*A cop out.*

No cop out Keith, more like my response to what I think is basically
a troll, who likes arguing for the sake of it, not because he is
convinced of his own argument, which he has never thought through.

You are free to write your own article on the topic, if you are
so convinced of it. IMHO anyone with any understanding of economics,
would think you were basically joking, or just a little nuts.

Resource developments don't just happen, companies invest 10s of
billions of $ to bring them onstream. If you then wanted to restrict
exports with large taxes, to suit your political agenda, they
would take their money and run. Africa and much of the third world
are full of resources, undeveloped because companies don't trust
the Govts. So they don't invest. The same would happen here.

So what if unemployment increases in the short term? What we have
been down to is largely the unemployable. Australians choose to
work, they don't have to work. When all those jobs now being done
by new migrants, 457 workers and unfilled positions are snapped up,
then we can get serious about unemployment. Meantime much
of our infrastructure is run down in Australia, so its a great time
to use those people to rebuild some of it.

The biggest beneficiaries of cheap Chinese t-shirts and other
consumer goods, is in fact consumers. If the poor had to pay
alot more for Australian made clothes, due to higher labour costs,
the poor would be the first to see their standard of living drop.

The very fact that China and India have a couple of billion
people who want to join the middle class, own new homes, new cars,
etc, will underpin the price of resources in the longer term.

Short term anything can happen, as we see with the price of oil.
All that low oil prices will achieve is less investment in new
developments, so when demand increases once again and lead times
for new projects can take 5-10 years, prices will skyrocket once
again.

Yep a cop out followed up with the usual further personal abuse when your positions are questioned and fanciful arguments totally debunked.

Why do you always follow my lead. I gave you a suggestion that you could write an article if you had insufficient space here, and you you respond by asking me to do the same. I don't need too. I understand my positions and have thought through the various senarios and offered an opinion. You however responded with wild generalisations simplistic attempted explanations and personal criticisms. I respond to that with a thorough debunking of your ... uhmmmm ... theories.

Why don't you answer the questions I've already posed instead of going off on another tangent with another argument that can be simply and easily debunked.

The simple argument about building or repairing infrustructure is going down that road doesn't produce wealth.

Oh and would you be so kind as to explain your definition of a 'Banana Republic'?

You simply cannot compare politically stable Australia even with a tax on exports to the politically unstable, corrupt, war-mongering, tribal regimes in many countries in Africa. To do so ignores the reality that Australia has a history of being able to adapt to major change with little disruption ... among other basic cultural norms which highlight our differences.

*The simple argument about building or repairing infrastructure is going down that road doesn't
produce wealth.*

Ah Keith, so a wealthy, efficient nation, does not require good roads, railways,
ports, communications, power, water etc.?

Go and tell that to those exporters who are battling to move their cargoes to
the coast, to create export Dollars! Go and tell people in a wealthy nation,
that it does not matter if their bridges are collapsing. Keith, you just
have to be a troll, wasting everyone’s time.

*I
understand my positions and have thought through the various senarios and offered an opinion.*

Keith, I remind you that my position concurs with what most economists are saying,
ie. that market economics and globalisation ultimately benefit Australians, including the poor, by increasing their standard of living. It is your opinion that
your voodoo economics would be better then what we have. You are making the
assertion, you explain it. You will need more then a bit of wild speculation to
assert your claims and have anyone take any notice. Otherwise you will
be dismissed as yet another internet crank, best to be ignored, wasting everyone’s
time.

God you are hopeless.

My point was that infrustructure doesn't produce wealth. I did not claim it did not assist with the movement or handling of the material wealth others created.

Comprrrrrrhension skills of a manic.

And once again the 'strawman argument' from 'snip snip whoosh'.

Lets deal with your latest claim :
'I remind you that my position concurs with what most economists are saying, ie. that market economics and globalisation ultimately benefit Australians, including the poor, by increasing their standard of living.'

Firstly "You haven't explained why and how my suggestions would be 'the quickest way to crash our standard of living, crash the Australian peso and turn us into a bankrupt banana republic.'"
So you haven't actually explained nor justified your .... uhmmmm theories.
and
I know of no economist who has dismissed my suggestion as likely to turn Australia into your (undefined) banana republic.
Until that happens laddie you out there all on you pat malone with nobody suporting your previous theories and how they are incorporated into your now newly aped view.

And secondly I've never advocated abandoning market economics nor globalisation nor even an introduction of tarrifs. I've suggested a federal tax on some exports ... in regard to minerals and coal that simply means an extra impost over and above the existing state royalties on those products. Which in Queensland were recently doubled.

So yet again you've retreated to your usual pointless strawman argument. Why do you bother? ... you're only showing yourself as bumptious and pompus.

*I did not claim it did not assist with the movement or handling of the material wealth others created.*

In that case Keith, it is clearly required as part of wealth
creation in a modern economy. Recessions are a great time to
bring it up to scratch, which was my suggestion.

*I know of no economist who has dismissed my suggestion as likely to turn Australia into your (undefined) banana republic.*

Err I don't think that all those economists read your every word
on OLO Keith :)

*And secondly I've never advocated abandoning market economics nor globalisation *

No, what you suggested was that Govts use exports as a weapon
to manipulate trade, to try and force more production of t shirts
and other things in Australia. That is hardly market economics,
more like a crazy Govt out of control.

Investors, lenders would run like hell, leaving you with your
banana republic and all which that entails. Go and ask Argentina,
they just tried your hairbrain scheme and failed.

Ahhh now for todays comic relief.

So accouding to your logic you think royalties might cause us to become your, sill undefined, banana republic?

Uhmmmm how much of world share of iron ore or coal does Argentina have and what are their % share of world exports?

Try to answer ... but I know you won't and we'll see you divert into another hairbrained strawman argument.