This is a mind bending topic.
I do not believe a country can grow without external trade.
It would merely keep moving the money amongst it's own people till taxes would eventually erode or absorb the money altogether.
I would like to see a free market situation, where we had NO govt intervention, and the industries could move freely to trade with other countries at will.
Govt's and therefore, ministers, are our biggest problem, together with lobbyists, they 'control' our fate.
A recent and major example, was the motor car manufacturing industry.
It has been one of the most subsidised industries of this country.
When the last car rolled out the door, those of us with an interest in the future of the industry were very pleased expecting the restrictions on imported cars to be lifted.
Well it never happened because some bastards, naming Porsche as one, through a leach lobbyist, convinced the govt to not change the import restrictions.
It is our view, that the new car trade has been enjoying extreme financial benefits, at our expense, and so we find that we are still paying out, but now it's not the new car manufacturing industry.
If we are allowed to import cars of our liking and choosing, nothing will happen to Australia, only the greedy scumbags in the car industry would suffer, even then, only slightly.
I don't know anyone who would shed a tear for the car industry, but I do know thousands of people and heard of tens of thousands more who are shedding plenty of tears over the prices of new and used cars.
If we removed govt from foreign domestic deals, such as laws restricting us from dealing abroad, we would all be much better off.

Dear Belly,

Trade, travel, and telecommunications have made
the nations of the modern world more inderdependent
than ever before.

Yet today's societies entered the nuclear age with
political institutions inherited from a previous
era.

The human population is spread among a series of
sovereign independent states - most of them with their
own armed forces - and so there is a built in
potential for warfare whenever two nations have
conflicting interests.

If we anticipate that some benign and fair "world
government" will take on the task for helping nations to
avoid war, we are likely to be disappointed. No country
is willing to give up its sovereignty to an international
body. Take the United Nations as an example - the UN
is most effective, when the super-powers are able to agree
on a course of action and mobilize their blocs to support
it. Still we do have the UN which provides a forum of
world opinion and a mechanism for conflict resolution.

We also have a growing body of international law that
specifies the rights and obligations that nations have
toward each other - particularly with respect to
aggression. We do have the rulings of the World Court.
But compliance with all this is of course voluntary.
And therein lies the problem.

No country is willing to give up its sovereignty.
Still this is so far the best we've got. And while it
may not always prevent war - it helps make it less likely.

Belly said- We can not turn back Globalisation, not stop world trade

Answer- We don't know whether we can turn back anything unless we try. The Confucian view seems to be that the institutions of the community are critical to the stability of the community. ie. The institutions have a lot of power to influence the community even if it doesn't want to be influenced. So this would seem to imply that there are people within the institutions that benefit from elements of globalization so much that they are willing to betray the community for these benefits. The community doesn't seem to benefit from globalization in the long term

I agree with Yuyutsu, but we are stuck with globalisation now, barring a mighty upheaval which would force us to pull up the drawbridge.

Not entirely unrelated, an item on the news tonight has it that China is going to complain to the WTO that Australia's refusal to let Huawei into our mobile phone network goes against global trade rules.

What a cheek. The same China totally ignored international condemnation and court findings that their take over of the South China Sea and and their establishing of artificial islands in it was illegal, are now appealingly to international law!

We should not be dealing with China no matter what the cost. Our main foreign contact has to be America, because we cannot protect ourselves from China without U.S help. We cannot protect ourselves from any foreign power without U.S help.

Dear Belly,

«Well yuyutsu what do you recomend?
How do we achieve it?»

Wisely, calmly, gradually, without anger, using the steps I outlined.

«Always knew many here,and in the real world,dislike, even hate both Globalisation and world trade»

Nothing wrong with trade itself - it is the dependency on this trade which is the problem. With it comes the sacrifice of values and morals.

«One poster told me,and they are linked, he wants all recent/past generations of migrants/refugees [I take it he means non whites] repatriated
Globalisation for most is in fact migration /refugees
And Nationalism?»

Whoever this poster is, his/her ideas are the furthest from mine.
I have nothing against migration and refugees and everything against nationalism, HOWEVER, when the choice is between Australian nationalism and Chinese/Russian/American/UN/world/human nationalism, I have no hesitation in selecting the lesser evil - Australian nationalism.

«How would this country survive if locked out of world trade»

With some austerity. Some pain there will be, but starting sooner and doing so wisely, calmly, gradually and without anger should minimise this pain.

Belly if the US Democrats, our Greens & the left of your mob get their way, & decarbonise our world, world trade will be just a memory. With out fuel oil, trade would be back to sailing ships, & the time taken, & cost of international shipping will end most of the trade we currently enjoy.