Isn't it obvious? If we don't have manufacturers we can't exploit our intellectual resources. If our pay scales aren't the same as overseas competitors even market gardens will be outsourced let alone solar panel manufacture. We're bleeding money and resources and the Chinese and Indians must be laughing at our stupidity.

Competetion and efficiency are good, but sweat shops, serfs and grim wages and conditions do not make for a level playing field. You cannot balance trade with hairdressers and telephone cleaners.

Grey wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 2:16am:

Isn't it obvious? If we don't have manufacturers we can't exploit our intellectual resources. If our pay scales aren't the same as overseas competitors even market gardens will be outsourced let alone solar panel manufacture. We're bleeding money and resources and the Chinese and Indians must be laughing at our stupidity. Competetion and efficiency are good, but sweat shops, serfs and grim wages and conditions do not make for a level playing field. You cannot balance trade with hairdressers and telephone cleaners.

Have you just woken from an endless slumber or something? All those free trade agreements were the toll for the death of most of our occupations. Did you not hear those bells tolling for our past?

It's too late now to throw up barriers as no one would be interested. Howard tore the doors down and the horse has bolted.

Try isolationism now and we're dead meat in a very short time. We'd be excuded from everything and shunned by all.

What are you going to do about refugees? Throw them back in the water? And what of those on aircraft? Will you selectivelt put some of them back on the next plane out?

You must have nodded off while Menzies was still in charge. That's what is obvious fro your words.

Grey wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 2:16am:

Isn't it obvious? If we don't have manufacturers we can't exploit our intellectual resources. If our pay scales aren't the same as overseas competitors even market gardens will be outsourced let alone solar panel manufacture. We're bleeding money and resources and the Chinese and Indians must be laughing at our stupidity. Competetion and efficiency are good, but sweat shops, serfs and grim wages and conditions do not make for a level playing field. You cannot balance trade with hairdressers and telephone cleaners.

Isolationism, tariffs?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D sorry can not stop ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D can't breath ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.

These ideas are death, particularly for the "ME" generation, you know that's the greedy baby boomers who think they will rape the country for everything in their lives to pay for the junket they believe is their right. You can thank Howard/Gillard too as now our last wall is being ripped down. It would seem that bio-security is now less important than free trade so there goes the primary industry, never know some disease or bug might come in that will kill cane toads and half the population if we are lucky.

boogieman wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 6:17am:

Grey wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 2:16am: Isn't it obvious? If we don't have manufacturers we can't exploit our intellectual resources. If our pay scales aren't the same as overseas competitors even market gardens will be outsourced let alone solar panel manufacture. We're bleeding money and resources and the Chinese and Indians must be laughing at our stupidity. Competetion and efficiency are good, but sweat shops, serfs and grim wages and conditions do not make for a level playing field. You cannot balance trade with hairdressers and telephone cleaners. Have you just woken from an endless slumber or something? All those free trade agreements were the toll for the death of most of our occupations. Did you not hear those bells tolling for our past? It's too late now to throw up barriers as no one would be interested. Howard tore the doors down and the horse has bolted. Try isolationism now and we're dead meat in a very short time. We'd be excuded from everything and shunned by all. What are you going to do about refugees? Throw them back in the water? And what of those on aircraft? Will you selectivelt put some of them back on the next plane out? You must have nodded off while Menzies was still in charge. That's what is obvious fro your words.

Boogie a lot has changed in the short time since Howard left the stage. Confidence has dropped out of the Euro/USA zone. I think we need to isolate ourselves from the gangrene. I'm not suggesting we stop exporting to Asia our mining product. I do think we should rebuild our manufacturing base; just because you gave something away doesn't mean you can't buy it again. I think tarriffs should come close to erasing the gap created by cheap labour.

If we don't then the alternative is labour and conditions go into a downward spiral here. That's not good for either Chinese or Australian workers.  Strangely during the time Australia didn't have enough population to sustain its own car maker or washing machine it did just that. Now it does have a big enough population it's importing everything.

It doesn't matter what has happened in the past we ahve to deal with now, and what IS, isn't working. Running an isolationist policy didn't stop the USA taking immigrants. It doesn't mean haveing a commandment. THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYBODY ELSE, you can tailor it to suit.

This is a really bad idea. Have you ever done any economics Grey?

Grey wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 2:16am:

Isn't it obvious? If we don't have manufacturers we can't exploit our intellectual resources. If our pay scales aren't the same as overseas competitors even market gardens will be outsourced let alone solar panel manufacture. We're bleeding money and resources and the Chinese and Indians must be laughing at our stupidity. Competetion and efficiency are good, but sweat shops, serfs and grim wages and conditions do not make for a level playing field. You cannot balance trade with hairdressers and telephone cleaners.

Don't worry, a pile of minerals,  aussie rules , home renovations, word smiths and property bubbles will keep us going forever ;) No need to go to school or manufacture anything ;)

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

This is a really bad idea. Have you ever done any economics Grey?

If you mean 'did you do economics at a tertiary level?', the the answer is no. However I have a damn good record as a commentator. It's a forum not a job interview Free. If you don't agree then attack the POV not the qualifications. World trade worked when we had tarriffs, it's not working now. Not for Australians anyway.

An actual LEVEL playing field would be good.

I remember years ago when the price of imported frozen OJ concentrate (FCOJ) was equivalent to $20 tonne gate price to the grower for Valencia oranges. The growing/harvesting costs were app’ $110t back then. Brazil’s import tariff was 36% ours 5%. Brazilian (US owned) giant Citrosuco could produce in a day what we could in a season.

The citrus industry has been so decimated that 2 years ago we had to source Lemon juice concentrate……from Cuba, how smacking sad is that.

People have only wanted a fair go, while Europe and the US have heavily subsidized their farmers.

Now we have people hating greens in the power balance  :-/

Protectionism is never the answer, part of globalisation is the diversification of our economies into what we are best at, that is why the Western world has seen a cascade of jobs going off-shore, these low-paid menial jobs do not require any special skills. Australia has a relatively well educated population and so instead of wasting their talents in these jobs people are now working in more specialised industries, yes there is short term pain but long-term we are better off.

Also free trade will eventually even out the worlds disparities and create an even playing field again, protectionism will only continue 3rd world poverty and resentment of us.

We have not lost these industries forever, we are essentially out sourcing them at the moment and when it become economically viable again they will re-establish. Factories closing and people crying always looks bad but our long-term future and prosperity depends on us being as efficient as possible and that means using our population in the most profitable way possible.

Templar wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

Protectionism is never the answer, part of globalisation is the diversification of our economies into what we are best at, that is why the Western world has seen a cascade of jobs going off-shore, these low-paid menial jobs do not require any special skills. Australia has a relatively well educated population and so instead of wasting their talents in these jobs people are now working in more specialised industries, yes there is short term pain but long-term we are better off.

That's the official mantra, but it's way off reality. What our manufacturing and agricultural competitors are best at is getting workers to slave for a bowl of rice a day. I say fix tarriffs to take that into account. If they raise wages we should lower tarriffs. What are these 'specialised industries' that will take up the slack? Once Switzerland could set itself up as the bank on the mountain. Those days are long gone. China is manufacturing but its financial sector is growing just as fast.


Quote:

Also free trade will eventually even out the worlds disparities and create an even playing field again, protectionism will only continue 3rd world poverty and resentment of us.

Wrong, what keeps Africa poor is the ability of wealth to exploit poverty along with crippling insecurity. What might work and also alleviate refugee problems is for rich countries to lease land from the poor and provide security and jobs. Would be refugees could work in these autonomous zones and prove their suitability for citizenship. Connective tissue between the host and autonomous zone would grow along with rent for the host nation. It would in effect be an engine for growth. The model is Hong Kong.


Quote:

We have not lost these industries forever, we are essentially out sourcing them at the moment and when it become economically viable again they will re-establish. Factories closing and people crying always looks bad but our long-term future and prosperity depends on us being as efficient as possible and that means using our population in the most profitable way possible.

Guess what, there is no 'WE'. There are multinational corporations, a week ago Apple could put its hand on more cash than the US government. They've grown big by using Asian sweat shop labour. What you're saying is that when workers in Australia have learn't to work for a bowl of rice they'll come back. Well whoopy do.

Outsourcing is a criminal enterprise. Workers are sold an idea that they will grow with the company. That they ARE the company. An arrangement that goes quite often through generations. Then they get dumped by the fat cats on top, (after buiding the company into a multi national) That's fraud.

Same thing applies to the agricultural sector. Farmers invest their lives, as only farmers no how. They do that with an understanding of the rules. Then as FriYAY has pointed out, the rules get changed. For a hundred years Australia has protected farmers from exotic pests and diseases, just for this generation to throw out the baby? To suit the city suits? Give over, that's not a fair go.

Grey wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 7:00am:

freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 7:56pm: This is a really bad idea. Have you ever done any economics Grey? If you mean 'did you do economics at a tertiary level?', the the answer is no. However I have a damn good record as a commentator. It's a forum not a job interview Free. If you don't agree then attack the POV not the qualifications. World trade worked when we had tarriffs, it's not working now. Not for Australians anyway.

I really don't know where to begin. It is like someone giving a different version of the law of gravity. It is hard to attack a POV that is so devoid of substantive argument. Everything you say is wrong.

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 8:41pm:

Grey wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 7:00am: freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 7:56pm: This is a really bad idea. Have you ever done any economics Grey? If you mean 'did you do economics at a tertiary level?', the the answer is no. However I have a damn good record as a commentator. It's a forum not a job interview Free. If you don't agree then attack the POV not the qualifications. World trade worked when we had tarriffs, it's not working now. Not for Australians anyway. I really don't know where to begin. It is like someone giving a different version of the law of gravity. It is hard to attack a POV that is so devoid of substantive argument. Everything you say is wrong.

Nothing you say has any substance. It is not harder to attack a point of view that is ridiculously wrong rather than one that's a bit wrong. The suggestion is absurd, put up or shut up.

Sure I could attack it, but I would be putting more effort into criticising what you say than you put into dreaming it up. If a POV is only a bit wrong you can boil it down pretty quickly to the bit that is wrong. Your on the other hand is vaccuous and nebulous.

Let's have a go with this claim then:


Quote:

World trade worked when we had tarriffs, it's not working now.

This is wrong. That's about the extent of what I can say about it, because it is not really saying much to begin with.

Perhaps you could elaborate on how world trade is supposedly not working now? Are you suggesting the current financial problems are unprecedented and did not occur in the bad old days of tariffs? Is your whole argument based on being completely ignorant of what happened in the past?

Do you have any argument to justify rejecting the accumulated knowledge of other people who have actually studied the history of economics? Or is it easier for you to just replace it with what you want to believe after spending 5 minutes gazing at your navel?

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2011 at 9:14am:

Sure I could attack it, but I would be putting more effort into criticising what you say than you put into dreaming it up. If a POV is only a bit wrong you can boil it down pretty quickly to the bit that is wrong. Your on the other hand is vaccuous and nebulous. Let's have a go with this claim then: Quote: World trade worked when we had tarriffs, it's not working now. This is wrong. That's about the extent of what I can say about it, because it is not really saying much to begin with. Perhaps you could elaborate on how world trade is supposedly not working now? Are you suggesting the current financial problems are unprecedented and did not occur in the bad old days of tariffs? Is your whole argument based on being completely ignorant of what happened in the past? Do you have any argument to justify rejecting the accumulated knowledge of other people who have actually studied the history of economics? Or is it easier for you to just replace it with what you want to believe after spending 5 minutes gazing at your navel?

And you have the affrontery to call me lazy? Post #9 gives you plenty of points to rebutt. Let me remind you how effusive the learned were at the wonderful idea of dumping the gold standard. Now they have the wonderful idea of returning to the gold standard. Everything old is new again.

Sure there are lots of points there, but you could join the dots between them to make whatever picture you want. They do not support your argument, nor form any kind of argument at all. Stringing a bunch of random thoughts together does not mean you put any actual effort into it. It is still lazy. You could put toghether 100 pages of that crap without thinking about it at all. I could rebutt all those points and it would mean nothing to either of us.

Tell me Grey, do you even understand the economic theory you are rejecting? Or is understanding the accumulated wisdom of others too much of an effort when you can just make it up as you go along?

Quote:

However I have a damn good record as a commentator.

no u dont

Yes he does. Grey is able to offer a POV on any topic at all. And as Grey pointed out, a POV is as good as a rational argument.

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2011 at 4:31pm:

Yes he does. Grey is able to offer a POV on any topic at all. And as Grey pointed out, a POV is as good as a rational argument.

Quote:

you could join the dots between them to make whatever picture you want.

Hahaha that's my line. A POV is a rational argument, which I don't hold much respect for. I prefer a reasonable argument which requires collecting and understanding a number of POV. Rationalism is chop logic.  

Are you telling me that no economists agree with me Freediver?

I have never met or heard of an economist who supports a return to economic isolationism.

Quote:

Posen’s thinking has evolved markedly. In the late 1990s he derided “neo-isolationists” who wanted to minimize American involvements abroad. (“Isolationist is what we called the people whose ideas we didn’t like,” he said.) Now he counts himself among their number and has embarked on a book and lecture tour expounding his case for restraint. There are plenty of reasons why retrenchment should get more of a hearing in contemporary America, Posen says, but he doesn’t think power brokers will take the idea seriously until a definitive crisis limits the Pentagon or the Treasury. “It’s almost as if in foreign and security policy, democratic debate peters out,” Posen says. “If you argue for restraint, people hold up garlic like they would against a vampire and shout ‘Isolationist! Isolationist!’” http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20110218-thanassis-cambanis-the-case-for-a-new-isolationism.ece

In fact isn't it the case that only Australia embraces totally free trade and the EU, USA and China all practice protectionism of some form?

I am, as already stated, not calling for out and out isolationism, but a more tailored approach.


Quote:

The major issues facing agriculture in Australia are drought, water security, low soil fertility, weeds, global warming caused by climate change, biosecurity (biological threats from imported foods and livestock), tariffs on Australian exports in the importing country (particularly in Europe and Japan), subsidies to farmers in other countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Australia

Are you suggesting Posen is an economist rather than an equally ill informed hack?


Quote:

In fact isn't it the case that only Australia embraces totally free trade and the EU, USA and China all practice protectionism of some form?

Trade liberalisation is a slow process. I don't think any country has completely liberalised it's trade yet.


Quote:

I am, as already stated, not calling for out and out isolationism, but a more tailored approach.

If US taxpayers want to subsidise agriculture and sell the food to us for less than what it costs, I think it is a good thing for us to take advantage of that and a farmer would be selfish to demand we pay higher prices merely to keep him in business. There is never a good economic argument for trade barriers.

US president McKinley - "Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefiting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest'…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism#Arguments_for_protectionism

McKinley died in 1901. If you go back far enough you will find people who believed the earth was flat. Even very prominent people. That is hardly a validation of your argument. This is not some cyclical trend where the 'experts' will change their mind back in five years. Protectionism is dead and buried among economists. Even most of the public gets it now.

freediver wrote on Aug 21^st, 2011 at 12:15pm:

McKinley died in 1901. If you go back far enough you will find people who believed the earth was flat. Even very prominent people. That is hardly a validation of your argument. This is not some cyclical trend where the 'experts' will change their mind back in five years. Protectionism is dead and buried among economists. Even most of the public gets it now.

Quantas last week, Blue Scope Steel today, Free trade is a sick joke until you get Fair Trade worked out.


Quote:

The fact of the matter is that today, stuff-selling mega-corporations have a huge influence on our daily lives. And because of the competitive nature of our global economy, these corporations are generally only concerned with one thing - the bottom line. That is, maximizing profit, regardless of the social or environmental costs. David Suzuki

Quote:

Business is war SunTzu

We'll never be able to compete with people
who work for a bowl of rice per day.

Oh well - it's off to Centerlink for most of us.

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2011 at 8:20pm:

I have never met or heard of an economist who supports a return to economic isolationism.

Which may go to prove -
1) FD doesn't get out, much?
2) Your standard, run of the mill Economist, NOW has the understanding of a GNAT?

No, I didn't really mean that?

I'm sure that FD does get out?
But, he needs to start thinking outside the box!  

However, as far as most Economists are concerned, THEY HAVE NO IDEA -
1) WHAT'S HAPPENED!
2) WHAT'S HAPPENING!
3) WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN!
4) OR, WHY!

2001

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s305472.htm

today -

Helen Ridout - 'Australia in need of 'strategies' to help manufacturers.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-17/mps-call-for-manufacturing-assistance/2843946

At long last.

Quote:

Quantas last week, Blue Scope Steel today, Free trade is a sick joke until you get Fair Trade worked out.

Can you explain how to build a rational argument for protectionism from these observations?

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 9:56pm:

Quote: Quantas last week, Blue Scope Steel today, Free trade is a sick joke until you get Fair Trade worked out. Can you explain how to build a rational argument for protectionism from these observations?

Quantas enjoyed a unique safety reputation until it started outsourcing. But now it is only going to outsource maintenance. This will pay how?

Australian iron ore is exported to China and returns as railroads, brought by Gina Rhenhardt,  to further the extraction of more ore. This works for Australia how?

Australian intellectual property is manufactured by countries with scant regard for patent rights. This works for Australia how?

'Dumping' of manufactured goods in Australia to drive Australian manufacturers to the wall works in Australia's interests how?

History walks over the bones of 'experts' who refused to recognise the faults of entrenched doctrines.

So your arguments consist of nothing more than an endless series of silly questions?

There is no failure to recognise faults. Are you suggesting that economists are not aware of these things you read in the paper? Are they all idiots except you - the one who rejects all their knowledge without even being aware of it?

What does history do to people who reject wisdom out of ignorance? Did the people who overturned the status quo in history do so without even bothering to find out what the status quo is?

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 10:28pm:

So your arguments consist of nothing more than an endless series of silly questions? There is no failure to recognise faults.

Perhaps I should do a Freediver and dispense with argument altogether and just post questions? Mote and beam, eye business. ;D

There was a time when 'free trade made sense to me FD. A time when I expected it to be a two way street.

Quote:

Perhaps I should do a Freediver and dispense with argument altogether and just post questions? Mote and beam, eye business.

I am not the one trying to throw out the entire field of economics without even knowing what it is. You are, hence my suggestion that you attempt to come up with a rational argument.


Quote:

There was a time when 'free trade made sense to me FD. A time when I expected it to be a two way street

So you reject this wisdom on the grounds that you don't understand it?

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 10:47pm:

Quote: Perhaps I should do a Freediver and dispense with argument altogether and just post questions? Mote and beam, eye business. I am not the one trying to throw out the entire field of economics without even knowing what it is. You are, hence my suggestion that you attempt to come up with a rational argument. [quote]There was a time when 'free trade made sense to me FD. A time when I expected it to be a two way street

So you reject this wisdom on the grounds that you don't understand it?

[/quote]

One of us doesn't and I think the tide is in my favour, but time will tell.

Are you suggesting that you understand economics and I don't?

What tide? Do you realise how small a minority you are in?

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 10:53pm:

Are you suggesting that you understand economics and I don't?

Well you know I have no basis for judging your competence in economics or any other subject FD.


Quote:

What tide? Do you realise how small a minority you are in?

Not only am I aware of it I'm actually quite proud of it. I suspect that will not be a minority opinion for much longer however.

You do realise that economists surrendered control of economies to theoretical mathmaticians ages ago don't you?

Why are you proud? I have no problem with people rejecting recieved wisdom through insight, but you do not understand the knowledge you reject, nor can you give any rational reason for rejecting it, beyond complaining about things that happen that you don't like. This sounds like a stereotypical bogan who revels in his own ignorance.

People would not flock to someone who rejects modern medicine without understanding it, nor purchase advice from a lawyer who makes no effort to understand the law and claims to know better than those who do. What makes you think people will follow your lead? Is there something special about economics that any fool of the street can become an expert by virtue of the fact that he really cares about losing his job?


Quote:

You do realise that economists surrendered control of economies to theoretical mathmaticians ages ago don't you?

Please explain this one.

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2011 at 7:20am:

Why are you proud? I have no problem with people rejecting recieved wisdom through insight, but you do not understand the knowledge you reject, nor can you give any rational reason for rejecting it, beyond complaining about things that happen that you don't like. This sounds like a stereotypical bogan who revels in his own ignorance. People would not flock to someone who rejects modern medicine without understanding it, nor purchase advice from a lawyer who makes no effort to understand the law and claims to know better than those who do. What makes you think people will follow your lead? Is there something special about economics that any fool of the street can become an expert by virtue of the fact that he really cares about losing his job? Quote: You do realise that economists surrendered control of economies to theoretical mathmaticians ages ago don't you? Please explain this one.

Forums like this are designed for brief comment FD. I haven't the time to waste writing a book or even an essay to have it read a couple of times before it disappears into the ethereal 'page before this'.

If I can answer briefly by asking a question I'll do that. You're a sniper FD, you take pot shots while remaining concealed. When you're ready to answer questions as well as ask them we can speak again. I do actually have an interest in other POV. but not in being a sacrificial annode to your ego.

You should listen attentively to last nights Q&A. Nick Minchin to his credit actually managed to mention the crazy maths of derivatives and support being needed for Australian Manufacturers. He did also add 'but not protectionism'. Well, y'know if they want to call it 'instruments for the prevention of collateral damage to manufacturers' or some such newspeak I couldn't care less.

http://www.econjobrumorsarchive.com/topic.php?id=18148

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Derivative.html

Quote:

Forums like this are designed for brief comment FD.

I thought that's what Twitter was for. You on the other hand have taken nothing and stretched it out over a few pages.


Quote:

If I can answer briefly by asking a question I'll do that. You're a sniper FD, you take pot shots while remaining concealed.

If you go on a politics forum and reject well establish economic principles without understanding the principles you reject or even giving a justification for rejecting them, then obviously people are going to criticise you and put little effort into building an alternative narrative. If you don't put any thought into your posts why should people put effort into their responses? How is it even possible to give you a thoughtful response when your claims are all over the place? Am I supposed to post the entire field of economics in the hope that some part of it addresses whatever argument is going on in your head?

The best I can make out is that you don't like companies going broke and people losing their job so you lept to the 'obvious' conclusion that we need to turn economics on it's head and hope for the best.