Even though the Howard Govt has given us 11 yrs of realitive economic growth and prosperity,there have been serious down sides of increased competition that has given our community more job insecurity and longer hours of work.

We are the only country in the developed world that has a non protectionest policy for both manufacturing and primary products.China has a tarrif of 110% on all value added products that enter it's shores,while we only have tarrifs of 5% plus GST of 10%.Where is the level playing field?No polly can answer this question.Which country is fostering the growth of creative industry?It certainly is not the land of OZ.

In my industry prices have not risen for 7 yrs,even though costs have escalated.With the destruction of much of our industries there are fewer options for businesses to satisfy market demands since most of our consumerables are now imported.

Can we become a sustainable land flogging of our resources and not having a diversity of industry to fall back on?Our present Govt just ignores the potential of small business and the long hours many have to work just to survive.

Perhaps this is why many just want to give Labor a go in the hope that job pressures will diminish and quality of life will again return.

"Perhaps this is why many just want to give Labor a go in the hope that job pressures will diminish and quality of life will again return."

Maybe Arjay; but the logic of that doesnt fit the desired outcome. For the desired outcome to occur, Labor would have to change the whole world. And we all know the chances of that.

So, the solution to any perceived problems is simply to keep up with the times, diversify more, use the grey matter more, and reduce 1st world reliance on primary product and get it imported. Industry as we have known it, is also rapidly aging. Time for the new and appropriate.

Labors agrarian, feral, greenhouse nihilism will only affect us, not the world. Electing the Kyoto-oligists will defeat economies here, and roll back windows of oppurtunity.

Our main problem with regard to the coming election, is the 5th collumn undercurrent of feel-good Laborism.

Arjay
Roy Morgan Research suggests that Australians’ sense of job security is almost at its strongest in 30 years.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2005/3942/

They are also more confident in their job security than people in most other countries:
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4120/

ABS data suggest that average hours worked, have been trending down for more than a decade.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6291.0.55.003Feb%202007?OpenDocument

The evidence doesn’t support your claims about globalisation

Rhian,most of the long term unemployed have been moved to Disabled pensions.The unemployed have been redefined by our Govts.We cannot compare this era to that of 40 yrs ago You are considered to be employed even if you have worked just a few hrs a week.Our Govts are trying to provide employment through high taxes and the so called resultant increased Govt services.This is not sustainable economics.With no manufacturing there is little R&D and most of the successful ones just move off shore.I think that Aust going it alone with the reduction of tarrifs in both rural and manufacturing is serious folly.Ireland who have almost no resources lowered taxes on business and invested in education.

We are not the smart country.There are a million Aussies working overseas because both wages and the tax regemes are far better than here.

Arjay

You’re right that the govt defines those working only a few hours as employed, but this was always the case.

I agree that some people have shifted from being counted as unemployed to being counted as disabled, but the effect is relatively minor. Employment as a percentage of the total adult population is at an all-time high – if the unemployed were simply being redefined as disabled, then this wouldn’t be the case.

We’re not “going it alone” with our tariff reductions – most developed countries have manufacturing tariffs similar to ours. The average tariff on manufactured goods worldwide is about 5%, which is the same as our standard tariff. Developing countries tend to have higher manufacturing tariffs, and rich ones – to their shame – often have relatively high agricultural tariffs and other trade barriers, but in manufacturing we’re in the middle of the pack (the standard manufacturing tariff is 5% in the EU, USA and Japan, while Hong Kong and Singapore have zero tariffs). China’s tariffs (and non-tariff barriers) on some individual items are very high, and its average is higher than developed countries, but its tariffs have fallen rapidly since it joined the WTO and the gap now is not huge – a quick Google suggests its average manufacturing tariff is about 11-13%.

And even if the rest of the world had much higher tariffs, that would be no reason to raise ours. It’s a myth to assume that the only point of cutting our tariffs is a tit-for-tat exercise to get access to other countries’ markets. We gain when we cut tariffs unilaterally, through cheaper goods and services and increased competition.

We definatley need to get rid of this Government.Over the past eleven years the Rich have got Richer and the poor are as bad off as third world countries.It is rediculous Australia imports fruit, and our growers has to plough his crops back in.This Government doesn't care about the people in the street,Were we asked if we wanted to go to war with Iraq? being on a Disabilty pension doesn't make one a bludger or non worker,the jobs are just not out there! and it is not that we paraphlegics don't want to work, but who is going to employ someone in a wheelchair at 60 years of age? I worked most of my life and payed taxes,But the so called health system is out of bounds to the common person.This Government has done nothing for the little people.All it is interested in doing is selling off to foreign investors as much of Australia as it can.

You're quite right Charlee. One of the greatest con jobs of the last decade is that John Howard made the general population believe that he was a "friend of the working class." What a joke.
I work in a part time position and it's not always easy to make ends meet. Some weeks, my pay rate is little above the aged pension, yet I earn just too much to get a low income health care card. I pay full rates for everything including medicine. In the latest budget, all I received was a lousy $1.88 per week tax cut and from the highest taxing Government we've ever known.
I've felt unwell for the past three weeks, yet a trip to the doctor will cost upwards of $40. A specialist will cost God knows how much, and then there would probably be medicine on top of that. I'll get some of the doctors cost back from Medicare, but specialists are out of the question, so I grin and bear the discomfort.
Howard has attacked everyone from workers and unmarried mothers, right through to people on disability pensions. From a recent date, you can no longer get onto a disability pension, no matter how bad your condition is (except in the case of blindness) and anyone who comes off a pension then gets unwell (as is often the case with mental illness) cannot get back on the pension again. This has effectively caused people on pensions to stop looking for suitable work and be instead committed to a low income lifestyle for good.
On top of that, unemployed people over the age of 50 are now forced to search for work until retirement age. 15 years of hell at the hands of unfeeling, computerised Centrelink staff.
Howard wonders just why the polls are looking bad for his outfit. Australians simply aren't that stupid, or at least, I hope they're not. The election is still some months away and old Howard will lie and cheat any way he can to win. I still believe it will be a close call either way.

There is something insidious about this whole concept of globalisation.Why aren't all countries allowed to have tarrifs to effect a balance of trade so no one has a trade deficit?Shouldn't all countries balance imports with exports?We have a trade deficit that is almost half our annual GDP.The US is in a worse situation.Where is the advantage in being in debt to countries that produce nearly all our consumerables?We are giving China and India power over our economies.

If being Globalised means we have relinquished power to the multi-nationals and big Govt,then we as a free thinking society,have lost the plot

Arjay
why on earth should countries seek to always have a zero trade balance. Does your household always have outgoings and income exactly balanced? Have you never borrowed – had a mortgage, perhaps? Is there a single business in Australia than neither borrows nor accumulates surpluses? There's nothing wrong with running current account deficits or surpluses as long as you generate enough income to pay your service costs. And there’s no way tariffs could be used to engineer a balanced budget.

Incidentally, our current account deficit is about 6% of GDP

I admit it! I am an evil trade unionist! there its out in the open, just maybe some of the reason is the intent behind workchoices.
So many of you would not understand laws already passed but not to impact until 2009 are just another wave of workchoices.
While secondary impacts would have been the destruction of the union movement John Howard had other wishes.
He wanted to cut financial support for the ALP from those unions.
But for all intents his main aim was and remains to cut costs via wage cuts, thereby cutting our standard of living.
John Howard lead a conservative party into place they will claim after the coming loss they did not want to go.
The greatest reviews of Howard's worth are going to come from within his own party and be hard for him to hear.
Already while Australia booms middle Australia is battling, we should all breath easier now that workchoices will not forever divide the haves from the have nots.
Australia is unhappy with this government because it has lost contact with them.

Rhian"Have you never borrowed to and eventually paid the mortage off." Yes good sense Rhian,however our balance of payments mortage just grows and grows;we seem to have no means of earning an income other than just flogging off non renewable resources.

A one way trading system only benefits the exporter.Have a talk to Dick Smith,he has been saying for years that we are selling our country down the drain and the chickens one day will come home to roost.Perhaps it will be sooner than we think.

Actually, a one-way trading system, if such a thing could exist, would only benefit the importer – what good is it to exchange our goods for Japanese Yen or US dollars unless we can use that money in exchange for something else that we can actually use. The nearest thing we have to a one-way trading system is foreign aid, and in principle it’s the recipient (“importer”) not the donor who gains most in that exchange (the reality might be a bit different, however).

Tariffs don’t necessarily improve the balance of payments. Sure, they make imports more expensive, but they actually operate like export taxes, increasing costs and prices in the domestic economy and adding to export prices too. And in a floating exchange rate regime, the exchange rate will tend to adjust in response to changes in demand.

see
http://www.ecom.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/36742/LookingBackwards.pdf

Dick Smith is a populist who profits from marketing his products under a mantle of patriotism. He’s also an economic illiterate - hardly an authority on these matters.

Rhian"Our current acount deficit is 6% of GDP" Very creative Statistics Rhian.Our deficit is $400 Billion and our GDP is $1000 billion or one trillion.Our deficit is 40% of GDP and not 6% which you espouse.Now this very basic error puts all your other claims in the realm of wishful thinking.Please explain.

Arjay
You're confusing the current account deficit with our foreign debt. The current account deficit is the gap between money received on our overseas transactions (export revenue, interest and dividends etc) and money sent abroad each month, quarter, year etc. Foreign debt is the accumulated stock of debt arising over the years as a result of deficits. A basic error indeed, but it’s yours, not mine.

Good point Rhian,however your stats prove to be more concerning than I first thought.6% of our GDP is $60 billion or $6000.00 for every working person pa we are loosing from our economy that future generations like your children and mine must one day make recompense.

The US is considering increasing tarrifs because they are going out the back door with their current account deficit to the tune of $800 billion pa.In real terms the US is 15 times our population yet per
head of population ours is worse.Never in our history have we sold so much of our resources yet our current account deficit continues to worsen.This is why the Howard Govt wants to keep wages low so we can keep industries here.Well it isn't going to happen.

Australia is bleeding to death just like the US and the free trade ludites lasiviate in denial,while Rome burns.

All countries should be allowed to balance their trade,just like ordinary households balance their budgets,otherwise we all become slaves to big business and Govts.

Arjay
On the day when Australia's domestic savings are sufficient to finance the investment we need, Australia may no longer need to run a current account deficit. But until then, we're much better off borrowing from foreigners than slashing domestic consumption or investment, which is what balancing the account would require.

Rhian, Australia cannot keep borrowing indefintely from foreigners to finance our fiscal improvidence.

Our foreign capital addiction is unhealthy. Why? Because most of the foreign capital inflow over the past decade has not gone into the expansion of export sectors needed to service our foreign liabilities. Rather, it has gone into non-tradable goods sectors (import consumption, property) and was lent to Australia in order to take advantage of our higher interest rates. This leaves our entire economy precariously exposed to the whims of foreign capital markets.

The enormousness of Australia's debt-servicing burden leaves us highly vunerable to any downturn in our terms of trade and/or a rise in global interest rates. Considering the size of our foreign debt, I shudder to imagine the balance of payments crisis Australia will experience when the commodities boom comes to an end.

If Australia is to reduce its CAD and stabilize its foreign liabilities, we need to start running trade surpluses. This means more investment in tradable goods sectors, but also in import-replacement industries.

Kenneth Davidson at The Age examined the recent findings of chief economist of HSBC bank, Dr John Edwards, in a paper prepared for the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. Davidson wrote:

"According to Edwards, if Australia wants to stabilise net foreign liabilities at 100 per cent of GDP, it must permanently limit the current account deficit to a maximum of 5 per cent of GDP, and it must do so by running a trade surplus of 1 per cent of GDP. This doesn't look too much of an ask, but given that in recent years Australia has been running a trade deficit of 3 per cent of GDP, Edwards points out: "The move to a surplus of 1 per cent of GDP means that exports have to increase by 4 per cent of GDP or imports cut by 4 per cent of GDP, or some mix of the two."

To put these shifts in context: the weight of the adjustment must fall on consumption rather than investment because investment is needed either to increase exports or achieve the necessary import substitution to avoid the necessity of the adjustment occurring in the context of a shrinking economy and rising unemployment."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/foreign-debt-a-cause-for-concern/2007/05/20/1179601239331.html

Oligarch,

I agree that stabilising our current account deficit at about 5% of GDP would be a good idea (not eliminating it, as Arjay proposes), although it does tend to fluctuate over the business cycle, as this is no great cause for concern. I’m not sure that raising the trade balance is the only, or best, route to achieving that – as mentioned above, I think Australia’s persistent low savings rate is the underlying cause of our current account deficits. But trade surpluses would certainly help. At root trade the trade balance and low savings reflect broadly the same issue – the gap between what we produce and what we use.

A current account deficit averaging 5% of GDP should be achievable – historically our current account deficit has fluctuated between 3% and about 6½% of GDP, and in fact it has averaged 5.2% over the past 5 years and 4.5% in the past 10 years.

I agree, too, that the flattening of exports in recent years is puzzling and worrying given the strength of demand and prices for our exports. I’m not sure this has a single cause– maybe infrastructure bottlenecks, long lead times between investment and production in the resource sector (which has been investing heavily), diversion of domestically produced goods from export to domestic markets to meet strong domestic demand, the effects of the drought on agricultural exports – probably a combination of all these and more.

I’m very sure, though, that Arjay’s proposed solution of a return to tariff protectionism will reduce economic welfare and will not make the current account deficit better, indeed could well make it worse.

"The Pressure of Globalisation Could Well be the Source of Voter Disatisfaction"

Doh!

What a no brainer!

i'm a little worried, rj- caught myself agreeing with you.

if we were a rational and just society, we'd have a single 'transaction tax' so everyone supported society in proportion to material benefits received. and we'd have a single tariff too, on money leaving the country. this would preserve a stable currency,and give a way to encourage in-country activities, without giving favors to any particular industry.