hell of achieving the goals you mention on poverty with corporate big-shots being paid increasingly more obscene salary packages while price-takers like farmers, workers and fixed-income earners are increasingly forced into penury…

Remember Bob Hawke thumping his chest with the ‘no-child-will-be-living-in-poverty-by…’ Well, guess how many more have joined the list now?

RE: North Korea...you’ve got the wrong definition of self-sufficiency…

Take a look at the EU, Japan and the US…all demand as high a level of self-sufficiency in essential items as possible…for defence purposes alone…which is why their subsidy levels remain so high…

Examine the countries who don’t place much importance on feeding their own or providing basic necessities…there’s a word limit, so I won’t bore you with lists on poverty you should already know.

The level of spin and statistical misinformation from the IMF is legendary…somewhat like ABARE…don’t make life-changing decisions based on their data…nor on Saul’s regular ‘economic comments’ to placate anz’s customer base.

Check your own data again…suicide rates are NOT declining – overall or any other way…and your ‘data’, as any welfare agency will privately acknowledge, ignores the numerous ‘unproven’ suicides.

Interesting that you also see the link between suicide as a result of glolbalism…of course, there is significant evidence of human devastation from the offshoots of globalism domestically, e.g., NCP, deregulation (alias hyper-regulation and elimination of all market control by the non-corporate sector), etc.

I share Fozz’s scepticism regarding ‘money as the unifying factor’ for the one-world policy…also his statements regarding trade for trade’s sake.

Australia continues to sign ‘so-called FREE trade agreements’ with none to date doing any more than exposing our own industry and agriculture to exploitation by countries who subsidise their own product and then dump it on our shores to the detriment of our own population and for the increased profiteering of the transnationals.

(tbc...)

(Cont...)

I share Fozz’s scepticism regarding ‘money as the unifying factor’ for the one-world policy…also his statements regarding trade for trade’s sake.

Australia continues to sign ‘so-called FREE trade agreements’ with none to date doing any more than exposing our own industry and agriculture to exploitation by countries who subsidise their own product and then dump it on our shores to the detriment of our own population and for the increased profiteering of the transnationals.

So-called Free Trade has enabled little more than freedom for foreign dumping of often inferior and subsidised product with the result that Australian companies are forced out of production. Australia's manufacturing industry, for example, is reduced from being the envy of other developed nations to the smallest in the developed world, except for Greece...some achievement, Saul and Rhian!

RE: Fozz’s ‘internal shipping’ scenario, you’ve left out a few details…1. Company X also imports ‘contracted employees’ at lower wages from Country X ( where the profits and taxes will disappear and all transactions are done).

You may be aware that the tourist industry also has foreign companies operating under this scenario…importing foreign nationals, contracted and paid in their country of origin to avoid Australian taxes – even to the extent of importing workers from ‘the oldest profession’ to accommodate tourist-clients while on holiday here…

Company X imports all requirements for establishment and sustenance of ‘plantX’ on Australian shores…usually guarded by a security fence…no transactional taxes or benefit locally except for essentials.

Again, the lists could go on and on…reflecting on the number of foreign-owned companies versus the remaining Australian-based ones and their values will give you a clue to how ‘successful’ at selling out Australia’s infrastructure, globalism has been…right down to selling our valuable water rights off-shore.

Fozz’s final paragraph/statement gives an appropriate summary…and condemnation of globalism-trade as it exists.

Fozz
I’d agree that trade is a means to an end not an end in itself, but I also think it’s quite effective at attaining that end. It’s hard to think of a country that has pulled itself out of severe poverty in recent years without trade and international investment being important contributors to growth.

You’re right than “internal shipping” may not generate the same benefits as conventional trade, but it still create jobs and derived business in the countries affected.

Meg
Another fact-free rant. For your information, these are the ABS data on suicides, clearly showing that they peaked in 1997 and have trended downwards since:

1995 ___ 2,368
1996 ___ 2,393
1997 ___ 2,720
1998 ___ 2,683
1999 ___ 2,492
2000 ___ 2,363
2001 ___ 2,454
2002 ___ 2,320
2003 ___ 2,213
2004 ___ 2,098
2005 ___ 2,101

Doubtless you rank the Australian Bureau of Statistics along with the United Nations, IMF, World Bank and Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics as people whose statistics are not to be trusted because they don’t support your preconceptions.

Rhian, perhaps you’d like to list countries which have...‘pulled itself out of severe poverty in recent years’ WITH ‘trade and international investment being important contributors to growth.’

Australia’s so-called FREE trade agreements are simply opening foreign access to our markets with little or no quality control and significantly cheaper input costs, while our own farmers and manufacturers, etc. are stringently regulated to produce quality goods for the domestic and overseas markets. A clear contradiction to any ‘level playing field’…or legitimate ‘competition’.

Australia’s balance of trade figures contradict your assertion that it has been of benefit here…we have lost all but a skeleton remnant of our manufacturing industry (only Greece has a smaller manufacturing base in the developed world) and our farming sector is being squeezed into penury trying to compete against EU, US, Japanese and Chinese agricultural subsidies.

Your ‘internal’ shipping claim regarding the creation of jobs is also a furphy – many overseas corporations do little direct transacting in this country, importing much of their requirements and their workforce (on limited contract) and paying them in their country of origin. These workers include many areas from beef and agricultural industry workers right through to sex workers.

1995 ___ 2,368
1996 ___ 2,393 up
1997 ___ 2,720 up
1998 ___ 2,683 down
1999 ___ 2,492 down
2000 ___ 2,363 down
2001 ___ 2,454 up
2002 ___ 2,320 down
2003 ___ 2,213 down
2004 ___ 2,098 down
2005 ___ 2,101 up – where does 2006 go?

While the figures from 1995 to 2005 have decreased overall…the suicide figures:

1. Do not include many ‘accidental’ deaths which were suspicious but could not be confirmed as suicides despite strong suggestion that was the case.

2. Do not include figures for the decades prior to 1995, which would provide evidence that the present trade and NCP policies have impacted significantly and detrimentally in those areas which they have been introduced into.

3. Are not broken into the areas relative to the impact of NCP and trade distorting policies being introduced…e.g, dairy industry deregulation…and the resultant suicides, sugar industry…and the resultant suicides, pork, etc.

(tbc…)

(Cont…)

4. The figures you have produced are, at best, a guesstimate…they are inaccurate and are NOT a true reflection of the national figures.

5. ABARE figures are not regarded in agricultural and industry circles as providing accurate figures in research…because they haven’t in the past.

6. Nothing to do with ‘preconceptions’ Rhian…doctors cannot cure a patient who dies from suspected suicide, but they will seldom list the death as suicide unless there is absolute certainty, to spare the family any further grief. Welfare agencies have reported incidents of callers to ‘help’ lines enquiring whether (specifically identified) ‘accidental’ deaths would be paid out in insurance claims…while the incidents of those deaths rose during that period.

7. Usage of anti-depressant drugs (particularly attributed to the impact of globalization in its localized forms, i.e., NCP and deregulation, etc.) is continuing to rise at an alarming rate...so too are stress related heart complications...in those areas.

8. Government ‘packages’ designed to gloss over the effects of NCP, deregulation, etc. once introduced…invariably contain significant funding for counseling – specifically, suicide and loss.

As Fozz rightly says, trade is being seen as an ‘end in itself’, to be pursued at any cost…irrespective of the negative effects of such trade.

Whatever happened to the triple bottom line…number 3 got lost somewhere out there in cyberspace for most of the community.

Meg, you may well be right that suicide is under-reported. But for the downward trend to be misleading it would have to be more under-reported nowadays than it was a decade ago, and there’s no reason to believe that’s the case.

Probably the greatest success in reducing poverty in the past few decades has been in Asia. Counties that have escaped poverty in the course of two generations include Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Taipei, and South Korea. Countries that are still poor by our standards, but have raised their living standards from well below to well above average, include Indonesia, China, India, Nepal, Malaysia and Thailand. In all of these countries, trade and foreign investoment were significant contributors to growth.

Taking up the point raise above, about income alone being sometime inadequate for measuring welfare in poor economies, I’ve taken these data from the UN's Human Development Index, which combines real per capita GDP with life expectancy and literacy to generate a broader development indicator than GDP alone.

http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/10.html

You doubt that ABARE can count Australia agricultural exports. But the National Farmers’ Federation seems happy to quote their numbers, saying rather proudly that “Australia exports a massive 64% (in volume) of total agricultural production. In terms of value, this represents around 75% of the total gross value of Australian agricultural production”

http://www.nff.org.au/farm-facts.html

Rhian please do not quote the NFF (known in farming circles as No Family Farms) as representative of farming families interests...they are a political pawn group, designed to support the policies of government irrespective of the detrimental effects on the farmers they are supposedly representing. Take a look at the other things they have supported for confirmation.

Like other bodies with unsurprisingly similar composition on their boards, the board members seem more intent on keeping their overpaid positions than on achieving anything for their membership.

As for ABARE and NFF figures...you neglected to mention how much in real $value that volume of export has shrunk by for agricultural products over the past decade, century...even year!

Statistics, damned lies and statistics...you can selectively choose the few, distort them and make them change from muddy grey to white, can't you? Why let the truth get in the way of a dubious tale, it's worked against the majority who are getting poorer while the minority get richer up until now, hasn't it?