The power of the words and thoughts of great writers have relevance well after time has disposed of their mortal remains. This very topical piece by Banjo was written about a decade before Federation.

Start;

The question between free trade and protection, when you come to the bedrock of it, is simply whether it is better for a community such as ours to exchange its raw materials for the manufactures of other countries, or to tax its own people and so create manufactures. It is quite clear that the stock protectionist arguments hardly put the matter properly. It is rather feeble to talk about being overwhelmed with foreign boots, and inundated with cotton material. These things are not curses but blessings. We wear boots and clothes; the question is whether it is better to make these things for ourselves, or to get them from other countries where they can be produced cheaper. The free trade theory is that so long as any foreign country will furnish us with manufactured goods cheaper than our own people will make them, it is advisable to let them come in free, because our own people can go to something else more profitable.

...So long as there are unemployed or only partially employed men, crowding into our cities eager for a job of work, it is no use for the free traders to say that there is no need to foster manufactures, because the people can go to something else. They can't get anything else to go to. So long as they try to keep up their wages, i.e., to maintain a high standard of living, they cannot hope to compete with the underpaid labourers of the Continent and England.

...The true reason of the American success is simply that they have a huge local market secured to them by protection. The bigger the market, the cheaper can the articles be sold. If any coachbuilder here were to try and make buggies of the same quality as the Abbott or Fleming buggies, he would promptly go smash.

Cont...

Cont...

They have a huge home market, and where he could sell one they could sell a hundred, so that they can gain all the advantages derived from doing things on a big scale. They can compete with foreign labour because of their huge home market, because of their immense start in machinery and scientific knowledge, and because they are protected heavily against foreign competition both of goods and labour - no unemployed foreigner can land in America without paying a tax, nor can his goods go in without paying a tax. It sounds rather well for them to talk about fair competition with the world! The fact is that where labour is high no manufactures can stand without protection.

...This question of free trade and protection is purely a wages question. While we have men unemployed, or half employed, it is idle to talk about the economic value of their labour and to say that they need not manufacture, as they can go to something else. It is for the free traders to say to what else they should go. Failing an answer to this question, the country will inevitably go for protection.

...We can of course, all devote our attention to wool growing and farming, two things in which, by reason of our superior natural advantages, we are bound (for the present, at any rate) to find something to do. We can exchange our products for those of other countries. With all our best land available, we might command the markets of the world for raw material. But is it a fitting destiny for such a nation as ours that we should have no higher objects than to grow wool and reap corn? Are we to have no arts nor manufactures? These things will only grow by protection.

Cont...

Cont...

...Our own farmers and wool growers will have a certain market with their own manufacturers; and the manufacturers will have a certain market with their country people, instead of having to compete with auction sold goods sent out here in huge batches, and made by starving wretches working fifteen hours a day.

... But we cannot long devote ourselves entirely to wool growing and farming, and as soon as we get any surplus labour we must give it a chance. Here is the gist of the whole matter. Adam Smith says, "It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy." No, but if he has to keep some of his family doing nothing, it is better to make the article, even at a loss, than submit to the loss of keeping the family idle, and also buying the thing. This, then, should be our policy: Reform our land tenure, so that we may get the best possible use out of our lands; and reform our tariff, so that we may give our industries a start on some other basis than that of cheap labour. We will, of course, amass a huge revenue of Government; but I have yet to learn that that is an evil. There are plenty of ways of spending Government money besides building the North Shore bridge. We can start irrigation works, and go in for artesian water.

...We must always keep in view that our object is the greatest good for the greatest number; and as soon as we get all the colonies under one government and under a proper land system, then we will know that everyone has a fair chance, and it will pay us better to put some of our people on to manufactures and art, rather than to go on being "a country where they grow wool". This will be better than letting our manufactures grow up, by our population growing down in their standard of living.

Brilliant Banjo!
And even truer today. Where is the "something else" for today's 700,000 unemployed?

More mobile phone salesmen? More fast food cashiers? Is that all we want to be and do?
And with industries dying and the world in economic crisis (it ain't over), we still import 100,000 people every year, to do jobs we supposedly "won't do".

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0

Employment has stagnated, while the unemployment rate goes steadily upward, yet we see no revision of our trade or immigration policies.

Because political policy today has nothing to do with practical reality and only based on utopianism (both globalism and multiculturalism are utopian).

Perhaps, Shockadelic.

>>Because political policy today has nothing to do with practical reality and only based on utopianism (both globalism and multiculturalism are utopian).<<

By the same token, protectionism is utopian.

The concept that we can produce all the things we need and want through the sweat of our own brow and the strength of our own calloused hand, without severe social repercussion, is pure Utopia.

The beauty of the protectionist argument is that you swathe yourselves in the cloak of nationalist pride - yeah, no worries, we're Aussies, we can do it ourselves - and avoid the trivial details of how it can be achieved without causing riots in the streets.

For a start, perhaps you could explain how replacing imports will reduce unemployment.

Using numbers, instead of blind jingoism.

Go on. Give it a shot.

Remember to use dollars, because that's what we use to buy food and lodging.

I got the garbled version of economies of scale, [it took a paragraph], allow the US to make stuff.

I looked for the fact that US wage rates are half ours, but that minor fact did not fit the argument so was ignored.

No wonder Tasmania is such a mess, when greens are so damn stupid they can even try such rubbish as a con job.

I wonder if they believe this crap, or just hope to fool some with it?

I grew up in the era when Australian ballads were taught at school and of course can recite most of many. Banjo was one of my favourites and his words would take me far out of the classroom, in my imagination.

Have several books of his works that I pick up from time to time to refresh my memory.

It is sad that, speaking to the young today, Australian stories and ballads are not longer taught. Our history deserves better.

I would like to know how he got the nickname of Banjo and I hope my use of his name, as my pen, will help perpetuate his name.

Truly a great Australian. Thanks Steele for reminding us.

Dear Pericles,

You will get no anti-globalisation rant from me since the fact that it has been responsible for lifting lifting hundreds of millions of people from around the world out of poverty is cause enough for its celebration.

But globalisation does not translate to unfettered capitalism. Many governments have rightly have gone to great lengths to protect employment in both their manufacturing and agriculture sectors whilst still taking advantage of the fruits so to speak of global trade.

If an Australian government was to truly leave our fortunes to a rampant, unconstrained marketplace then there is little reason to doubt we would be far worse off. A case in point is the recent finding by our Anti Dumping Commission.
http://www.adcommission.gov.au/cases/documents/062-SEF-217-AllegedDumpingofPreparedorPreservedTomatoesExportedfromItaly.pdf

“The Commission is satisfied that the Australian industry producing like goods has
experienced material injury in the form of;

• loss of sales volume;
• loss of market share;
• price depression;
• price suppression;
• reduced profits;
• reduced profitability;
• reduced revenues;
• reduced return on income; and
• loss of employment.

The Commission is satisfied that the material injury experienced by the Australian
industry is as a result of dumped imports from Italy.”

Note there is a judgement being made here about what is fair or unfair.

NZ has enacted anti-dumping safeguards far more robustly than Australia, so by your measure are they being utopian, nationalistic and jingoistic?

Banjo writes;

“Adam Smith says, "It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy." No, but if he has to keep some of his family doing nothing, it is better to make the article, even at a loss, than submit to the loss of keeping the family idle, and also buying the thing.”

Banjo recognised the 'loss of keeping the family idle' was something that had to be taken into account. That thinking would not suit the boardroom but it sure as hell should be part of how we are governed.

Dear Hasbeen,

You do realise that except for my introduction it was entirely a piece by Banjo Paterson?

Banjo a Green? It will take some getting use to.

Dear Banjo,

My pleasure. I also need to go through my collection of his books more comprehensively and break the tendency to reserve him for Australia Day.

Dear Shockadelic,

Indeed. I think the message is probably pretty universal but it was refreshing to hear it put in that fashion. Perhaps it was afforded that clarity because it was unclouded by the smoke and mirrors of our current partisan politics.

I recently gave the full works of Banjo to a young girl who consumes such Australian stuff.
But see my head holds every page still so gave away only the hard copy.

Happy birthday Banjo. Rest in peace for there are others who follow you. Modern times, still the same old problems,

“BLUDGERS”

Bludgers, should be drowned, at birth,
although all men deserve some chance…
Some show the signs, of meagre worth,
as towards a dole queue they advance.

That ‘free ride mentality’ is congenital,
at least, that’s the way it would appear.
Bludger parents do seem instrumental,
in a second generation, welfare career,

They know, the lurks and all the perks,
to screw the system and live like kings.
Two generations, where nobody works,
that’s the sad result, this gestalt brings.

Nobody scoffs at ‘true blue’ misfortune,
that, ‘helping hand’, is the Aussie way,
Hackles rise, at that pillage opportune,
that bludger’s stipend, tax dollars pay.

What is amiss with the ‘powers that be’,
and the hand on the Government purse.
Why do welfare legions, a leniency see,
as a worker’s lot goes from bad to worse.

No more are we, “The Lucky Country”,
we’ve watched that image disintegrate.
Why shirkers for life, deserve a bounty,
is one point, we should rapidly debate.

Powers, should prioritize an obligation,
not to neglect need, or sick, and infirm,
Term bludgers, the curse of this Nation,
unto Society’s apple a putrefying worm.

May the shirker, so smug and contented,
then bear the derision, of Society’s snub.
Might dole, be returned to that intended…
May the orchard then be free of the grub.

http://www.bushverse.com/smf/index.php?topic=4517.0

That great Australian literary celebrity; Andrew Barton (Banjo) PATERSON.

As a consequence of my (paternal) grandfather who happened to have fought in the Boer War, I was sufficiently motivated to read as much material as I could get my hands on, about that particular conflict. As I'd already been fortunate enough, to learn much about my other (maternal) grandfather, who happened to have fought in the First World War.

In order to understand a little more about this conflict, I managed to purchase a book titled; 'From the Front' - Despatches from the Boer War. Penned by none other than, A.B. (Banjo) PATERSON.

It was revealed Paterson had been appointed, A Special War Correspondent, in South Africa - from November 1899 to July 1900. essentially he worked for; The Argus, The Sydney Mail, and the Sydney Morning Herald. This book had been edited by; R.W.F. (Robin) Droogleever, who was a South African by all accounts, and later, he and his family moved to Australia, and helped found the; 'Anglo Boer War' Study Group.

It would be impertinent of me to describe, either the style or quality of Paterson's writing other than to say, it is as you'd expect, anything coming from this gentleman's pen is absolutely Brilliant !

Interestingly, I cannot recall anything written about Harry (the Breaker) Morant. Other than to shamefully admit, I hadn't read the book in it's entirety.

In conclusion and upon the 150 Anniversary of this great man's birth, I thought it appropriate that I share this little gem with you all, and to commend it to the readership at large.

Well that's ok then, SteeleRedux.

>>You will get no anti-globalisation rant from me...<<

But this is a total red herring:

>>NZ has enacted anti-dumping safeguards far more robustly than Australia, so by your measure are they being utopian, nationalistic and jingoistic?<<

I was discussing import replacement. See here:

>>The concept that we can produce all the things we need and want through the sweat of our own brow and the strength of our own calloused hand, without severe social repercussion, is pure Utopia.<<

Anti-dumping legislation is conducted - even in "robust" New Zealand - while observing the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.

http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp_01_e.htm

There is a big difference between the enaction of anti-dumping laws, and the utopian view that we don't need to import anything.

Well onthebeach's offering had me going back to my Paterson books. Knowing the man as I thought I did from his writings I just couldn't fathom Banjo having written something of that ilk.

And it turns out he didn't. My fault for not clicking the link provided. The author is Bernard De Silva.

I am all for the Bush Poetry tradition to thrive in this country and I invite people to read Banjo's 'Introduction To Old Bush Songs' where he explores what had become a well recognised part of Australian tradition even in his time.

He says “It is interesting to see how the progress of settlement is referenced in the various songs.”

He later writes “Next in the order come the ballads of the days when the squatters had established themselves, and the poorer classes found it harder to live. “The Squatter's Man” is a ballad of those harder times.”

Here it is, author unknown;

Come, all ye lads an’ list to me,
That’s left your homes an’ crossed the sea,
To try your fortune, bound or free,
   All in this golden land.

For twelve long months I had to pace,
Humping my swag with a cadging face,
Sleeping in the bush, like the sable race,
   As in my song you’ll understand.

Unto this country I did come,
A regular out-and-out new chum.
I then abhorred the sight of rum —
   Teetotal was my plan.

But soon I learned to wet one eye —
Misfortune oft-times made me sigh.
To raise fresh funds I was forced to fly,
   And be a squatter’s man.

Soon at a station I appeared.
I saw the squatter with his beard,
And up to him I boldly steered,
   With my swag and billy-can.

I said, “Kind sir, I want a job!”
Said he, “Do you know how to snob
Or can you break in a bucking cob?
Whilst my figure he well did scan.

Cont...

Cont...

“’Tis now I want a useful cove
To stop at home and not to rove.
The scamps go about – a regular drove —
   I ’spose you’re one of the clan?

But I’ll give ten, ten, sugar an’ tea;
Ten bob a week, if you’ll suit me,
And very soon I hope you’ll be
   A handy squatter’s man.

“At daylight you must milk the cows,
Make butter, cheese, an’ feed the sows,
Put on the kettle, the cook arouse,
   And clean the family shoes.

The stable an’ sheep yard clean out,
And always answer when we shout,
With ‘Yes, ma’am,’ and ‘No, sir,’ mind your mouth;
   And my youngsters don’t abuse.

“You must fetch wood an’ water, bake an’ boil,
Act as butcher when we kill;
The corn an’ taters you must hill,
   Keep the garden spick and span.

You must not scruple in the rain
To take to market all the grain.
Be sure you come sober back again
   To be a squatter’s man.”

He sent me to an old bark hut,
Inhabited by a greyhound slut,
Who put her fangs through my poor fut,
   And, snarling, off she ran.

So once more I’m looking for a job,
Without a copper in my fob.
With Ben Hall or Gardiner I’d rather rob,
   Than be a squatter’s man.

Banjo's writings reflect this egalitarian sentiment, with Clancy outwitting squatters, poems of striking shearers and underdogs like the man from Snowy River ultimately triumphing.

So my point is that 'bush ballads' may well be an venerable Australian tradition and one that is open to all, whatever their political bent. But we should always let Banjo's words speak for the man. Some of his words may be distasteful when seen through today's eyes but we acknowledge they were of the time. He was though a great Australian writer and a thoroughly rewarding read.

Dear pericles,

I disagree it is a red herring.

Perhaps it might be instructive to hear what you mean by “without severe social repercussion”.

If the aim is to provide goods to the Australian population at the cheapest possible price then anti-dumping laws surely are an impediment to that goal. In fact the 'august' organisation the IPA opines;

“If the AWU was concerned with all Australians they would campaign to eliminate anti-dumping laws. Lower prices and a more competitive economy benefit unionists and non-unionists alike.”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44370.html

Is this the line you are taking?

'Banjo' Patterson and other Australian authors and poets were part of the Australian culture of my childhood and youth.

Many times on these forums Australian Culture is mentioned; I wonder what it is?

Dear SteeleRedux,

I grew up with Banjo Patterson.
Who can forget the classics like
"The Man from Snowy River," and
"Clancy of the Overflow?"

I've used so many of his poems written for
children for
my children's - Storytime Sessions, taken
from the book, "The Animals Noah Forgot,"
poems like, "A Bush Christening,"
"Weary Will," "Fur and Feathers," to name just
a few. I love -

"The Boastful Crow and the Laughing Jack
Were telling tales of the outer back;
"I've just been travelling far and wide,
At the back of Bourke and the Queensland side;
There isn't a bird in the bush can go
As far as me," said the old black crow..."

I thought we had put that one to bed, SteeleRedux.

>>“If the AWU was concerned with all Australians they would campaign to eliminate anti-dumping laws. Lower prices and a more competitive economy benefit unionists and non-unionists alike.” Is this the line you are taking?<<

Compared to the potential impact of "go-it-alone" economic isolationism, dumping is but a pin-prick. Nevertheless, I am hereby delighted to state that I am in complete agreement with the WTO on this, and believe it is a pernicious practice that requires eternal vigilance.

Now, back to the main event.

>>Perhaps it might be instructive to hear what you mean by “without severe social repercussion”.<<

To make sure you don't go off on a tangent again, I will repeat what I said earlier on the subject.

>>The concept that we can produce all the things we need and want through the sweat of our own brow and the strength of our own calloused hand, without severe social repercussion, is pure Utopia.<<

[Note: no mention of anti-dumping laws. Just thought I'd remind you]

The severe social repercussions I had in mind were massive unemployment on the one hand, and a debilitating depression on the other.

Were we to close our doors to manufacturing imports, we would need to develop our own industries to provide manufactured goods. This would need an enormous investment of government money - a.k.a. yours and mine - and would take many years to achieve. The resulting products would be, by definition, significantly more expensive than before, and because our taxes have been used to kick-start these businesses, we would be left with less with which to afford these goods. In short, we would rapidly pauperize ourselves.

Because of this, the factories would be unviable without even greater levels of investment, creating a vicious spiral of rising costs, lower production numbers, increased taxes and out-of-control rising unemployment.

Worse news is that this is a once-off exercise. Once embarked upon, it is a path that cannot be reversed, as we slowly but surely approach the standard of living currently enjoyed by, for example, North Korea.

SteeleRedux, "knowing the man as I thought I did from his writings I just couldn't fathom Banjo having written something of that ilk"

Maybe you were predisposed to take offence and that clouded your judgement. While I inadvertently omitted the author, it was not represented as anything that Banjo had written as is easily seen from the introductory wording and from the link given below. The intent was to show as stated, that there are bush poets in modern times who carry on the tradition of those who went before.

Introduction, " Rest in peace for there are OTHERS WHO FOLLOW YOU (my caps)"

The link given below,
http://www.bushverse.com/smf/index.php?topic=4517.0

Sheesh.

Pericles "protectionism is utopian."
"the utopian view that we don't need to import anything."

Have you heard anyone arguing we should make "all things" ourselves?
Protectionists readily admit it's not "ideal".
If it's not ideal, it's not utopian.

But with a tariff, we can make some things at not much greater cost than overseas.
People can always choose to buy the foreign version if they want. They're not banned, they're just taxed.

"perhaps you could explain how replacing imports will reduce unemployment."

Perhaps you could turn your brain on before your computer next time.

The benefit is that now thousands of Australians (not Chinese citizens) are earning a salary (not collecting the dole, which workers pay for), which they can spend on more goods and services, an exponential beneficial ripple that spreads far beyond their particular "inefficient" factory.

There is also the psychological boost, Australians seeing our government putting their own people first, for a change.

Your "severe social repercussions" are based on a ludicrous proposal, that *all* imports suddenly stop rather than gradually reducing *some* products over many decades, and the government, not private investors, are going to fund commercial infrastructure.

Again, *who* is proposing this nonsense? Not me.

You have an extremist absolutist definition of protectionism, that bears no resemblance to what anyone is proposing (i.e. a straw man).

Just as an illustration; about 30, or so, years ago the NSW Government were resurfacing the platforms of Sydney's Underground.

There were pallets of tiles at Town Hall station, all made in Korea; the week previous the tile factory at Lithgow (NSW) had closed as it couldn't get enough orders to continue production.

Is Mise,

There are plenty of examples, from the imported marble on a public edifice in Canberra to the throw-away shirts bought by the previous Qld government for police.

It is more down to stupid decisions on a case by case basis. There needs to be more independent audit, comprehensive audits not just financial ones.

In the 60s I was technical manager for the Oz branch of a very large international plastics raw material supplier.

We supplied the material for many parts of TV sets & manufactured by 7 companies in Sydney alone. For these companies to survive we had not only a 45% import duty on imported TVs, but a limit on the number of them allowed in.

They were called import quotas, & getting a quota was like a licence to print money. A bit like Labor mates getting mining leases to day.

We were pretty proud & happy with our products them. What we weren't so happy about was paying 6 weeks salary for a 21 inch black & white TV.

The same went for cars. We were leading the world in some areas of replacing metal with plastic. We produced the worlds first ever plastic dash for Holden. We were proud & happy with that, but not so happy that the cheapest cars were a years salary.

Yes we could make these things again, but the cost of capital goods would see us back eating bread & dripping for dinner a couple of nights a week.

How here remember eating bread & dripping, in fact, how many know what dripping is?

Dear Shockadelic,

Thank you for the post as it contained points I was about to make but probably more lucidly.

Dear Pericles,

We had not embarked on any tangent, all I was attempting to do was to examine the extent of your free market absolutism directly in line with the discussion.

I am glad to see it hasn't sunk to the depths of the IPA to whom 'fairness' does not compute in the worship of the marketplace.

The point Banjo Paterson was making is that it was unfair and undesirable to see multitudes without work just to secure a discounted price of goods that could be made here at a fair wage.

Our capitalism should be made to work for us not the other way around.

It should be a prime responsibility of our government to provide opportunities for employment for its citizens. If this entails some forms of targeted protectionism then so be it.

Why? Because we see it as a fair thing to do, especially if those jobs are being threatened by those who employ undesirable, unethical, and unfair employment practices.

If an Australian's manufacturing job has become precarious because of a government set on stimulating a mining industry through tax cuts and rebates then I do feel it is incumbent on that government to afford the worker some form of protection, if only to see them through the mining boom. It is not that his job has been threatened because of him being unproductive or claiming excessive wages.

Once again Banjo and I feel it is the fair thing to do.

Cont..

Cont..

But there are other considerations besides fairness.

All good policy like targeted protectionist measures should have more than one benefit.

The Japanese have very strict quotas on unprocessed rice entering into their country. Their protectionist stance has meant they have retained the capacity to feed themselves despite land being in very high demand.. To them protection from imports not only keeps the farmers employed but ensures food security for country.

For an Australian government to favour Tenex or Thales in defence spending would be a form of protectionism but the desirability for Australia to retain the ability to manufacture Defence Force weaponry must surely be a factor, even though there would be a cost to the taxpayer.

Dear OTB,

I attempt to take each new thread as a clean slate so to speak so no offence was sought. I made it quite clear it was my fault for not accessing the link. I did not try to attribute blame to yourself. All I was doing in my post was to alert others who may have made the same mistake and to separate the tradition from the sentiment expressed.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the post.

I do remember with great fondness Mulga Bill's Bicycle and The man From Ironbark when my father would give us the start of a line and we would finish it with great gusto. I have preserved that tradition with my own children.

As one gets older I think we appreciate his essays for within they contain many laconic offerings that bring a ready smile.

“Before the North Pole was discovered, some cynic said that it would be discovered easily enough by advertising a race meeting there, when a couple of dozen Australians would turn up with their horses.”

More of a Lawson fan myself.
Patersom was a bit of a romantic. He could afford to be.
SD

Try Paterson instead of Patersom. Did not have my gogs on.
A typo.
SD

SteeleRedux,

Tks for the reply, no biggie.

I enjoy poetry. I was giving a heads-up to others that Banjo's tradition of bush ballads lives on.

Sadly, many have been put off poetry, plays and reading by sad experiences in education.

Well, yes I have, Shockadelic.

>>Have you heard anyone arguing we should make "all things" ourselves?... You have an extremist absolutist definition of protectionism, that bears no resemblance to what anyone is proposing<<

Did you actually read what Banjo Paterson was proposing?

"The question between free trade and protection, when you come to the bedrock of it, is simply whether it is better for a community such as ours to exchange its raw materials for the manufactures of other countries, or to tax its own people and so create manufactures."

It was the logical result of such blindness that I was trying to illustrate for you.

More Banjo...

"We will, of course, amass a huge revenue of Government; but I have yet to learn that that is an evil."

Much water has flown under his "North Shore Bridge" since that time, and we know that centralizing the economy in such a way, and then trying to pick winners into which to pour our money, is hopelessly inefficient and wide open to corruption.

Paterson's grasp of economics was as cloyingly twee as his poetry. Bless.

Similarly, SteeleRedux:

>>It should be a prime responsibility of our government to provide opportunities for employment for its citizens. If this entails some forms of targeted protectionism then so be it.<<

Sadly, there isn't a skerrick of business competence in the entire Parliament, and less than half that in the entire public service. And these are the people you want to pick and choose which industries we should indulge in, and should therefore be protected?

Look at the mess they have made over the years with the mining industry. All they have achieved is to allow a few individuals to become obscenely rich through selling off chunks of Australia that they have been allowed to dig up. And along the way, quite probably, making a number of politicians and public service parasites rich in the process.

The quickest way to create a corrupt business is to protect it.

Mafia Studies 101, NSW Chapter.

Dear SD,

I recall a few decades ago when I had to choose a
theme for an anthology of Australian poetry at Uni.
It was not an easy task. Colleagues suggested a variety
of themes, from bush ballads, to war and "protest" poetry,
to love poems and so on. I ended up choosing an anthology
of anti-nuclear Australian poetry - just to be different.
Anyway seeing as you are an admirer of Henry Lawson - here's
a short one for you:

"They lie, the men who tell us in
A loud decisive tone that want
Is here a stranger, and that misery's unknown;
I wonder would the apathy of wealthy men endure
Were all their windows level with the faces of the poor?"
(Henry Lawson, Faces in the Street).

Dear SteeleRedux,

Talking about bush ballads - reminds me of the impact
that Kevin Gilbert had on me while studying Australian
poetry. His "Trying to Save Joan Ella," as one critic
pointed out, "not only stands up well as a bush ballad,
but manages to hold out a significant challenge to the
whole tradition. It tells of an Aboriginal woman's (Gilbert's
an Indigenous poet) arduous and terrifying ride to fetch
a doctor for a dying white baby:

"Quick she rode to Thiraweena
And she brought the doctor back
But the child died - and the father
Cursed the slowness of the black

If this cursed gin had ridden
Faster, harder through the night -
But the blacks are bad and useless -
Can't be trusted out of sight!

Mary bowed her head in silence
Thought: 'I wishit ME had died
Rode two horses an' it killed 'em
Never stop't though me dead tired

Frightened too of horse bin fallin'
When I passed the old ones' grave
Shut my eyes with courage 'gammon'
When the ghosts rise I ain't brave!

Couldn't do no more I tried but
Kill'd two horses; rode to death,
Didn't stop! I kept on runnin'!'
And she wept beneath her breath."

As the critic stated - this was a poem crying out to be
anthologised.

Foxy,
I have the collected works of both Lawson and Paterson, well read. I also have quite a large library of Australian history and writing.
I am a writer of Australian history these days, a work published last year and another on the way. I am part way through a Masters in Writing, currently slowed down by other work.
This forum provides me with many useful insights and whilst I may not be up there with the gun posters I do read the forum on a regular basis. Plenty to learn from those who write the articles and post.
I like some of Kendalls work too, very different to Paterson and Lawson. A softer man trying to understand his world.
Keep on posting , your thoughts are of interest to me and I gather to many others.
SD

Pericles, I don't see anywhere in Banjo's statement that he wants to ban *all* imports or make *all* products locally, which seems to be part of your definition of protectionism.

Even if the government were to spend money supporting industries, would they be spending more than what they now do on welfare?

Dole payments produce no lasting long-term benefit, whereas investing the same money in industry creates employment now and in the future.

This expenditure could be considered a "loan" to be repaid, not a gift.

I don't support "centralising" the economy at all.
I support a domestic free market.
I just don't support "free movement" of goods or people *between* countries.

"Liberalism" on a national scale is beneficial.
On a global scale, it's toxic.

I support a general tax on foreign transactions, greater than a tax on domestic transactions (replacing all other taxes).

This would encourage Australian production, without banning imports outright or involving direct government intrusion into any industry.

The market will still decide the winners and losers, but Australian businesses will get a slight advantage.

Dear SD,

Thank You for your kind words and how great that you're
doing what you enjoy. I wish you well in your pursuits
and it's wonderful that you're doing a Masters.
Congratulations!
It will be quite an achievement. Your family will be so
proud of you. I remember my own graduation from uni - when
my name was called out and I walked up on the stage in my
cap and gown to hear my young son yell out from the
balcony of the auditorium, "That's MY mum!"
It got a lovely response from the audience. I imagine there
were quite a few mums graduating that day.

cont'd ...

Dear SD,

I forgot to ask -

Is it possible to buy copies of your book in any
of the larger book shops? And if you don't want to
give us the title, can you give us a clue what to look
for? I for one would certainly like to read a copy.

Doesn't make much difference, Shockadelic. One industry, or all industry.

>>Pericles, I don't see anywhere in Banjo's statement that he wants to ban *all* imports or make *all* products locally, which seems to be part of your definition of protectionism.<<

Pick a manufacturing segment. Any one will do. Then follow the Banjo Paterson exhortation that Australia should "tax its own people and so create manufactures", and watch what happens. The only possible result is that you create a business that builds stuff that is more expensive than that which is available today.

If people buy it, they will have less money to buy other stuff, because a) the government has taken money out of their pockets to support the import-replacement business, and b) the stuff they are buying is more expensive.

This is not speculation, by the way, it is by definition. By definition, the products will be more expensive. And by definition, you will have less disposable income - thanks to the extra taxation required - with which to buy the stuff.

So whether it is one manufacturer or the whole manufacturing industry, the result will be the same. Vicious circle. Downward spiral. Oblivion.

>>Even if the government were to spend money supporting industries, would they be spending more than what they now do on welfare?<<

Errr... yes, they will. First, there is the cost of retraining. Then, there is the cost of constantly feeding an industry that cannot pay its way, using our tax dollars. And ultimately, all these folk will be back on the dole again anyway, as the business rapidly prices itself out of existence.

Don't take my word for it. Do the sums yourself. Let me know how you get on dealing with real numbers, instead of bandying around feelgood theories.

Start wherever you like, the conclusion will be the same. Banjo Paterson was no economist.

And his poetry is none too fresh either.

So some products will cost more.
This will hardly create a downward spiral into oblivion.

It will only mean some people buy less of it.

But other people (the thousands now employed instead of on the dole) can spend *more* than they used to, on more products, improving the bottom line for many businesses throughout the economy.

I don't actually support the government "assisting" any particular industry, only the economy in general, through a fixed rate tax on foreign transactions.

Dear Pericles,

Here are some real figures from the Economic Policy Institute.

“China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was supposed to improve the U.S. trade deficit with China and create good jobs in the United States. But those promises have gone unfulfilled: the total U.S. trade deficit with China reached $235 billion in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, this growing deficit eliminated 1.8 million U.S. jobs (Scott 2007).”

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib235/

Are you really contending that the reintroduction of the protections in place in 2001 would drive up unemployment?

This is the part that makes no sense, Shockadelic

>>But other people (the thousands now employed instead of on the dole) can spend *more* than they used to, on more products, improving the bottom line for many businesses throughout the economy.<<

Well, no, actually they can't. Because in order to employ them, the government has to first spend money. Your money, my money and the "newly employed's" money. "Government funds" don't just magically appear, despite what politicians tell you.

We will all have less to spend, on fewer products. Do the sums.

And SteeleRedux, your article sees only one side of the equation, through the narrow lens of an organization that concentrates on "the economic condition of low- and middle-income Americans and their families."

What it fails to do, as result, is to introduce any variables apart from "China joining the WTO". Correlation, once again, does not imply causation.