Yabby, on what possible basis can you demonstrate that businesses have done well *despite* government policies, instead of because of them? I might as well argue that Australian manufacturing has been slowly failing despite government policies that are genuinely supportive.

And of course just "throwing money at something" is no solution to anything. However, there's not a lot you can do without significant amounts of money being involved.

“I might as well argue that Australian manufacturing
has been slowly failing despite government policies that are genuinely supportive.”

Wiz, you could well argue that and you would be correct.

I’ve seen plenty of Australian businesses obtain various Govt grants, despite
faulty business plans, poor marketing, slack focus on the consumer, etc.
Rather then improving their deficiencies, its sometimes easier to farm the
taxpayer. Some become extremely good at it. Yet if the business is fundamentally
flawed, it will still fail in time.

This is the problem with well meaning Govts. One Dept will dish money out,
like there is no tomorrow, another will add unneeded costs and red tape.

If Australia were serious about assisting business, they would cut out all those
various grants to those who know how to screw the system and address serious
flaws in our cost structure, which makes all businesses less competitive in the
global marketplace, so affects the fundamentals.

If all manufacturing businesses were given a rebate for payroll tax paid on
manufacturing export products, that would level the playing field for all,
not just megadollars for those with the greatest spin doctors, who manage
to impress Govt officials.

Roche, Nestle etc, have become great companies based on their economic
fundamentals, so have no problem attracting capital investments from
the market, based on their performance. Investors risk their own funds
and lose, if they get it wrong. Govt officials on the other hand, hand
out taxpayers money. If they get it wrong, they have little to lose, for
they have been seen to “assist industry”, which many claim is such
a good thing.

I remind you that given a chance, private enterprise is just as good as
pissing taxpayer funds up against walls, as Govt departments are, for
neither have anything to lose, its not their money after all.

But Yabby, I don't consider grants to companies with faulty business plans, poor marketing, etc. to be "genuinely supportive". That is simply "throwing money" at a problem, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that it comes to nothing half the time.

Your "rebate for tax on exported goods" idea sounds entirely worthwhile. But it's still an example of government intervention in the market, and it would cost significant amounts of money.

This is a great article. Australians have gone in debt for what? A considerable amount of debt has come from us bidding up the value of our residential property without any increase in productive capacity. This is lunacy and shows that our economic gurus and advisers have let us down badly. It is time to rethink the way we do things. We have allowed ourselves to become victims of an economic orthodoxy that stores up trouble for the future, has let our environment degrade, has increased the gap between the rich and the poor, has let greed drive public policy. To see some more arguments against what is happening and to look at the problem from another point of view look at "The cult of the market"

http://epress.anu.edu.au/cotm_citation.html

One of the best articles on this subject I have read. Problem is, we need more of such ilk to truly expose the politically-funded myths. Also highlights the paucity of real investigative journalism when the real situation is not being reported. The real sadness is also that neither major, nor can I perceive any minor, party bringing this to the fore. Leaving one in something of a quandry, don't you think, about where to place one's vote?

A bit laden down with high-flown acamedic rhetoric, but still makes some good points, not dissimilar to the ones I've been making myself: that tariffs/protectionism aren't necessarily a bad thing, but rather that many of our particular policies in the past were just poorly thought out, hence dismantling them has been generally beneficial.

Also echos my own sentiments re competition, and the thrust behind the privitisation movement:
"What was required was not simply a trite assertion that competition was inevitably good because it promoted efficiency, which in turn promoted welfare, but a historically informed analysis of the purposes served by those institutions and arrangements, and a more realistic assessment of the real welfare consequences of change."