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.