Rhian
Today's economists aren't necessarily pushing a hardline neoliberal line - that's the whole point of my argument.

But the political dynamic in the 80s and 90s lacked the nuances of the economists. So while you had the NCC pushing competition policy when in was 'in the public interest', you politicians framing the debate in the terms that I have mentioned in the article.

For example, Paul Keating:

'productivity can only come from a competitive structure... where you see healthy competition, you also see lower prices and higher productivity'.

And Jeff Kennett:

'There is no such thing as equality. We live in a competitive world. If you try to make the fat man [sic] thin then the thin man ultimately dies. We have got to encourage the fat man to become fatter so that the thin man becomes fatter'

Perhaps Kennett was taught by Rumsfeld.
__________________________________________________

ed_online

Re. “how is it possible to distinguish between North Korea and South Korea?” - with a compass or a map first of all. After that it becomes apparent that one of them is a basket case quite unlike anywhere else.

Re. Mexico and Chile - the regimes I was referring to pre-date the 2002-2005 period & in Chile’s case it is little wonder that they’ve improved as much since then.
Putting that aside, “per capita GDP does not factor equality or measure living standards generally speaking. Per capita GDP can be huge in places where 5% of the population own 90% of everything.

Re. " Does the US constitution authorise the imposition of its laws and regulations on other countries? - No, I hope not & nor does this question remotely have anything to do with what I’ve said about importers.

An importer is not another country. An importer in this case, is an American.

Re: “justify(ing) artificially raising labour costs to the point where people lose their jobs” I am not exactly sure what that relates to.

It may be based upon some mythical relationship between labour rights and unemployment. It has no particular relevance to anything that I have raised in this thread.
__________________________________________________

Rhian,

With regard to which comment, post or posters I would identify as ‘fundamentalist’ you are not (not) one of them by and large. Beyond that I will leave it to interpretation. Others may accept or reject my perception of fundamentalism as they please. It may be better not to encourage a repeat (or minor variation) on the same argument.

Re. Influential fundamentalists in Australian economic policy. The IPA & HR Nichols Society definitely. As well as some among the commentariat in The Australian & to a lesser extent, the Fin. Review. They are not in the RBA or other banks generally but there are still some (more discreet) ideologues within Treasury.

That said, Andrew is right. The hardliners are now fewer & less influential.

-Mr Smith

Why is North Korea a basket case? Because it is run by an anti-capitalist regime.

Despite what happened in the 80s and 90s, Chile and Mexico are not "disasters." They have continued to pursue free market policies (more or less) and as a consequence, living standards have improved. Other indicators, apart from per capita GDP, show this to be the case (e.g. falls in infant mortality and increased life expectancy).

Re: "An importer is not another country. An importer in this case, is an American." Fair point, I obviously misread this.

You seem to be suggesting that American companies will be restricted from importing goods made in countries with lower labour standards than apply in the USA. This is just a form of protectionism disguised as 'helping poor workers in developing countries'. In reality, it is nothing of the sort. If allowed it would result in poor workers becoming poorer.

North Korea is a basket case because it is an isolated nation run by an authoritarian family dynasty & is quite unique in that respect. It would be better off if it had some aspect of democracy & a mixed economy like the rest of us but what any of that has to do with this debate is entirely beyond me.

This discussion is (was) about economic rationalism if you want to broaden it to include all possible forms of capitalism I am not going to join you as I am not entirely opposed to capitalism per se. Never was.

The North Korea’s regime is the last remaining relic of a conflict that occurred in the mid-twentieth century and is no longer relevant. The point of Andrew Wear’s article is to say that economic rationalism is a 1980’s construct that fast losing relevance in the context of a post peak-oil, carbon-conscious future where sustainability is an order of priority. ‘Rationalism’ doesn’t address those issues. Regardless of whether you’re for or against it, it has become dated.

Progressive arguments aside, a new school of conservative leaders like Schwarzenegger, Merkel and Cameron that have clearly come to terms with this. They’ve moved on.

Moving on, No I don’t “seem to be suggesting that American companies will be restricted from importing goods made in countries with lower labour standards than..the USA” and (once again) its not all about “helping poor workers in developing countries” That is the idea that you anticipated & that’s how you are determined to interpret it .

The proposals I referred to involve very basic human rights – eg. the prohibition of slavery, workplace safety (make that workplace survival) the right to organise as well as environmental considerations eg. permanent & fatal damage, major deforestation etc. If protecting local producers from heavily subsidised imports or protecting consumers from toxic and dangerously defective goods is ”protectionism” (which it isn’t) then you will find that the electorate is largely in favour of it.

- Mr Smith

I mentioned Korea in response to your assertion that "‘liberalise’ in itself signifies nothing." Obviously, liberalise does mean something.

I have not disputed the author's assertion that free market economics is 'in retreat' in Australia (though not elsewhere, thankfully). My point is that it should not be.

After several exchanges, I confess to being still unclear about the US proposal to implement "very basic human rights" in third world countries. I don't understand how they can achieve this without imposing trade restrictions.

In my view, the best way to improve living standards for all is to promote free trade. If the US is really concerned about living standards in 3rd world countries, it would open up its agricultural market and abolish farm subsidies. The EU ought to do the same.

Ed-online,

The only obvious thing as far as I can tell is that you have a rhetorical preference for referring to things that you approve of as 'liberalised' and 'free' and those you don't approve of as a "restriction" or "protectionism” etc.

So I take it you don't approve of export subsidies. Then there is some consolation in knowing that there is at least one thing that we agree on & I would extend that idea to all parts of the globe.

I have deliberately refrained from naming the two draft pieces of U.S. legislation because I thought that might identify a separate controversy that would divert this thread even further from its original premise.
I mentioned the Americans merely to acknowledge that there was a precedent for an idea that I was referring to (as well as a tie-in with the exchange rate issue). Beyond that I have already covered that subject (to the point of excess) in previous posts.

I refer you to a quote from the original article “conservative philosopher Francis Fukuyama points out that capitalism is fundamentally built upon trust, because to take part in a market we must believe that others will adhere to the "rules" we play by”.

There is no “free” trade. They all have rules, the WTO & the regional agreements. Its just a matter of what the rules are and where interests lie. Referring to one set of rules as “liberal” & another as “restrictive” means nothing without full & specific context.

On one level I am simply suggesting that the rules need to be consistent or as I said in a previous post (page2) “free trade cannot be unilateral. Free trade concessions need to be reciprocated or they will remain infinitely problematic”.
The failure to provide consistency has seen the free-trade fantasy collapse into permanently stalled negotiations, regional blocs, bilateral deals, and a critcal imbalance of foreign reserves.

- Mr Smith

- Mr Smith