Gilbert "....the ideals of Gilbert, here are pure protectionism...." says Col Rouge, and that is indeed the truth. I am suggesting that we need to find a balance between leaving our communities open to trade and protecting the local economies of those communites. With this balance in mind, I'm in favour of protecting our communities down to the neighbourhood scale.

The balance is an economic one Gilbert,

People who produce nothing of value have no means to buy anything, thus they are forced, by circumstance, to become more self reliant and develop their own local economy.

But pretending that local manufacture is the be all and end all is to deny the economies of scale which enable large producers to supply at better delivered cost than local producers.
I am by nature a solid supporter of devolution and local investment versus both centralised authority/power and centralised production of anything but I see no merit in pretending that protecting any local activity against a distant competition produces any overall net benefit .

It clearly does not.

It just imposes additional price burdens on the local consumers of goods and services for those goods and services whilst simultaneously tending to discourage innovation and product/service development.

leading to the sort of moribund, economic and social stagnation experienced in UK in 1970s

Gilbert “Actually, if you have a look at Bob Katter's website... protectionism may have just become the flavour of the month.”

Bob Katter is a reneged “national”, unable to support or work with his political colleagues.
He promotes his own parochial farming interests, at the expense of everyone else. That is why he is an independent and that is why his electorate elected him.

But independents, when they make deals, tend to sell their soul for the short term gains of the moment.

I predict Katter will never support labor and he will fall into line with the Coalition which he used to be part of... as for the rest – if he is their independent leader, they will follow him.....

Of course, the solitary green will run with the rat-pack

Pericles, Perhaps I did get a bit ahead of myself suggesting that we could create a 'trully awesome' system of government. Realistically, I think that an ideal government is about as possible as ideal beauty or ideal smelling armpits.

....but I do think that we can at least hope for what is relatively awesome rather than relatively bad. Assuming that all is bad and failing to advocate for what is better, you are helping to condemn us all to a crappier, smellier, more ugly future.

If you have no hope, or no vision, you could at least do us the favour of keeping quiet. At the risk of repeating myself, your cynicism about the possibilities of governance appears to spring from your "....'cult of the individual' version of human nature, (separate, self-interested and competitive)...."

Col, you come late to this discussion!

I refer you to my comment of the 18th aug at 11.57pm

...and what about, "Encouraging diversity and local self-reliance is obviously a significant shift away from our current focus on promoting specialization (which supports concentration of ownership ie big business ahead of small) and reliance on exports. I suggest, however, that it is a shift that we need to make." (Me - 16/8)

Pelican
Subsidies and handouts do not come from some kind of calculation of whether they are socially beneficial or not, compared to their costs. They come from the political process. Politicians, to get marginal votes, need to pay bribes of whatever it takes. The process is completely arbitrary. That's why we've got, for example, publicly funded velodromes but not publicly funded surfing holidays. There's no reason in principle why it couldn't be the other way around.

GH
"As I've tried to show, the theory behind it is wrong, or at least it is only half right."

I think your demonstration of this consists, correct me if I"m wrong, of showing that economic calculation only takes in those things exchanged against money. It does not encompass so-called 'externalities'.

But that does not show that the theory is half right. All other alternatives will have exactly the same problem *and* will lack the faculty of economic calculation, and will therefore be worse.

That is why you have ignored answering the questions below because they disprove you:

1. What transactions would not be caught in the exceptions to free trade that you argue for?
2. Who is “we”?
3. Please define “balance”
4. How would any policy to achieve balance avoid catching transactions that do not come within its definition?

Examinator
What next? Separate logic for Jews and blacks?

The value of gold is not in the gold itself. It's in the human valuation of gold. The gold that is in other galaxies doesn't have a "real" or "true" value. It has a value of nothing, because humans can't use it.

Similarly, there is no "real" or "true" value of production, that is outside human valuations of production. You are just spouting garbled Marxism which was already garbled to begin with. The value of anything is in the value that humans put on it, which can only be known by their actions, not their words.

Look come on, you protectionists have been roundly thrashed. Do the decent thing and concede defeat so I can go on my publicly-funded surfing holiday.

*"Encouraging diversity and local self-reliance is obviously a significant shift away from our current focus on promoting specialization (which supports concentration of ownership ie big business ahead of small)*

Gilbert, you show no good reasons why the market and consumers
cannot sort that out and decide for themselves. Each has their
niche and role to play. So your interfering tariffs are for
no good reason that you can justify.

Fact is that as technology becomes more complex and specialised, so
will production. That often involves incredibly large fixed
infrastructure costs, which it makes no good reason to try to
replicate. So the net effect of your policy would be that
the cost of consumer goods would skyrocket, quality would go
downhill and peoples standard of living would drop. That might
be your goal, but I doubt if too many Australians share it with
you.

*If you have no hope, or no vision, you could at least do us the favour of keeping quiet.*

Err hang on. We need the widsom of rational thinkers like Pericles
to stop some of you young dreaming kids from wrecking the
place, even if your claimed intentions are well meant

Peter Hume,

"I think your demonstration of this consists, correct me if I"m wrong, of showing that economic calculation only takes in those things exchanged against money. It does not encompass so-called 'externalities'."

I am saying that comparative advantage ignores costs associated with adapting the society's productive capacity so that it is doing what it is relatively best at. This is a flaw in the applicability of the maths in the theory to real life. Because of this it is quite possible that a negative social/environmental outcome could result even if greater efficiency is achieved in production. I suppose that is what you could call an externality.

I also mentioned another major flaw with the theory, being that it only works if capital is not allowed to cross borders.

I have ignored your questions because you appeared to be asking them without thinking about what I had previously written to you.

"1. What transactions would not be caught in the exceptions to free trade that you argue for?"

Trade is not negative. It facilitates the ability to purchase what is not available locally or what is produced cheaper/better elsewhere (where there is an absolute advantage in production). It also exposes local producers to competition from outside helping to ensure that they are efficient, (part of Smith's invisible hand) and encourages specialization for individuals and regions in producing what they are relatively best at (comparative advantage).

If we pursue these outcomes too far, however, they drain the life out of our communities, (so we don't need or talk to our neighbours etc), undermine our evironment and the democratic process etc. Herman Daly calls a situation where we are attaining economic growth (through either using more resources, increasing efficiency in production or through gaining effeciencies through trade arrangements) but it is costing us more than we are earning 'uneconomic growth'.

Continued…

So what I suggest, in the way of 'balance', is that while we try to gain the advantages that are available through specialization and trade, we do so in the context of first protecting our communities, and in that way encouraging interdependence and diversity within local economies. Balance between specialization and diversity. Balance between openness to trade and protected local economies. Balance between the competitive and cooperative aspects of the economy etc

"2. Who is “we”?"

Let me know where I used the word we inappropriately and I'll try to explain.

"4. How would any policy to achieve balance avoid catching transactions that do not come within its definition?"

How can a cohesive society not reduce personal freedom? How can power not reduce gentleness? My point with these rhetorical questions is to say that openness to trade and a protected community can actually support and nourish one another. But not if either of the extremes is allowed to dominate. Power without gentleness, for example, is just angry.

Hopefully my answers are relevant enough to your questions that you don't just repeat them.