Hello.
I would like to let you all know about a petition you can sign if you would like to see the supermarkets show more support to 100% Australian made and owned companies.

I believe the current situation is out of control with foreign owned and made products having enormous market power.

As an Australian i think its our right to have a fair share of 100% Australian made and owned products because if we don't support our own nobody else will.

We need a fair balance not the current 90% foreign 10% Australian ratio.

People who are interested in showing their support for Australian products are welcome to sign the petition and show the supermarkets that Australians still want to support our own industries.

Thank you


http://www.gopetition.com/petition/41252.html

*We need a fair balance not the current 90% foreign 10% Australian ratio*

Well that is certainly not the case with Australian grown and
manufactured. Supermarkets generally stock both, consumers vote
with their wallets every day.

As to Australians owning food manufacturers etc, it is commonly
super funds (owned by Australian workers) who have flogged off many
food manufacturers to offshore interests, for a quick buck.

That is their choice, but it makes no sense to now complain that
many of these companies are no longer Australian owned.

By attacking supermarkets, you are simply shooting the messenger,
for they carry what customers are prepared to spend money on.

AussieFarmer:

I've happily signed your petition. It's the least I could do. I fully support Australian products in our Supermarkets, fully support our
Aussie Farmers, who are doing it tough, and I fully support Aussie jobs first and foremost!

May I please ask a couple of naive questions?

If it is true that Australian farmers only provide 10% of the country's food needs...

>>We need a fair balance not the current 90% foreign 10% Australian ratio<<

...does this not mean that in order to achieve 100% self-sufficiency, farm output will need to increase tenfold?

Is this physically possible? How will it be achieved?

Or is a "fair balance" perhaps 50%? That's a mere fivefold increase. How can that be achieved?

Or maybe 20% is deemed to be "fair"? By whom? Why 20%? Why would 20% be fair, when 10% is manifestly unfair?

And - just as an afterthought - what will (pick any of the above) do to our cost-of-living?

Or is this all just another round of sloganeering, in its most basic, mindless form?

Because if any such campaign is going to get any traction at all, it will need answers to these, and a host of other more difficult questions. Simply appealing to the lowest common denominator and hoping that no-one will notice the lack of substance is not going to hack it.

It is actually one of the downsides of the web, that it is oh-so-easy to publish, absolutely anything. Regrettably, many seem to take this as licence to scribble on it as they please.

Which gives us stuff like this, with all the intellectual content of graffiti.

*If it is true that Australian farmers only provide 10% of the country's food needs...*

Well no Pericles, its not true, basically intellectual dribble.

Australia still produces far more food then it consumes and
agriculture remains a major exporter. But we export alot
of boatloads of primary products, commonly before they are
turned into high value packages, ready for the shop shelf.

What is true is that alot of local food processing is undertaken
by a handful of global food processors, like Unilever, Kraft,
Nestle, Simplot and Fonterra.

Birds Eye, Vegemite, Pura, etc, have over the years been flogged
off to these companies. But they still process here and use local
ingredients for much of what they produce.

Many of our meatworks have now been sold to the Brazilians. It seems
they are much better at running them and marketing that meat,
then we ever were.

We import alot of niche speciality food products, as anyone can
see in the supermarket isles. They give consumers choice, which is
not a bad thing.

But Australian farmers remain export focussed on the whole, for
that is where most of our production goes.

What we need is more local intelligent food processors like Carmans.
If a Melbourne housewife can be competitive at Coles and Woolies,
so could some others.

I'm over paying $5.99 - $9.99per kilo for a few odd tomatoes, apples, mandarines, (peaches nectarines plums when in season) or oranges which are rotten inside from weeks or months of freezing from 'the fresh food' people or paying $5.99 - $9.99 per kilo from Colds where the meat appears and smells rank.

Choice! Hurray finally! Congratulations farmers, many towns and smaller cities need fresher fruit & veg at realistic prices found in more markets!

AF we try some of us do.
Some buy on price or blindly, but I try.
We need to stop the fraud, the made in Aussie tag on imported stuff tinned here.

No argument here Aussie Farmer. I don't think the 10% figure is correct though, even at my local supermarket most of the fruit and veg is Australian with some seasonal variation during the year. Local produce markets are the best way of ensuring we get good Aussie fruit and veg.

I agree 100% that we should support Aussie farmers first but it is about consumer choice - the trick is to make people understand why it is better to buy Australian and campaign on the long term effects to biosecurity, food security and governance (or provenance).

There is a lot of myth surrounding free trade including the fact that food becomes more affordable or that it increase economic opportunities for poorer countries.

It clearly isn't the case as the link below reveals. Local prices have meant paying more for less than prime cuts of meat within Australia while the best meat is exported.

There are too many fingers in the pie along the way and companies now fully focussed on share prices and short term profits (than sustainability or win-win arrangements). Much of the 'savings' made on exploitation of cheap labour OS are lost to the higher profit goals of those stakeholders.

But there are too many vested interests now in globalisation and free trade, a system that works for the benefit of the few to the detriment of the majority.

Good luck and all the best to you Aussie Farmer.

http://www.tradewatch.org.au/guide/econ_glob.html

*Local prices have meant paying more for less than prime cuts of meat within Australia while the best meat is exported.*

Ah Pelican, you repeat this little furphy, over and over. Fact is
that Aussie consumers have first choice of the best cuts, if they
wish. But if you prefer to buy from a butcher who diddles you,
that is your choice and has little to do with free trade or
globalisation.

Yabby
The only peddling done is that by those with vested self interest - but you are not alone in your beliefs - we are all entitled to a different view. You believe whatever makes you sleep at night.:)

My butcher is the farm gate for the most part so no diddling there just great tasting tender grass fed meat not finished with grain fed at the end of the production line.

*My butcher is the farm gate for the most part so no diddling there just great tasting tender grass fed meat not finished with grain fed at the end of the production line.*

Pelican, you have just made my point for me. You are free to buy
the best beef, in fact any beef of your choosing, without all the
best bits being shipped overseas and you left with lower quality.

That was my point all along.

But no doubt you'll quote the same mantra on another thread :)

I shall just have to remind you once again.

Yabby you are not looking at the big picture. What I can or you can afford to buy or not buy does not do much for Australian agriculture and local food security/safety.

What does the poorest consumer in the developing world have to choose when their food supplies are exported to make a buck while the rise in prices affects the ability of locals to consume their own produce. The belief in the idea that trickle down effect is always present in these arrangements is naive.

Do me a favour and start reading some of the various free trade literature out there and some of the negative aspects of the dictatorship approach of FTAs to at least understand where some of the concerns are coming from (I don't expect a complete re-evaluation of your stance). These concerns are not just plucked out of the ether and clearly Aussie farmers are also angry and have been for a long time on a number of issues including FTAs, GMO, foreign ownership, subsidies etc.

Not everyone will agree, some will always remain convinced that the status quo is perfect and the dictatorial approach to FT is appropriate. I for one hope reason and goodwill prevail.

Pelican, you have seemingly been working in Canberra for too long.

I make one precise point of many which I could have made, to prove
your claim wrong. In response, I get a heap of generalised wha wha.

Now I could go through point for point and prove many wrong. But
even on this obvious point, staring you in the face, you will not
concede that you are wrong.

Now I repeat again, not all the best meat is sent overseas.
Australians have first pick of the best meat, if they wish.

Pelican, forget the wha wha and come clean. Concede defeat on
this point, your claim was wrong.

What claim Yabby. You are making wha wha on a claim but fail to say which one.

I don't think your views will ever change Yabby, I don't expect them to and I suspect if there was even an inkling of doubt in your mind over some of the FT fallacies you would not concede it. However, out of interest you might be interested in reading outside your usual diet and digest some of the problems inherent in FT, hence the link previously. Go on, I know you can do it. :)

PS. I have not only lived in Canberra during my life but methinks you need to get out of the backblocks of rural WA for a little while.

*Local prices have meant paying more for less than prime cuts of meat within Australia while the best meat is exported. *

The above was your claim, Pelican.

Thanks Yabby, you did not state which claim previously - I am alas not a mind reader.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/australia-should-look-to-its-food-security-before-all-the-farm-is-sold-20101013-16jyw.html?comments=67

http://www.nff.org.au/commodities-sheep-meat.html

According to the NFF 50% of sheep meat is exported - do you really think it would be the worst meat that would be sent offshore in a global market? If you look at meat exporter websites (like Floreat) you will see they claim to export only the best meat.

I have been around long enough to see the quality of meat go down but the prices go up. Lamb, mince and sausages used to be the cheap meat not so now and the best meat goes OS - the pressures of the international market demand it. You said yourself not so long ago "why shouldn't the US consumer have access to the best Aussie meat".

Since I have been buying meat the only meat that reduced in price is chicken. It used to be a delicacy or a treat when I was a kid - maybe that was just us but I suspect not.

Have a trawl through this and take your FT hat off for one minute.

http://www.tradewatch.org.au/

*Thanks Yabby, you did not state which claim previously - I am alas not a mind reader.*

Pelican, I stated exactly the same point, on December 14th, if you
check. You missed it, it seems. Nothing to do with reading minds.

As to your tradewatch website, that would be akin to going to
the Vatican website, to find out bad things about the church. Your
site is hardly unbiased. I try to find less biased and more
intelligent sources, for my information.

*If you look at meat exporter websites (like Floreat) you will see they claim to export only the best meat.*

They are flogging meat dear. They are hardly going to write, that
they will be sending you crap.

Fact is sheep are cut up into a myriad of cuts, all go in different
directions, to the best paying market. The Japanese usually buy
shoulders, the Chinese and South Africans buy things like flaps
or ribs, cos they are cheap and we don't eat that stuff.

The point of it is this: There are many local only butchers, they
have access to the best cattle and lambs, selling their meat only
in Australia. The Australian public can buy from them if they wish.
So your claim was a furphy, that was my point.

*I have been around long enough to see the quality of meat go down but the prices go up.*

Yet all the evidence shows that the quality of lamb has been going
up, that is why so much more is being sold. More specific meat
breeds, less fat, more tender due to understaninding of glycogen
levels, etc, at slaughter, less cold shortening due to better
technology. In fact the Americans are now turning to Australia to
learn technology, about improving the quality of lamb which they
produce. Things like Lambplan are being adopted by them.

Yes, chicken is cheaper. Today its mostly industrial chicken.

Ah so the meat exporters only flog the crap stuff? Why did you in another thread some time back insist the Americans had a right to the best Australian meat? You seem to have forgotten that comment it appears.

My reading is much wider than you think Yabby and I have seen much in the way of manoueverings and negotiations in government - one of the reasons why I had to get out - some of it was sickening and what I would consider a betrayal of the Australian people.

However, I happen to hold a particular viewpoint and you another. I suspect you have not read anything but that which supports your view - that is your right.

If you want to believe that FT is as pure as the driven snow with no ill effects nothing I can say will dissuade you - we will as always have to agree to disagree.

*Ah so the meat exporters only flog the crap stuff? Why did you in another thread some time back insist the Americans had a right to the best Australian meat? You seem to have forgotten that comment it appears.*

Not so Pelican. The difference is that I happen to know a great deal
about the meat industry, its part of my job. You however, remain
ill informed, by a few rabid websites.

So for your benefit and education, I shall continue to clarify things.
America does indeed buy some top cuts from us. When those US
business executives choose rack of lamb for their dinner, its highly
likely that it is Australian product, top product.

But we produce far more lamb in Australia, then the American market
consumes, although thankfully the market keeps growing. So we also
send top cuts to the best paying markets, like 5 star hotels in the
ME, Belgium, Switzerland and a host of other countries.

Legs of lamb commonly go to Britain, or the US, or Europe, or even
Coles or Woolies.

In fact the biggest market for Australian lamb is local. That market
is divided into quality segments, according to price. I know butchers
who select only the best, most tender, well finished lambs, for the
best markets, who pay a premium price. I know other butchers who
simply buy on price, as that is what their clients want, el cheapo
meat. As long as its cheap, they will buy it and flog it, according
to what their consumers focus on.

You the consumer, have a choice, from the best to the cheapest.

"Not so Pelican. The difference is that I happen to know a great deal
about the meat industry, its part of my job. You however, remain
ill informed, by a few rabid websites."

You don't know anything about my work history Yabby nor what information I have been privy to.

You continue to suggest my reading is only that which already supports my view. An opinion can only be formed from reading widely on the subject or personal experience in the industry either directly or involvement at government level.

My links to those websites including the NFF (hardly radical from your POV) was a friendly invite to you to extend your reading on this subject. It is more telling that you only refer to my Tradewatch link but ignored the fact that I also linked to other sites - buty why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

As I said we will have to agree to disagree on the free trade/globalisation issue. There is already a lot more coming out about FT and various FTAs by economists and others involved in various industries and government. It will take a while but eventually IMO free trade will be an experiment that failed.

'The Unconscious Civilisation' by John Ralston Saul is another good read if you have the time or inclination.

*You don't know anything about my work history Yabby nor what information I have been privy to.*

Ah Pelican, but if you knew so much, then you would not make
foolish claims, as the one which I pointed out to you.

You've made the same claim before, on other threads. No doubt you
will do the same again, despite it being completely false.

I've focussed on that very point, so as to not get you sidetracked
and for you to focus and admit that you were wrong. Fat chance lol.

Yabby, well you are the one making claims or are you going to ignore your own comment about why US consumers should not have access to the best Australian meat.

"Ah Pelican, but if you knew so much, then you would not make
foolish claims, as the one which I pointed out to you."

Only in your opinion Yabby, it seems most of our meat exporters and trade groups would disagree with you.

http://www.sanger.com.au/index.php
http://www.landfa.com/

It is no wonder that many meat suppliers and associations representing the industry were against better labelling of meat products according to quality (age of beast etc).

What is even more interesting is that while local meat prices at the supermarket have risen farmers are in many cases earning the same as they did 10 or more years ago.

It is laughable that countries which import products like meat watch on while their own agricultural sectors decline due to lack of a level playing field such as subsidies and cheap labour (often highly exploitative labour) and where there is no governance. Many farmers are being driven off the land and we see a huge growth in foreign owned farms and meat processing.

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2010/04/28/182071_business-news.html

I understand that someone who has been in the meat industry (or still is) might need to hold on strongly to FT mythology but putting one's head in the sand over the very real inequities serves no greater long term purpose. Short term self interest is not the key to improving our economic systems not is it conducive to open and honest debates that seek to improve human wellbeing, not only in our country but in others as well.

*or are you going to ignore your own comment about why US consumers should not have access to the best Australian meat.*

I answered that one, Pelican. There is enough of the best Australian
meat, for both Americans and Australians.

Go and tell a Mondo Meats or a Vics Meats, that they don't supply
the best to local markets! Have you ever gone to a saleyard, to see
how local prime butchers pick out exactly what they want for
their clients? Has it not occured to you, that our top gourmet
chefs, also want top meat? You are living in fairyland dear, if
you understand so little about the meat market.

*It is laughable that countries which import products like meat watch on while their own agricultural sectors decline due to lack of a level playing field such as subsidies and cheap labour*

Sheesh, Australia exports meat to the USA. Explain to me why US
consumers should not have access to our lamb, due to the playing field.

*Many farmers are being driven off the land and we see a huge growth in foreign owned farms and meat processing.*

Yes indeed, many Australians were driven off the land, by low meat
prices, paid by Australian companies. Luckily we have more intelligent
processors like the Brazilians moving into the market. Their
marketing skills and processing skills, frankly make some of our
companies look like schoolgirls. Farmers love their higher
prices. So what is wrong with that?

According to page 2 of today's Canberra Times, both taste and tenderness of meat has declined over the years due to the side effects of using growth hormones. The same hormones that have been banned in the EU as having adverse side effects. Even Coles is deliberating on banning this kind of meat in their supermarkets due to greater demand for organic and non-contaminated food.

These tests were carried out by the CSIRO so it is not just my own experience or taste buds that you have to go by Yabby. I have also noticed that the density of beans in the brand we buy (baked beans) has declined and there is much more liquid than years previous but I suppose I am only imagining that one too.

So I wonder what happens to all this substandard meat now that you have declared that only the best meat is sold to local and overseas markets?

I guess these profit motivated companies just throw it away.

I read the online version of your article Pelican, which states
nothing like your claims.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/hormone-level-in-livestock-too-high-survey/2035114.aspx

You arn't aware of what happens to substandard beef? Are you even
aware of what our major beef exports are? Hamburger beef.

My claim was yabby that the quality of meat (ie. taste/tenderness) has deteriorated over the years and then this article today with results from the CSIRO. You may choose to dismiss my own experiences as a consumer re meat quality over the years but the CSIRO is an independent body.

If you are going to cherry pick my claims at least use the right one against the material provided.

According to the MLA 62% of Australian red meat is exported (excluding goat and offal products) and I doubt most of this is hamburger mince.

Even if a large portion of export sales are mince I suspect quality assurance would continue to be an important part of the trade agreeements.

*My claim was yabby that the quality of meat (ie. taste/tenderness) has deteriorated over the years and then this article today with results from the CSIRO.*

So show me Pelican, where the CSIRO claims that meat taste/tenderness
has deteriorated. I think you'll find enough claims from MLA,
showing that meat quality in general has improved, due to more
feedlotting, better technology, better understanding of quality
parameters etc. Today we have packaging and ageing technology,
for those who want the best. All available to local consumers, if
they are prepared to pay the extra costs involved. All available
in major gourmet meat butcher shops in cities.

*Even if a large portion of export sales are mince I suspect quality assurance would continue to be an important part of the trade agreeements.*

Well of course. Nobody has claimed any different. The point was
that mince is a great outlet for lesser quality cuts, so your comment
that you guess, companies "just throw meat away" was rather foolish.

Once again, we export both top and lesser quality meat. We also
sell both locally. Your claim that the best is exported and not
available to locals, is simply wrong.

Many millions of $ are spent each year on improving Australian
meat quality. This information is regularly published by organisations
like MLA. So I am not going to believe the perceptions of a single
Canberra housewife.

http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/grains-and-cropping/general/beef-taste-tenderness-marred-by-hormones/2035787.aspx

There you go Pelican, that is what the CSIRO actually claimed.
I am really wondering, why you seemingly invent this stuff, as
you go along. You are not silly, you really should know better.

Errr...yes Yabby that is the article and it clearly states that growth hormones have had an adverse effect on meat tenderness and taste since their introduction.

"And it says these findings are not new, with peer-reviewed studies conducted more than 60 years ago showing growth hormones had ''a negative effect on beef palatability...The research centre's taste tests reported ''a very significant drop'' of up to 10 points in scores given by consumers when rating the tenderness of hormone-treated beef."

I don't need articles to prove what my own taste buds have already told me - hence why I buy at the farm gate from an organic supplier when time permits.

Your persistent claims that meat exporters ship out substandard meat and that the claims on all their websites about exporting only the highest quality meat, according to you as shite - is a wee bit concerning in terms of truth in advertising and living up to those FT agreements.

The spin that Aussies have their choice of the best cuts are just plain misrepresentations but I am sure you truly believe in the hype.

http://www.ourpatch.com.au/australia/users/spida/blogs/2506-big-beef-bulldust

Ok Pelican, so you can't read and understand the words :)

It says nowhere in that article, that meat has become tougher or
in any way lesser quality over the years. So you've pulled that
one clean out of your imagination.

Here in some background information btw, for your education.

http://www.mla.com.au/About-the-red-meat-industry/Food-safety-and-quality/Hormone-growth-promotants?gclid=COiFqM2nkaYCFQH1bwodejVhSg

*Your persistent claims that meat exporters ship out substandard meat*

Where have I claimed that any substandard meat has been shipped out?
Again, you pulled it straight out of your fantasy.

Meat standards which exporters have to comply with are very strict,
but as it happens, some cuts in any animals are tougher then others.
So tough meat is not substandard. If you decide to buy tougher cuts
from an old merino ewe, that meat will be quite different to the
more tender cuts from a prime fed lamb. Both are up to standard.

What has changed is how much better today we understand meat quality
and what changes we have made, to improve the product. Things like
cold shortening of carcasses, used to be common. We now use carcass
electro stimulation on meat chains, which largely overcomes the
problem. The whole idea of MSA was about addressing tenderness
from farm to plate.

If you think that meat has lost flavour, its either because of your
flawed perception, or because you trim off every last bit of fat
and of course meat flavour is in the fat, be it marbled or otherwise.

Yabby why are many meat distributors and companies so resistant then to a more extensive meat grading system in Australia derived from factors such as age of carcass etc.

You and I continue to have these debates about FT and supporting local producers and I suspect both of us are fairly entrenched in our POV to ever concede the other side.

Another book recmmendation: Bob Ellis 'The Capitalism Delusion'. It is a bit OTT in parts even for me, and I don't agree with his view that capitalism has led to all of the world's woes but in general it hits the mark on free market fundamentalism. It covers all the issues we tend to butt heads on - globalisation, trade, poverty, corporatism and growing wage disparity etc.

Might be an interesting holiday read out of your normal diet if you have the time.
:)

*Yabby why are many meat distributors and companies so resistant then to a more extensive meat grading system in Australia derived from factors such as age of carcass etc.*

Because many of them are practical people, running what is already
a very difficult thing to run, ie, a meatworks, especially an
export works. Already there are AQIS vets and inspectors running
around on site, fussing over quality, bacterial contamination etc.
Adding MSA to the chain would massively increase the amount of
red tape and drive up costs even further.

They reckon that they have quality systems already in place, that
are enough. So MSA remains voluntary.

*and supporting local producers*

If you supported local producers Pelican, you would be all for free
trade, as local producers export most of what they produce, as
you noticed in the meat industry.

*Another book recmmendation: Bob Ellis 'The Capitalism Delusion'*

Ah Pelican, now you want me to increase my understanding of
economics, by reading a book by a guy who write screenplays!

hehe

Yabby surely you don't think ideology or political opinion should only be the domain of academics. That would be a sad day.

Ellis's style is quite dramatic which betrays his artistic roots, but as I said only if you have the time. There are many other books of this genre, however, if you prefer a different style.

Pelican, there are zillions of books written. Many do it, just
to make a living, somebody will buy them. That does not mean that
they know their subject or that what they write is in any way
intelligent.

Economics is one of those subjects where it is so easy to rant,
but so difficult to be accurate. One of your links the other day,
went on about the evils of the sale of the AWB. Well that might
impress you, but I am pretty well informed. I am fully aware
that the AWB has long been deregulated and today is nothing but
yet another trader in a crowded market. Selling them off really
won't matter. In fact the buyer of the AWB, did not even want
their grain side. They wanted their Landmark stores and they
flogged off the grain trading side to somebody else. My grain these
days, is handled and sold by CBH, a WA owned farmers coop.

I've subscribed to the Economist, for about the last 10 years,
for the very reason of gaining accurate and credible information.
Its been one of the best things that I ever did, for I've learned
a huge amount, from people who actually know what they are on about.

Keating was on Charlie Rose the other night, I listened very carefully,
as he knows his stuff. It was a brilliant interview.
If Costello writes something, I take notice. Again a man who
understands the subject.

Sorry, but I just prefer that kind of credible information,
in comparison to a rant from somebody like Ellis.

Yabby I too read a wide range and have had access to many economic documents, forecasts and briefs in my previous line of work. One thing might surprise you. Many economists disagree and much of their 'accuracy' is tied up with their own ideology.

It is your choice. Read it or don't read it. No problems here. But don't dismiss Ellis as just a screenwriter. He has done a lot more than this in the political sphere.

You are right in that there are many books written, that is why I read widely. It helps separate the detritus from the gems but if you only read material like The Economist may I suggest you need to free range a little wider. :)

*I too read a wide range and have had access to many economic documents, forecasts and briefs in my previous line of work.*

Ah Pelican, but that is not going to teach you to know about the nuts
and bolts of the global economy and how it interlinks with politics.
Perhaps reading some intelligent stuff, like the Economist
occasionally, would brighten up your economic skills a bit,
rather then all just coloured ideology.

People like Bill Gates, Richard Branson and others are subscribers.
In fact its readership is made up of the highest income people
on the planet. Like it or not, these are not fools. I've never
come across anything with a higher standard of journalism.

They say what they think, but often just present data and both sides
of a situation. Just today I was reading about a couple of their
correspondants travels. One went to live with illegal Mexicans
in the US and described their world. Another went to India, to spend
time living in an Indian village, amongst the poorest. Their
reports were fascinating.

This is great journalism, warts and all. Far more enlightening
then the rants that you have so far suggested and its global.

btw, Pericles reads the Economist. So you would not be in
bad company to stretch your reading in that direction.

But suit yourself. I've given up long ago on stubborn horses
that won't drink. I just let then stay thirsty :)

Have a happy New Year by the way!

Yabby I too have read the Economist and am already in great company with yoursefl and Pericles. The department I previously worked for subscribed to many different magazines and newspapers being heavily policy oriented. I dont' read it now.

However, reading something does not make it right - that is what you are suggesting. I am only recommending you extend your reading, mine is already wide and varied but I only recommend (as is natural) that which I think you would not have selected already from the bookshelves. There would be no point in me recommending The Economist to you or anything that is fundamentalist pro-free trade/globalisation. I would assume you have already read it.

As I said read it or don't, no problems at all. Try John Ralston Saul first - he is my preferred read on this subject. 'Voltaire's Bastards' is a bit of a hard slog but worth the effort but 'The Unconcsious Civilisation' is a keeper.

*However, reading something does not make it right - that is what you are suggesting.*

No Pelican, what I am arguing is that no matter what your philosophy,
you cannot argue with the evidence. Fact is that trade and increased
global trade has dragged hundreds of millions around the globe
out of poverty. Now you might not care, with your secure income,
living in the richest city in Australia, but I assure you that
those hundreds of millions do care.

When you've argued against free trade in the past, you've presented
a mumbo jumbo of points, confusing political decisions made by
the EU, USA, etc, with basic economic ones.

If you want to understand economics and how trade benefits people
and makes the majority better off, you need to pull the whole thing
apart, like pulling a car engine apart in little pieces, to understand
how the whole thing works. Judging by your posts, I doubt very
much if you have that kind of understanding. The Economist, if you
bothered to learn, could explain it to you. The evidence is
all out there in hard data.

As it happens, I don't just read the Economist. I read heaps of
stuff, written by heaps of people. Many of them are in fact
philosophers like Saul is, but many of those same people, just
like you, don't understand those basic mechanisms. So I make
a harsh critic, easily picking their writing to bits.

Now you can argue that hundreds of millions should not be better
off, you can argue that we are wrecking the planet, you can argue
whatever you want. My argument will be that if we are going to
solve these problems, created by humanity, it will happen through
human innovation and human innovation only happens when you give
the maximum number of people a chance to innovate to their potential.
For that you need market economics, not Govt commitees.

You seemingly have blind faith in Govt to solve everything. The
track record of Govt shows, this is clearly not the case. Nobody
wastes money like Govts do.

*It is therefore something of a disappointment to finally reach the end of this book and discover that he has very little in the way of practical solutions to offer for our current troubles. When I asked him about this in an interview, he replied, "I'm not in the business of suggesting solutions. I don't belong to the Platonic tradition, I belong to the Socratic tradition."*

Hehe Pelican, this came from here:

http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/saul.html

I loved his answer, he has no answers. Clearly this guy knows
how to sell books!

Yabby when you read the book I would be interested in YOUR views (although we both know what they will be) ;).

You will find positive and negative book reviews about everyone. Not sure what your point is there. Anyone from a Michael Moore to a Milton Friedman receives various feedback.

If you don't want to dip into Ellis try Saul. Ellis's views about the inherent problems in Capitalism (that without any regulation) hit the spot in my opinion and we know the solutions already. They are not in dispute there only exists disagreement over the balance between private and public control.

You are wrong Yabby IMO - about free trade-globalisation but I can understand your adherence to the code given it is now truly embedded in our cultural economic thinking. The Economist is good for repeating the mantra of whatever is the flavour of the month.

The tide is turning. While some people in developing worlds have been lifted out of poverty even if it is only cyclical many have been dragged down by the effects of FT.

Have you ever asked yourself why the Capitalist West has to borrow money from a Communist country like China. Have a little think (outside your usual square) about that one. How has it happened that a democratic capitalist nations have to now borrow from a so despised Command Ecomomy like China.

I am not advocating Command Economies by any means I am all for a mixed economy. I neither think private enterprise can supply everything nor governments but I do think some things are best left in public ownership for the greater good. The system should work for us not against us.

I don't think everything should be controlled by a central government but rampant capitalism needs to be reigned in by regulation that ensures it works for the people not the other way around with the current system benefitting overall mainly small vested groups. FT and globalisation are all part of that package.

As I said read it or don't - up to you.

*You will find positive and negative book reviews about everyone. Not sure what your point is there*

Pelican, if you were to see my collection of books, you would be
quite amazed at the variety. Virtually no novels lol, but a
collection that covers neuroscience, primatology, evolutionary
psychology, genetics, twin studies, all the way to agriculture and cooking.

With today's information overload, before I spend the time to read
a 600 page book, I find out a little about the author and the best
way to do that, is to read what his critics have to say about him
or her. Everyone has critics, but what the critics say matters and
often reveals a great deal.

I spent some time yesterday, reading up a bit about Mr Saul,
from Wicki to his critics. His famous Harpars article was pay only, so
I was not about to subscribe for one article.

Yes, he has been given much acclaim, but he comes across to me like
one of those modern philosophy gurus. From the old Bagwahn-Osho
to Deepak Chopra, millions preach their virtues, but few are critical.

Saul is critical of ever increasing specialisation, but in a world
of the ever increasing knowledge mountain, ever increasing
specialisation is a direct outcome and it has to be that way, for
the amount of information that a single human brain can handle,
remains limited.

Saul admits himself to having no answers. Well yes, its easy to
ask questions and be critical, but having answers that might work,
is what its all about in the end. The rest is wah wah.

Nobody is suggesting that we need no regulation. Its all about
balance. But going back to high tariffs, as some are suggesting,
would indeed be foolish and would send us into banana republic state,
as our standard of living dropped dramatically.

tbc

China is not a command economy anymore. The Chinese Govt
controls the bigger picture of politics, but their Govt
factories have been or are closing down, they failed miserably.

From telecommunications equipment to electric cars, it is
Chinese entrepreneurs, often with Western capital, who are
making the big changes. I watched an interesting documentary
today, of Buffett and Gates touring a Chinese company,
where Berkshire a couple of years ago, invested 300 million $.

Today that stake is worth 6 times that. Even Buffett and
Gates were blown away by the scale, speed and inginuity
being applied by this company, which started from virtually
nothing, just 15 years ago. Your mobile phone is most likely
kept alive by one of their batteries, but they are churning
out electric cars now.

The West borrows from the East, because Western consumers
have been living it up on borrowed money for too long.
But our own housing bubble has not been caused by the market,
but by poor Govt policies. The market has simply reacted to
those Govt signals.

Countries like Germany, Switzerland and others, don't borrow
from China and have no need. They also have large and clever
manufacturing sectors, underpinned by a skilled workforce.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why this is so, such a difference
amongst Western economies. Australia is not included lol, we
were just lucky to have volumes of resources, after the merino
sheep had been flogged to death and collapsed. Without China
buying, our iron ore might still be selling for 30$, instead of
130$.

Keating understood all this, but many Australians still don't.