Yabby - actually compulsory superannuation *is* a way of forcing people to save, and is definitely a form of government intervention that libertarian economists would object to on principle. I agree that it is one of the most successful ways in which wealth is equalised in Australia - but note that I was talking about the U.S., which has minimal forced wealth distribution.
It would be interesting to see a thorough analysis comparing the U.S. and Australian situation, and how various economic policies have played out in each nation. No doubt there's been a certain amount of luck involved, and the resources boom has been helpful (then again - surely America has just as much resources, so why isn't it benefitting?), but ultimately a significant amount of the difference comes down to the degree to which free markets and free trade have been allowed to "run amok".

Country Gal - just because we don't understand exactly how the human body works doesn't mean we can't make useful predictions about it: like how its temperature will go up when it gets an infection. Likewise, we know that the Earth's atmosphere will heat up due to the extra CO2 in the atmosphere due to simple physics: we can measure the amount solar irradiation entering the atmosphere, and the amount leaving, and observe that the former is essentially steady (i.e. the sun isn't getting brighter), while the latter is slowly decreasing (i.e. the atmosphere is trapping more and more of the sun's heat). Now, it's conceivable that the degree to which this occurs is much smaller than most of the official predictions, but the evidence so far would suggest the opposite. I have to ask though, at what point would you be convinced enough that global warming was largely anthropogenic that you would feel actions to prevent it were worthwhile?

(Sorry to get off topic!)

Yabby and Demos.."grrrrr" :)

good grief.. you blokes (specially Yabbs) proved one thing "Car park politics rule"

Yabby wants his affordable wide screen and Demos berates me for 'trying to make sense of scripture' ? what a pair of whacko's :)
(I suppose CJ Morgan is going to leap on this saying "naaaaah..you DO abuse people")

Yabby says.

"China has been really beneficial to Australian consumers."

BENEFICIAL ? great scott man.. the cotton of America's south was provided at 'beneficial' prices because of the sweat of black slaves.

But Yabby..if you were an employee of the car parts factories which closed last year and the jobs went to China, and you now you exist on welfare...do those cheap prices really seem cheap ?

"BD wants his widgets protected from China."

YOU BET I DO! I don't like the idea of going down the financial gurgler because some dictator in China refuses to pay his workers decent wages.
You are simply furthering the immoral slave based aspects of Western prosperity.

"So best to let him do something
that people actually want, at a globally competitive price."

*slap*.. I AM exporting... never as much as now... and I beat the Chinese. My products are now being used world wide in Oil fields.

It's not always about 'price'...its often about 'relationship'.

actually, bd, i want your widgets protected too. but protection needs a plan, and an underlying view of society that doesn't exist in australia.

if you protect one, you must protect all. it's called 'fair play' in some parts of the world. if you call on society to protect your widgets, bd, you have to be prepared to accept society's protection of others, even if they are protected against you.

society can only protect you if it decides to accept more expensive widgets, even more expensive and inferior widgets. this can only happen in a cohesive society, where the welfare of the weakest is more important than the luxury of the rich, or even the comfort of the middle class. oz is not like that, the middle class will sell-out the strugglers for a cheap tv and a cd in their car.

so no protection for the weakest, and no protection for you bd. that's why the real christians were communists, bd. but you're very selective about your scripture, i suspect.

"I AM exporting... never as much as now... and I beat the Chinese. My products are now being used
world wide in Oil fields."

Ah BD, you make my point for me! Take a look around, heaps of
companies are beating the Chinese, not everything is based on price.
In fact, 5000$ Hermes handbags, 10000$ Rolex watches etc, are
selling like hotcakes in China, despite the fakes. Selling status
is big business!

Forget the plasma for once. Cheap clothes, cheap powertools, etc,
they benefit the poor the most! No more lazy Melbourne club
monopolies either, who took money from the poor to give to the
rich. Globalisation benefits consumers and we are all consumers.

Denzil, I tend to separate standard of living and quality of
life. To me economics is about standard of living, quality of
life is another story. I don't agree that people should want to
always become wealthier, but look around you, they buy lottery
tickets, they do.

I'd stick to agriculture as your answer. Its the most hotly debated
trade issue at any international trade talks, as agriculture remains
the most protected global industry, with the most damage to the
third world as well as to first world taxpayers. No point saying
Africans are poor, if their products are banned for import.
No wonder. The EU is waking up to that, finally after all these
years

I'm with Yabby on this, Denzil.

There is an absolute mass of material on the impacts of various levels of protectionism in agriculture, from the earliest butter mountains and wine lakes of the EEC (as it was) to the impact of GM and other fear-related causes.

If you have to pick one, this is the one to pick.

And shame on you Boaz, to boast about your sales successes and simultaneously demand tariff protection! Particularly on the specious grounds that you choose - slave labour.

>>You are simply furthering the immoral slave based aspects of Western prosperity.<<

From which, you need to add, you acquired your own prosperity in the first place.

Unconscionable.

I agree with posters when saying protection of food and agriculture does most harm.
If a society is considered third world its agriculture is probably the most relied on to advance their society toward being self sustaining.

My experience of protection was paper manufacture, paper made in Australia was sold at as little as one third of the price I paid in Australia. Importing printing paper had tarifs applied here that sent many printers broke. Publishes were able to have books printed O/S in four colours and paid no import duties when imported here, I had to pay perhaps 50% duty on plain paper.
All this to develop a paper mill in Tassie. We now cut trees down and we cry for their loss, do we still make paper in Australia? I know we now export pulp so that it be can sent back to us as paper.
Regrets I have few, I now read books that if printed in Australia I could not afford.
I believe everyone loses when tarifs are applied without a sunset clause, if an industry is not viable at a certain point only distortion of markets occur so enabling more "legal" corruption.
Food needs to be tarif free particularly in a world suffering water shortages, the exception is subsidised food, which only encourages corruption by the powers of industry.
fluff4