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.