I can't believe anyone would actually call for Kevin Rudd to host a regional gabfest on the economic and financial crisis.

Hasn't the idiot done enough damage as it is? The best we could hope for from Kevin Rudd is that he shut up and do nothing. The result would be better than anything else he could possibly acheive from his position.

As for the IMF, it should be abolished, not 'strengthened'.

What amazes me about these calls for more incompetent meddling in economic affairs by government is the bland assumption, without basis in evidence or reason, that governments *can* allocate resources "in an efficient and effective manner."

Oh yeah? How? How *exactly* do they do it? Answer please? They displace economic calculation in terms of profit and loss, and *then* how do they do it?

Of course, if it's true, why not just abolish private property and human freedom altogether, since government can do so much better without the need for economic calculation?

"No no" say the socialists, "That would be socialism! What we have in mind is a bit more 'progressive' meddling by the geniuses of economic policy whose past meddling has got *nothing to do* with the current crisis."

Unfortunately, forced redistributions cannot create net wealth. But since magic doesn't exist, forced redistributions are all government has to offer.

It's just as well the population believes in magic pudding, and the high priests of government-funded economics departments are happy to lead the cheer-squad for the god-king and his magical printing press.

Is this an application for the PM Rudd fanclub? I saw the note this was previously posted as an ABC item, so drew the obvious conclusion you are having a Geraldine moment, ("we salute you PM" Geraldine Doogue, greatest ABC suck up ever seen).

Or a part of a job application to work on the next 2020 best and brightest of Asia summit?

PM Rudd, who had nothing to do with the strong position Australia was in at the outbreak of the GFC, since he voted against every coalition finance bill his entire parliamentry career. Then was a fiscal conservative, then was against capitalism, having never worked anywhere but in the public service all his life has no idea how economics works.

Do you think our neighbours are unaware of the facts? That they would consider being talked down to by this self absorbed hypocrit? That they have something to learn from a pompous nasty little man, who has only mastered one art, populism?

If this was an honest government, they would give credit, regularly, to the people who put Australia in this position, instead they play childish politics at a time when they could be great. Instead of focusing on the problem, they continue to act as if they are in opposition and spend more time and energy attacking the coalition.

You mention the IMF, the same IMF who lectured everyone a year and a half ago that Iceland was a standout example of how to run a country fiscally? Iceland is now a basketcase and has just elected a socialist government, what a shambles - and this IMF is who our government goes to for advice, and positively purrs when they give the ALP a pat on the head.

What a mess will be left for future generations to clean up, once these fools are removed.

Kevin Rudd should not host a regional forum re: the global economic crisis. Rather he should introduce labour intensive projects here at home with local consumption for goods produced at home by small and medium businesses predominately. Protection against foreign made goods should be introduced and international trade agreements broken. 'Free' trade doesn't work.
An Australian Development Bank, along the lines of the formerly government owned Commonwealth Bank's Development Bank arm should be reintroduced under full Commonwealth Government control. This can finance and guarantee jobs and home industries. It will take a good 10 or 15 years to re-establish home industries for goods and services to guarantee full employment. It is a must. Say NO to foreign control of Australia.

Webby, what you are arguing, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we as a society would be better off if we restricted trade with other countries, as this would have the effect that we would produce the relevant goods here, and have all the benefits, including the profit that would otherwise be expatriated. Is that a fair representation of your argument?

So if what you're saying is correct, then for the same reasons it would be correct that the people of an individual State within the Commonwealth would be better off if they restricted trade with the people of other States? And for exactly the same reason, the people of a district within a State would be better off if they restricted trade with the people of other districts within that State?

Reduced to its absurdity, we would all be better off if social co-operation were forcibly abolished, and we all worked in isolation.

Are you not forced by your line of reasoning to that conclusion, and if not, why not?

The principle underlying all human society is the division of labour, which is mutually advantageous. Its advantages follow because labour in co-operation is more productive than labour in isolation. Its advantages have nothing to do with lines arbitrarily drawn on maps by protection rackets, whether they are illegal and called by the name of pirates, or illegal and called by the name of governments.

Wing,re: your first paragraph, absolutely correct.

re: your second paragraph, your reductio ad absurdum can be established in your ommission to mention Federal taxation of economic activity within all the States that benefit the Federal coffers and hence all of us. No atomisation to the extreme individual level,as you are suggesting to me, ever arises.
Taxation collection is most important and taxes at all tiers of government would benefit.

Sovereign nation states and their governments can and should trade to the extent of inconsistencies eg lack of a resource or good or service expertise however, notwithstanding that, as far as is necessary each nation can and should equip itself and its people both public and private to manufacture and to also develop expertise to the extent necessary to maintain control over foreign debt, balance of payments issues, value of the currency, full employment.

Governments acting to protect sovereignity and peoples within the nation who work for this democratically could never be "pirates". One cannot be a pirate by controlling one's own natural resources if they are one's own. Pirating involves taking from others outside of oneself. One cannot be a robber of oneself, only of others.

Webby
"your reductio ad absurdum can be established in your ommission to mention Federal taxation of economic activity within all the States that benefit the Federal coffers and hence all of us."

Three questions:
1. So putting aside taxation (I’ll come to that later), it follows from your line of reasoning that it would in general be beneficial to human beings to restrict the voluntary exchange of goods and services with others, if not why not?

"Governments acting to protect sovereignity and peoples within the nation who work for this democratically could never be "pirates"."

2. If governments and people were doing it *non-democratically*, then the forcible taking of property by A from B to re-distribute to A or C, then the distinction between piracy and taxation would be… what?

"One cannot be a pirate by controlling one's own natural resources if they are one's own. Pirating involves taking from others outside of oneself."

3. And the property taken by governments through taxation belongs to the owner? Apart from majority opinion, the difference between democratic taxation and non-democratic piracy is...?

Wing

Three answers:
1. yes, where goods and services can be done locally so as to support full employment/reduce foriegn debt/borrowing and contribute to self reliqance- yes. Where goods and services cannot be made here in Oz due to lack of a resource or expertise then to that extent let in the imports. Restrictions are only to be done TO THE EXTENT of fullemployment etc as mentioned.This is flexible and non ideological and thus common sense and very human. To much humanity there for many economists and fellow travellers of the major bimbo media I'm afraid Wing.
2. I only work from a democratic framework Wing, as I'm sure you do too, and thus the non-democratic approach is never acceptable. In any case whter there are democratic or undemocratic regimes, the deamnds of justice must be the only way to live in terms of types and levels of taxation. Regressive taxes and tax rates that are exhorbitant are unjust and can never be countenanced. The GST has to go. Thatcher's poll tax had to go and did go because it would have hurt the ordinary working people the most.

3. What are you talking about Wing? I am opposed to governments taking anyone's property unless of course minerals and resources are found on the land in which case govts have a right to take it for the common good however govts must, in justice, pay the former owner a proper price and royalties I would say so that everyone is kept happy. What do you think Wing?