In really the only thing we could do is to increase in high degree the high income and use these money partly for local poor people and partly for a world organization which help people in needs worldwide.
I prefer a law which does not leave any hole to avoid to pay the high tax for the high incomes.
How high? 50-60-70-80-90% of the annual personal income! Our goal should be to encourage the investements for products, services productivity, research,etc BUT NOT FOR PERSONAL USE, NOT WEAST ON LUXUR THINGS.
We need to put special high taxes on luxur products and services and to block the high income persons to weast their wealth.
We need the business-men, we respect and love them but WE WANT WHAT THEY OFFER, WHAT THEY CREATE TO BENEFIT NOT ONLY THEM BUT THE WHOLE SOCIETY.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

There are still a lot of people who really believe that the consumer benefits when factories go offshore or we allow any old product to enter our shores without any protection for local industry, both economically and biologically (risks of introducing new diseases and pests and toxic chemical treatments).

The profits go up for the shareholders and the salary packages for CEOs and board members increase but the price of the goods ostensibly remain the same.

I remember buying tin homebrand tomato paste in the days when it was Australian made using Aussie tomatoes. Suddenly the label changed to show it was now made in China with Chinese tomatoes. Yes you guessed it...the price was the same as before.

This has happened to many products and the notion that by somehow introducing tariffs threatens competition to the detriment of consumers is seriously flawed.

It also means that if you destroy a local industry and the imported products are the only choice, competition has all but been destroyed and unemployment is higher - nothing gained. I cannot believe that we are handing over our food, water and energy security to overseas interests in many cases.

*This has happened to many products and the notion that by somehow introducing tariffs threatens competition to the detriment of consumers is seriously flawed.*

Nonsense Pelican. Tariffs will simply increase the cost of imports,
which means that locals can screw the consumer by a similar amount.

There is ample evidence that consumers are the largest beneficiaries
of low tariffs.

*I remember buying tin homebrand tomato paste in the days when it was Australian made using Aussie tomatoes.*

Today you simply have more choice. You have Australian canned
tomatoes, Italian canned tomatoes, etc. You choose, you pay
accordingly.

*It also means that if you destroy a local industry and the imported products are the only choice, competition has all but been destroyed and unemployment is higher - nothing gained. *

Once again nonsense. As there are so many more manufacturers,
in so many countries.

I buy tinned grapefruit segments from Swaziland, guavas from
South Africa, asparagus from Peru, berries from the USA. I do
not buy food from China lol.

Now where are all these unemployed? Today the unemployment rate
is 5%, back in the days of high tariffs it was often double that.

Fact is that business and industry are always changing. New ones
open, some old one close.

Ok, so some people don't like change, especially as they get older.

Your age is showing Pelican :)

.

I think from past comments you have made Yabby I am younger than you by quite a bit. ;)

Trouble is this is not really change for me although there was some cross over period when in my most formative years saw a rise in free markets and a reduction in protectionism.

How can we fix these problems yabby and protect our own industry in terms of employment and biosecurity issues? For jobs we gain through exports we also lose locally and if other nations become more protectionist we may end up the poor cousin.

I am not being smart but would like to weigh up the arguments on both sides. Would you concede that some limited protectionism may at times be necessary even if you don't condone it overall?

Ah Pelican, in years I am in my mid 50s. You might well be
younger in years, but perhaps not in mindset :)

I have spent my life involved with thinking laterally, innovation
and change. Everything I've just about ever done, some people
have stood back and claimed "this guy is nuts". When things worked
out, they then said "this guy is lucky". Now alot of them stand
back and say " based on his record of things working out, we
take notice of his judgement, but he still confuses us". So be it :)

Today there was a great story on Landline, about a women in
Queensland, who looked at sugar in a different way. Her kind of
entrepreneurship is where Australia's future lies, not in competing
to make toasters with the Chinese.

There are two sides to this debate, that of the consumer and that
of the worker.

If the laws that you want to introduce, mean that consumers are
worse off, so be it. Accept that what you are promoting, will lead
to a lower standard of living for all Australians.

If you want, what can in international terms, only be described
as a mollycoddled, archaic and inflexible labour market, so be it,
Australians will pay a heavy price, in terms of lower standard of
living.

Consumers vote every day on these things. They can choose to buy
Australian products and pay a higher price for them, to cover all
those extra costs. Fact is that most vote with their wallets.

Given our inflexible industrial laws, fewer entrepreneurs will want
to create jobs in Australia. Fair enough, why should they bother?

We are left doing the things where we have a comparative advantage,
where we are innovative and can automate, such as farming and mining.

Once again, in secondary processing we will have to do things where
we have a comparative advantage, such as cheap primary products,
cheap energy, cheap land, intellectual property etc.

Fact is that our trade deficit is not bad at all, our current account
is the problem, due to lack of savings.

Yabby,
I have some concerns with your idea of choice. In truth the choice stops with the corporations.

The supermarkets (we have the most concentrated market in the world) make their choices that dictate *our* options. They choose the products on the basis of *their* profitability.
The decision to stock Asian tomatoes or Aussie has more to do with and how much more profit *the super market* can make by importing cheaper tomatoes sauces. Pricing it at the same or a few cents less than the local product is simply marketing manipulation (positioning) to smooth the transition to a more profitable source (marketing 101). Then watch the price climb.

Then there is size corruption of the market what pressure other manufacturers can exert i.e. One brand of rechargeable battery turned up in a major it was more powerful, lasted longer and involved newer technology (better) even cheaper. Yet it was dropped because the big 3 offered the chain a deal bought the floor space. Where's the positive market value in that? Our choice was sacrificed to the big boys regardless of value, better technology more green etc. or the customer.

Aldi & no name are proving choice is not always the prime motivator, it’s price. If you wanted true market choice put both on sale at the same price and compete on quality alone.

Go to shopping centres they have chains who use the Prado effect and the above tactics small (choice and lesser margin) retailers come and go because they don’t have the clout and the rents, till take by the centre owners squeezes them out.

As for the equating a lesser life style to losing the choice for overseas products, think again life style for the majority of Ausies will inevitably take a battering. Among the reasons are World Climate Change (anthropomorphic or natural), world population, and that the world’s resources are finite. For those reason among many I would like Aust to be self sufficient in all its *needs*. And exporting surpluses.