As a lefty, I am surprised that I seem to be the only one so far agreeing with Nicholas's idea of optimum tariff levels.

I take it that everyone's argument is that all forms of support for domestic industry including tariffs, susidies, grants, quarrantine etc should be removed as they constitute protectionist interference and all industry be subject to the unfettered market.

Perhaps someone could compile and post a list of things we can produce at least as cheaply as manufacturers in rice bowl countries - some of whom, incidently, maintain 10%+ tariffs themselves - and explain just how those industries will survive against such an onslaught. Or perhaps we should just give up doing anything for ourselves and concentrate on digging up rocks and growing things.

Whoops! Qaurrantine regulations constitute protectionist interference - they should go as well. But an entire primary produce industry in my region was COMPLETELY DESTROYED in a rare example of quarrantine failure where infected plant material was successfully smuggled in from overseas. Never mind, I'm sure imported fruit would have been cheaper for the consumer anyway - wouldn't it? But I digress.....

The point is, if domestic industries cannot stand up to the near-impossible odds of competing against massive foreign output and super-cheap labour, do we allow it all to die and make ourselves totally dependent on offshore production in the name of ever cheaper consumption goods?

Well Billie, if it is so well-known perhaps you could use your allocation of 350 words to put a few equations down or references. It doesn't pass the smell test to me, unless what the equations say is that every product ought to be about 5% more expensive than it is (to adopt Nicholas's 5% tariff figure). In which case perhaps we should be looking for indirect rather than direct benefits in the last 5% - things like efficiency in the economy - the costs of collecting a 5% tariff must be huge, plus the potential flow-on costs of persuading everyone who doesn't get a tariff benefit for their industry that they should sit by while someone else does.

There is more to life than econometrics. Indeed, some would suggest that econometrics isn't really life at all!

Can I suggest we stop obfuscating and call a spade a spade. That a "tariff" is a tax. That is not "the government" supporting the industry, but taxpayers, ie YOU.

Can I suggest we make this tax visible. So when we buy a new Mazda, Holden Barina etc, we get a separate impost and say, this is to keep Australia's shrinking (17% of sales at last count) car industry in business producing cars the public (less than a quarter are bought by individuals). I wonder how long this surcharge would be tolerated?

The invisible costs including for all the rural props are not visible and hence continue. Time for some transparency in our economy.

Yes a tariff could be regarded as a kind of a tax - one that can be legally avoided by buying Australian. Did you miss coming to the conclusion that this would be the core purpose of it? To allow domestic production to compete - actually just to exist - in a market dominated by giants with access to very cheap labour.

Doesn't it seem strange that an industry that has been here 40 odd years and would know the local market better than anyone else simply refuses to make and sell the cars that it knows people want to buy? Are we to take it that our local manufacturers are smart enought to make big cars but too dumb to make smaller cars for which there is a bigger market? Perhaps tariffs have come down so far already that it is already unviable to try and compete with the importing of smaller, more fuel efficient cars wich no doubt cost foreign exporters less to bring here than big cars and have a higher turnover.

"The invisible costs including for all the rural props are not visible"

Not sure what you're insinuating here - are you suggesting that quarrantine be removed as "protectionist interference" for the rural sector? If you are, you have missed the part of my post about complete destruction of an industry. You are coming accross as one who believes that the right to the absolute cheapest consumption goods possible trumps any and all negative side effects for communities and the nation itself.

Surely there is only one criterion applicable, that of the well-being of society? Surely it is not one of preservation, but of flexibility to use our resources to best advantage. Havent we shown that rigidities ossify? (For example look at the transformation of say ICI to Orica to becoming an international service company. ICI once enjoyed tax (ie.tariff) benefits of more than 60%)

Reducing our disposable income to prop up the three remaining car plants ossifies. That tax (say $12,000 collected for every single car made in Australia) REDUCES your well-being. These Oz cars are tired technology fuel guzzlers and so not surprisingly just one-quarter of the 17 per cent (ie. 4 per cent) are bought by private individuals. The patient is dying and politicians are hoping its death can be deferred to the next political cycle(Howard's govt even gave $50m to make a V8 engine). Now is a good time for death with labour shortages in Qld and WA.

Australia could rebadge itself into a progressive country to match its Olympic prowess. We could operate with one car plant producing extraordinary cars. Holding on serves no-one - it costs every Australian insidiously on EVERY car sold, even second hand.

The tax serves only politicians to create opportunities for a rah rah rah of Bilateral Free Trade Agreements. The tax serves politicians and not you!

I agree that the wellbeing of society is the criterion here. However, that is where our agreement ends because there comes a point where chasing ever cheaper consumption goods at any cost ceases to enhance the overall wellbeing of society and may even begin to damage it.

The automotive tariff does not reduce your wellbeing. You only pay it when you buy an imported car - do you buy a car with every basket of groceries?

Personally, I don't think paying an extra $2000 or so for something I might only buy once every 10 years in order to maintain the survival of 65 000 highly skilled Aussie jobs is hurting mine or anyone else's wellbeing. Conversely though, being willing to wipe out all these jobs and the industry just so I could buy a commodity slightly cheaper demonstrates zero concern for the wellbeing of our society - the argument that a local industry and jobs must go in order that consumers can purchase slightly cheaper cars smacks of pure avarice, not concern for society.

In any case, think longer term. What will it cost the nation in unemployment benefits? (not all of these people will secure new jobs and when the resource boom up here winds down the demand will drop further). And what makes you certain you will continue to pay less in the long term, having destroyed all local competition?

Reducing this nation to the state of a quarry for the sake of an ideaology is a stupid idea.