For they were jolly good fellows

It will be a shame if the Liberal Party’s 75th anniversary celebration this weekend is overshadowed by a growing scandal about old horses being sent to the knackery. But let’s be kind and celebrate the party’s two greatest achievements. First: sidelining and snuffing out communist infiltration into Australian democracy. More than an honourable mention is also due to B.A. Santamaria and the Catholic Social Studies Movement. Scroll down to the audio file at this link to hear Labor leader H.V. Evatt’s comical reliance on the word of Vyacheslav Molotov that the Petrov documents – which named members of the Opposition Leader’s staff – were forgeries. This was the moment Evatt lost the support of his own party; it was possibly also the moment he finally lost his faculties. Robert Menzies’ rebuttal (audio at the same link) was calm and utterly devastating. The compromised ALP was banished to oblivion for a generation. By a strange twist of timing, however, Reds are again under our beds but this time they’re Chinese. Being Chinese, far more of them fit under there.
———-
Second: the triumph that wasn’t. In the 1960s, the late Bert Kelly laid the foundations – he would say, modest foundations – for a genuinely free trade mentality to begin driving economic policy in the post-Menzies era. Oddly, he succeeded at the grand policy level only as an influence on Gough Whitlam whose tariff cut in 1973 was culturally shocking at the time. Although Whitlam is given credit as a technocrat capable of thinking outside of the labour movement box, I’ve always believed the cut was more a function of his Mandarin upbringing (the instilled loathing of dirty commerce and its Liberal practitioners) than it was an impartial dalliance with laissez-faire rationalism. Malcolm Fraser had several other Dries to deploy and draw from intellectually – John Hyde, Peter Shack, Jim Carlton, the younger John Howard, Kelly (qua columnist) – but he played it safe as a traditional Australian dirigiste. Even so, it was the Dries who kept the market fires burning in the 1970s, culminating in the Campbell Inquiry and its now storied report. A floating exchange rate, foreign banks and deregulation of the banking sector followed. Alas for the Dries, none of it happened under a Liberal prime minister. But it was Liberals who made it possible. Nobody knows what Paul Keating was doing in the 1970s but it wasn’t deep thinking about marketising the Australian economy.

This entry was posted in Australian Story, History, Market Economy. Bookmark the permalink.

344 Responses to For they were jolly good fellows

  1. Fisky

    Anti-Communism in the 1950s and 60s was perhaps the proudest moment in our history. The repeated electoral defeats of a clearly pro-Communist Labor Party were a testament to the moral character and judgment of the Australian people.

  2. Rafe Champion

    The climate skeptics could win the political battle in a canter if we had access to the kind of network and standing army of “minutemen” that Sanatmaria could command. Sadly he was on the other side of the barricades in the tariff wars.

    Remembering John Hyde. And one of the many achievements of Hal Colebatch was the completion of the biography of Bert Kelly. Also the reduction of John Hyde’s massive story of the dry movement to a size that could be published as a book. The full story is on line at the IPA website.

    From Prescott Valley AZ as the sun rises.

  3. RobK

    John Hyde has been inspirational.

  4. pete m

    Being Chinese, far more of them fit under there.

    Is there a rational point to this? Ie more of labor now tied up with commons than before?

    If not seems a gratuitous comment that is not needed.

  5. Delcon

    Anyway, while our Left, including Labor, seems to be so involved with Chicoms that one finds it hard to find any distinction between Labor’s positions and Beijing’s, a e certain Gladys Liu suggests that while chicoms had a complete and absolute success with Labor, they hardly stop there.
    China may be a single party system, a party which the commies control, but that doesn’t mean that they forgot that Australia is a two party one. It seems the second one is firmly in their gaze.

  6. will

    so Liberal good because they are not Labour. Where have I heard that before?

    so by the 1970’s the government owned a bank, an airline and 65,934 tonnes of wool under a reserve price scheme.

  7. Fisky
    #3187793, posted on October 19, 2019 at 1:02 am

    Anti-Communism in the 1950s and 60s was perhaps the proudest moment in our history. The repeated electoral defeats of a clearly pro-Communist Labor Party were a testament to the moral character and judgment of the Australian people.

    So what happened in 1972?

    In 1951, estimates of the 2PP votes was 50.7% to 49.3%.

    It was a coin flip until the DLP broke away.

  8. calli

    Yes, it’s humour.

    And real. All Aldi bags may look the same, but not all are equal.

  9. Rafe Champion

    God bless the DLP!

  10. RobK

    I think a difference today is that the UN is supportive of a Chinese style of government. I doubt that would have been the case in the 50s. The technocrats find their feet with the EU, UN, WTO etc.

  11. I_am_not_a_robot

    Menzies did try to “snuff out communist infiltration” in 1951 but failed at the referendum, maybe because so soon after the war the general public were not conscious of the malign nature of Soviet expansionism.
    The Petrov Affair did focus the public’s attention on that, together with general economic growth, the ’56 Olympic Games, television and spread of US cultural influence, they all helped to expel the rather grim post-war atmosphere.
    Sadly for Liberal Party stalwarts it took a Labor government to carry out an economic reform agenda, role the Liberal Party played was not to oppose them.
    My assessment could be way off beam having no specialised knowledge of those times, except memory.

  12. stackja

    Venona showed part of the KGB work in Australia. Breaking of the Codes showed another part of the KGB work in Australia. Evatt and Burton telegrams in DFAT archive show how Evatt and Burton mishandled KGB microphone in Australian Moscow embassy. Yet so many still remember ‘Pig Iron Bob’ and the ‘courageous’ wharfies who refused to load pig iron to Japan. And Evatt ‘created’ the UN. Leftist myths rule in Australian history.

  13. I_am_not_a_robot

    God bless the DLP!

    That’s a strange comment coming from a supposed ‘libertarian’, the DLP in its day and its founder Bob Santamaria were hostile to economic and social libertarianism and individualism.

  14. Dr Fred Lenin

    Years ago I knew a publican who was a leading light in th local DLP, he stood for election many times to split the labor vote ,one evening I went in for a drink and he took me to the lounge bar where he introdced me to Bob Santamaria ,we had a couple of drinks and conversed about many things ,he was a very intelligent man with a nice manner ,my impresion was of talking o a pleasant priest he had tht calm manner . His description of the goals of the Civic Council were lucid and perfectly reasonable ,unlike the frenetic garbage given by the media ,the nedia was infested with leftists even then . He will definately go down in our history s a notable Australian when people are asking who were hese people rudd giliard shorten ?

  15. C.L.

    The Chinese are small people, Pete, and the “reds under the beds” trope has been mocked in many and varied ways since its inauguration. I can’t believe I have to explain, let alone justify, that.

  16. Rafe Champion

    The DLP kept Evatt and ALP in opposition and almost cleaned the communists out of the trade unions.
    Pity about economic policy but the Libs were not ready for reform. Could have evolved on civil liberties.

  17. Rafe Champion

    He was a Carlton supporter in case it matters.

  18. Rafe Champion

    He was prepared to condone Southey pushing bespectacled Bomber full forward in the back to save a grand final in the last minutes of the game.

  19. BoyfromTottenham

    currencylad:
    You said: Oddly, he succeeded at the grand policy level only as an influence on Gough Whitlam whose tariff cut in 1973 was culturally shocking at the time.”
    It sure was shocking – I well remember these tariff cuts – they destroyed most of our Australian-owned and thriving electronics industry in which I worked. Before these totally out-of-the-blue cuts, Australia was largely self-sufficent in domestic and commercial radio and television equipment design and manufacturing. Household names like AWA and Ferris, and less well-known electronic component manufacturers such as IRC and UCC disappeared within a couple of years (AWA only surviving by its government and broadcasting customers), throwing tens of thousands of highly skilled employees out of work. This industry never recovered, and we became totally dependent upon imported electronic goods just when the digital age was replacing the vacuum-tube powered radio and TV with the transistorised equivalent, quickly followed of course by the computer. Without a manufacturing base in electronics and computers we were unable to benefit from this new wave of technology except by purchasing, at hugely inflated prices, imported products. This in turn inhibited the development of a local computer software industry for at least a decade. If these were the benefits of ‘free trade’ I think they came at a damned high price at the time!

  20. . This in turn inhibited the development of a local computer software industry for at least a decade.

    Which consists of?

  21. Goanna

    The eloquent BA Santamaria sinks the boot into their ABC.

    Less than one minute.
    https://youtu.be/BBHFGVfas7g

  22. C.L.

    Santamaria really believed in an economy of small farmers and urban salarymen, locally owned credit associations, regulated banking – all cemented by the family and private associations. It was to some extent a romantic idyll but no more so than any of the other ‘visions’ politicians sell to the electorate every other day. A lot of what he lamented about a corporatised economy where the big end of town ceased caring about human beings (precisely as human beings) has unquestionably come true. His belief that the communists he helped defeat had changed their spots and moved into the institutions of culture, education and governance was also correct.

  23. Infidel Tiger

    Santamaria was right. Corporatism has destroyed our society.

  24. eb

    BfromT, you make a good point. From my university days, and my libertarian inclinations from thereon, I was very much in favour of free trade. But the example you’ve given, and also with the Aussie car industry, shows the tremendous ramifications at local and country level of untrammelled free trade.

    I don’t know where the perfect balance lies. Consumers are entitled to buy at the best price available, and an industry shouldn’t just exist to benefit its employees. But those employees are voters, and most importantly part of the community as well, and they, and the technology and knowledge of that industry, shouldn’t just be throw on the scrap heap for a few cheap geegaws. (I think I’m channeling Infidel Tiger!)

  25. eb
    #3188025, posted on October 19, 2019 at 11:27 am

    BfromT, you make a good point. From my university days, and my libertarian inclinations from thereon, I was very much in favour of free trade. But the example you’ve given, and also with the Aussie car industry, shows the tremendous ramifications at local and country level of untrammelled free trade.

    There was no decent point in that at all.

  26. C.L.

    Dot, isn’t here an argument for tariffs when it comes to technical industries?

  27. Fisky

    “Free trade” caused the immediate loss of 3-4 million US manufacturing jobs in 2001-5 and probably over 10 million in total when you include secondary jobs, while unleashing the most insidious tyranny since the Nazis. Nice work, “free trade”!

  28. JC

    Corporations are ciphers. They act exactly to the signals they pick up. If the government acts corporatist corporations do as well. Don’t blame them.

    Take a look at the rules dictated they have to live by. It’s to all intents a radical greens manifesto.

    The great benefit of large corporations is that they still produce inexpensive goods people want to buy and this can never be over looked.

    Corporatism is and always will be about government because when you create barriers to entry through regulations and subsidies etc, this is what you will end up with.

    Having said that, capitalism is thriving though, but it’s just not as visible. The private enterprise sphere is incredibly robust and getting bigger by the day.

  29. JC

    Frisky

    Why were those jobs lost? Why did firms go overseas? Don’t go for cheap wages, because if you do then you would have to explain why jobs didn’t move to the lowest wage cost countries like Mali where you could hire workers at say a buck a day.

  30. Fisky

    The jobs went straight to the PRC, which got rich off the US’s stupidity.

  31. JC

    The US is currently exhibit A why tariffs and like restrictions don’t work as you end up with cronyism and ironically even more corporatism.

    Doing deals with the government to access special privileges is corporatism writ large.

    See, for instance, the special deals Apple receives because CEO, Tim Cook, gets on well with Trump.

  32. Fisky

    Yeah, we can get onto that. But first we need an acknowledgement from “free traders” where their theory doesn’t work out. The PRC joined the WTO on the EXPLICIT promise that it would “liberalise” their society and improve human rights. No lying now. That was what every single politician claimed at the time. What happened instead? Over 3 million factory jobs shipped over, replaced by a phony housing bubble that smashed the economy. A dystopian police state weaponised and unleashed against liberal democracies everywhere, buying out our politicians, actively interfering in the electoral process, demanding (and getting) people to shut up about the camps, destroying the rule of law in HK, etc etc. Total disaster. All of this is owned by the “free trade” and “constructive engagement” lobby.

  33. C.L.
    #3188034, posted on October 19, 2019 at 11:36 am

    Dot, isn’t here an argument for tariffs when it comes to technical industries?

    No.

    You can’t fight the product cycle, the strategic industry argument is the argument for Airbus.

    The idea that AWA disappearing is the reason why don’t have a software industry is only deserving of mockery.

    …and no, we don’t need the braindead “the jobs went strsight to China”.

    No again.

    They went to Taiwan and Japan, then China, now Vietnam.

    Once again, you can’t fight the product cycle.

    The US and Germany have technological industries which they don’t protect arguably beyond IP rules.

    Intel doesn’t exist as a profitable company because of high tariffs.

    Comparative advantage isn’t fixed and it is only linked to and not strictly tied to your resource endowments. Australia excels at destroying comparative advantages.

  34. JC

    Fisk

    The China of 20 years ago is not the same China of today. It’s politics changes with the arsehole currently running the place.

    Also, the Chinese weren’t the only people who got rich. American consumer purchasing power increased and also made Americans richer.
    Take a look at US per capita real consumption. It’s been going straight up.

    Lastly, we should be celebrating how 100s of millions of human beings have joined the middle class over the past 30 years.

  35. JC

    He knows all this, he just wants to be pre-selected by One Nation.

    I hope it works out for him.

  36. Fisky

    Anyway, the real kicker is this. China’s accession to the WTO does not in fact validate the “free trade” lobby because, and listen closely now….there’s no such thing as free trade with China. Never has been. You don’t get free and equal access to their market, there’s no rule of law, if the government doesn’t like your company they shut it down or one of your “business partners” steals it. That’s it.

    So it’s weird to see “free traders” supporting China’s WTO membership given it has nothing to do with free trade.

  37. Roger

    Australia excels at destroying comparative advantages.

    To an extent that you’d almost believe it is a conspiracy but for the gormlessness of our leaders (in most fields).

  38. Fisky

    There was a massive transfer of wealth to the PRC, which are now using their gains to destroy open societies everywhere. That’s the outcome of the last 20 years. A bit dumb to still be running Brookings Institute talking points that are more than a decade out of date.

  39. JC

    Australia excels at destroying comparative advantages.

    Lol, we’re the best in the world.

    Good point about Airbus as it’s been a sinkhole for the Euro government consortium that put it together. If Airbus didn’t exist, McDonell Douglas would be around competing with Boeing.

  40. JC

    What about the massive of wealth to the rest of the world as a result relatively cheaper Chinese goods? Does increased purchasing power count for anything?

  41. Fisky

    But Western growth rates have fallen since China joined the WTO, not increased. So there’s no evidence that it has made us wealthier.

  42. The idea that reducing tariffs in Australia from the Menzies era onward (he was heavily criticised, see Don Brash’s PhD thesis for example), which led to high levels of foreign direct investment into Australia, somehow is surrendering to China* (most investment has been from the US), is breathtakingly ignorant and simply bizarre.

    *By apparently the Chinese not doing anything, such as producing goods and services we want.

  43. Old School Conservative

    Goanna, the irony is that Cassidy showed the BAS footage to denigrate both BAS and Abbott – yet probably got some people actually thinking about the issues like subsidised sodomy.

  44. Fisky
    #3188081, posted on October 19, 2019 at 12:29 pm

    But Western growth rates have fallen since China joined the WTO, not increased.

    Sure, but as you know the GFC happened.

    So there’s no evidence that it has made us wealthier

    There is ample evidence that western standards of living would be lower otherwise, viz JC and the cost of consumer goods.

  45. Fisky

    Sorry, I must have been dreaming when every single “libertarian” was defending the right of PRC front companies to buy up Australian assets without any oversight from the federal government. Farmland, factories, real estate, ports, railways, everything. They also wanted Huawei to come in and keep tabs on everyone. “Libertarians” wanted to hand it all over to the PRC. Incredible.

  46. Fisky

    Sure, but as you know the GFC happened.

    Caused by the housing bubble, which itself was the Fed’s only growth avenue after the manufacturing bust. Caused by the PRC joining the WTO.

    There is ample evidence that western standards of living would be lower otherwise, viz JC and the cost of consumer goods.

    Says who? How do you know other countries wouldn’t have come online? Plus we were already trading with the PRC prior to it joining the WTO. That would have continued, albeit with China having fewer legal avenues against any anti-dumping measures (or tariffs) we felt like imposing on them.

    Rather stupid to throw that advantage away, wasn’t it.

  47. Now you’re conflating US manufacturing job losses (you’re not mentioniong Trump’s incredibly low unemployment, achieved with low corporate tax rates; the tariffs he imposed are utterly minimal) with Chinese (mostly) small scale estate investment here, (large scale) US FDI here [which represents a massive slice of our capital base, wage paying ability and jobs] and the more stupid government decisions like letting the former head of ASIO being a shill for Huaiwei.

    Not to mention how “low wages” in the US represent increasingly high taxes and non-wage employment benefits since the 1970s, perhaps underrated by the hedonic price indexation the US Fed chose in the 1990s.

    This is just an asinine dog’s breakfast of clearly different, sometimes mutually exclusive and often unconnected phenomena Fisk.

  48. max

    Garret Garrett on FDR’s New Deal: The Revolution Was
    Gary North – October 22, 2018

    “There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.” — Garret Garrett, The Revolution Was (1938)

    In 1932 a band of intellectual revolutionaries, hiding behind the conservative planks of the Democratic party, seized control of government.
    After that it was the voice of government saying to the people there had been too much freedom. That was their trouble. Freedom was for the strong. The few had used it to exploit the many. Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost, boom and bust, depression and unemployment, economic insecurity, want in the midst of plenty, property rights above human rights, taking it always out of the hide of labor in bad times — all of that was what came of rugged individualism, of free prices, free markets, free enterprise and freedom of contract. Let that be the price of freedom, and who would not say it was too dear?
    So, instead of this willful private freedom, trust the government to administer freedom, for all the people alike, especially the weak. To begin with, the government would redistribute the national wealth in an equitable manner. Then its planners would plan production and distribution in perfect balance, and thus no more boom and bust; the government then would see to it that everybody had always enough money to buy a decent living and beyond that it would provide for the widows and orphans, the sick and disabled, the indigent and the old.
    To perform these miracles, it would require more freedom for itself — that is, freedom to intervene in the lives of people for their own good, freedom from old Constitutional restraints that belonged to our horse-and-buggy days, and freedom to do as it would with the public purse. And if it should be said that this increase in the government’s own sphere of freedom meant a curtailment of the individual’s freedom, it came to this — that the individual was asked to surrender only the freedom to starve and what he received in return was freedom from want. Was that not a good bargain?
    What the people did in fact surrender was control of government.
    They did not intend to do that. For a long time they did not realize they had done it, and when it came to them they were already deeply infected with a virus that devours the copy book virtues, creates habits of dependence and destroys the valiant love of self-responsibility.

    The crisis was moral.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/18705.cfm

  49. Caused by the housing bubble, which itself was the Fed’s only growth avenue after the manufacturing bust. Caused by the PRC joining the WTO.

    You’re saying Greenspan HAD to have low rates because of China? What about no-recourse mortgages? GSE loans? Bush’s (at the time) record government debt?

    You seriously cannot be this stupid.

    Says who?

    Raw data.

    Rather stupid to throw that advantage away, wasn’t it.

    Now you’re in complete denial of the product cycle in international trade.

    China is losing low wage assembly type work to poorer nations and has done so for over two decades now.

    This is a good thing for everyone. It means the Chinese are too productive now to hold those sorts of positions.

    Good luck with the PHON pre-selection.

  50. Fisky

    https://slate.com/business/2016/09/when-china-joined-the-wto-it-kick-started-the-chinese-economy-and-roused-a-giant.html

    And it turns out that people and communities don’t instantly adjust when their livelihoods are upended, the way they do in textbooks. Autor, Dorn, Hanson, et al. found that, when factory jobs disappeared, nothing showed up to replace them. Rather than moving to places with more opportunities, workers tended to stick around their hollowed-out hometowns—after all, uprooting your life for the sake of work isn’t that easy for people without much in the way of resources.

    No kidding

  51. Siltstone

    Rafe:
    He was prepared to condone Southey pushing bespectacled Bomber full forward in the back to save a grand final in the last minutes of the game.

    I remember that deplorable push-in-the-back to geoff Blethyn. We was robbed.

  52. max

    Fisky:
    “Free trade” caused the immediate loss of 3-4 million US manufacturing jobs in 2001-5 and probably over 10 million in total when you include secondary jobs

    who say it was free trade that did this?
    name of person, articles or books that claim that.. thanks.

    what is free trade?

  53. Fisky

    Now you’re in complete denial of the product cycle in international trade.

    It’s got nothing to do with that you weirdo autist. No one cares about your dumb theories. What happened is that we handed Beijing the right to litigate us in the WTO if we whack tariffs on them, when it turns out they were cheating all along.

    We should never listen to economists again. They’ve been wrong about everything for the past 40 years. All developing countries such as the PRC, South Korea, etc got rich by ignoring the advice of economists, and so should we.

  54. max

    Fisky:
    The jobs went straight to the PRC, which got rich off the US’s stupidity.

    why did jobs go there?
    what is problem?

  55. JC

    It’s true there are localized hardships when there’s economic dislocation. Fisky, no one doubts this.

    But there’s this

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A794RX0Q048SBEA

  56. Fisky

    why did jobs go there?
    what is problem?

    Hilarious to see libertarians hailing the success of the largest mercantilist economic power in the world.

  57. max

    Fisky:
    There was a massive transfer of wealth to the PRC, which are now using their gains to destroy open societies everywhere.

    again just see one think and do not see other thinks.

    why did jobs go to China or any other place?

  58. max

    I will tell you:

    they work for cheaper
    have less regulations

  59. JC

    Fisk

    No one here supports mercantalism. No one here support China and there should be pressure placed on it to change its ways. However, the benefits to the rest of us shouldn’t be dismissed.

  60. eb

    Australia excels at destroying comparative advantages.

    +100

    But it doesn’t have to be that way. Our politicians, instead of doing the hard yards and making the rapacious and feather-bedded unions pull their heads in, trying to reduce the cost of inputs (mainly electricity), and reducing red tape, have just let things slide. And then claimed they could nothing about it. Bloody useless!

    I acknowledge that free trade will result in cheaper goods for the mass of people, and that will outweigh the costs borne by the few. That’s the theory, and that’s probably also, at least in money terms, the facts.
    But, in the real world, other things can also happen. Communities start to disintegrate, low skill and specialised employees cannot easily move to other jobs, knowledge is lost, independence is reduced, the pride of self-sufficiency is undermined, swathes of the what used to be the heartland of the country are lost.

    These things should not be ignored. A nation state has a responsibility only to its own people.

  61. max

    what China do is not important for Australia and nothing we can do about it.

    What we can do is to have freedom, honest money and little regulations and than we can compete in some area wit any one.

  62. JC

    have less regulation

    Yep. An Australian firm, who’s name I forget was very interested in processing rare earths. It can’t be done here because of the residual impact on the ‘ vironemt.

    Leftism kills industry. I’m not suggesting we should pollute ourselves to death but there is no happy middle any longer. There’s just extremism. Don’t blame the Chinese for western environmental extremism.

    I emphasize that we should not pollute ourselves to death… but FMD.

    Let’s have more climate justice.

  63. Fisky
    #3188105, posted on October 19, 2019 at 12:53 pm

    Now you’re in complete denial of the product cycle in international trade.

    It’s got nothing to do with that you weirdo autist. No one cares about your dumb theories.

    Shut up you ignorant pig.

    You’re going to come out as anti-vaxxer shortly.

    LOL.

  64. Anyone shilling for tariffs is shilling for higher taxes.

    You are shilling for bugmen to be paid salaries to administer jobs, Keynesian policy and higher prices.

    This is not much different to being in Excrement Retention.

    All developing countries such as the PRC, South Korea, etc got rich by ignoring the advice of economists, and so should we.

    I don’t know why I am addicted to being baited, but you seem to forget the 1st 30 years of the PRC.

    Please tell us all how the Great Leap Forward was some Chicago school conspiracy.

    Please tell us, Ms Klein.

  65. Fisky

    What we can do is to have freedom, honest money and little regulations and than we can compete in some area wit any one

    Oh my god were you not following the LeBron controversy like 3 days ago??? The reality is you don’t get to have ‘free trade’ or any close economic relationship with the PRC while still keeping freedom of speech. THEY call the shots.

    Put the textbooks down, libertarians, they are making you stupid.

  66. But, in the real world, other things can also happen. Communities start to disintegrate, low skill and specialised employees cannot easily move to other jobs, knowledge is lost, independence is reduced, the pride of self-sufficiency is undermined, swathes of the what used to be the heartland of the country are lost.

    You have this ALL wrong.

    If the only reason why they have the job in a protected industry is because of the protectionism, they are NOT low skill employees; they are high productivity employees. Their wages are being suppressed.

    If high skill workers never have to adapt, then we’d become luddites and soon Amish as a policy choice.

    Can you name any protected industry in Australia that had a wealthy community because of that tariff?

    Geelong and Liverpool (Pacific Brands and Holden) really don’t come across as wealthy to me, let alone affordable.

  67. Fisky

    However, the benefits to the rest of us shouldn’t be dismissed

    Tiny to non-existent. Growth was much healthier prior to China joining the WTO, housing was more affordable, life expectancy ticking up, etc.

  68. JC

    eb

    If you’re looking for what economic disintegration looks like, think what a bombed out Europe looked like after WW2. That’s economic disintegration!

    They picked themselves up and moved on.

    Save money, don’t spend it all in case there’s a rainy day. Be mindful one’s job may not last forever. Avoid unionization as it destroys jobs… lastly, stop voting or supporting the Greens who are fucking poison to our society. If you’re really looking for the culprit to economic dislocation, look no further than western environmental groups and straight out leftism. It removes the ability for economies to be flexible. Australia is not the richest country in the world because we gave away our car industry. We’re not at the top of the league tables because we’re stupid and gave away our advantages… see Frank.

  69. We can have free trade.

    China can have all the tariffs and bullshit laws they like.

    Until Bejing hoists a flag over Federal Parliament, we can be free trading or not as we like.

    Complaining about trade liberalisation because the other guy doesn’t do it is like saying you don’t want any reform because there are always winners and losers, but at the same time you are shilling for tariffs and so you want “winners” on the way “up”.

    What you are shilling for is low wages, high prices, a large bureaucracy and a lack of innovation and foreign investment. Which would attack living standards in a significant manner.

  70. JC

    Fisk

    Who gives a flying fuck what a dorky 8 foot tall basketball player from the hood says about China. He’s good at dropping a ball in a net and not much else.

    LeBron is not someone we go to to figure out trade and free speech.

  71. Stimpson J. Cat

    Oh my god were you not following the LeBron controversy like 3 days ago??? The reality is you don’t get to have ‘free trade’ or any close economic relationship with the PRC while still keeping freedom of speech. THEY call the shots.
    Put the textbooks down, libertarians, they are making you stupid.

    Maybe look into the current Blizzard games controversy libertarian retards, you know, like your kids are.
    You have literally no idea of the reach and control of China through their corporate proxies.
    Money is not as important to them as maintaining the political status quo.

  72. Fisky
    #3188131, posted on October 19, 2019 at 1:12 pm

    However, the benefits to the rest of us shouldn’t be dismissed

    Tiny to non-existent.

    Total bullshit. Just stop.

    Look at FDI as a proportion of GFCF in Australia. Then look at the proportion of wages it pays. FDI significantly grew AFTER trade liberalisation.

  73. Fisky

    I’m sensing that neoliberals have zero self-awareness or ability to understand why they are politically irrelevant now, having gone from total hegemony in the 90s. It goes like this – if you keep making claims that don’t come true, eventually people stop listening to you. Let’s run through a few of them.

    1. Open borders will lead to a massive boom in living standards; Reality: since the Schengen agreement passed the EU and massive population movements ensued, per-capita growth rates have fallen
    2. China joining the WTO will be tremendously economically beneficial and lead to greater political freedoms there; Reality: barely a blip added in GDP (see the US, Australia), and as for political liberalism, lol
    3. Brexit will lead to an immediate depression after the vote, a collapse in the housing market, etc; Reality: Germany’s economy is in the toilet while the UK ticks along

  74. Arky

    Until Bejing hoists a flag over Federal Parliament,

    ..
    Or Box Hill police station.

  75. JC

    The present day examples of trade restricted, capital controlled and relatively politically “ free”countries are in South America. How’s that been working out?

    Is that the model we should be going for?

    Please!

  76. Fisky

    Who gives a flying fuck what a dorky 8 foot tall basketball player from the hood says about China. He’s good at dropping a ball in a net and not much else.

    OK. So you would be aware of the PRC going after foreign companies and demanding they sack any staff who support the HK protests. They forced out the CEO of Cathay Pacific FFS.

    That’s what you get for “free trade”.

  77. I don’t agree with any of 1.-3. as you characterise them in their entirety and I never did. As for, 3. I always completely disagreed with that. Furthermore, there are solid libertarian reasons not to entirely agree ewith any of those.

    These are distractions. You lost the argument.

  78. Arky
    #3188143, posted on October 19, 2019 at 1:23 pm

    Until Bejing hoists a flag over Federal Parliament,

    ..
    Or Box Hill police station.

    That’s the joke.

    GG.

  79. Fisky

    Total bullshit. Just stop.

    But it’s true isn’t it? You would think the largest shock to the world economy in the past 70 years would have some spill-on effects to GDP in the US and Australia. Nope, nothing. Not a blip on GDP. Continues to trend downwards.

  80. JC

    Arky

    That’s our weakness. Ask yourself who allowed that crap? Oh that’s right, it was the Andrews government. The Chinese government didn’t vote in the Andrews government. The majority of us did!

    China isn’t killing us with the death of a thousand cuts, leftism is!

  81. Arky

    I’m not going to read this thread.
    I’m just going to imagine it is a string of libertarian retards giving the reasons why concentration camps, forced organ transplants on an industrial scale, theft of IT and exporting brutal social control don’t matter to “free trade”.
    If you made the free trade argument in the past you could feign ignorance, but now you are just openly a c*nt.

  82. Maybe look into the current Blizzard games controversy

    If you made trade decisions on every “spicy” meme in gaming, we’d have a console for every state in the union.

    Maybe the US should embargo us for our Telcos effectively banning 4 chan and impinging the rights of their citizens who are here on working visas?

  83. ou would think the largest shock to the world economy in the past 70 years would have some spill-on effects to GDP in the US and Australia.

    I just mentioned 1/5 of our gross fixed capital formation you dullard.

  84. Arky
    #3188151, posted on October 19, 2019 at 1:27 pm

    I’m not going to read this thread.

    Because you concede that you have lost.

    If you made the free trade argument in the past you could feign ignorance, but now you are just openly a c*nt.

    …and you’re a pro big government, tax and spend loving jerkoff.

  85. DaveR

    FW from NT,

    The idea that AWA disappearing is the reason why don’t have a software industry is only deserving of mockery.

    I think the bigger point was the electronics manufacturing industry was destroyed.

    Although much of the electronics industry in Australia was set up as a consequence of WW2 effort, none the less by the late 1950s there was a strong manufacturing presence. Let me think of some former world-class names: AWA, Ferguson, Ducon, A&R, Miniwatt – on and on.

  86. Fisky

    Is that the model we should be going for?

    Or we could just look to our successful neighbours like Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, and ignore dumb economists who were wrong about everything.

  87. Arky

    and you’re a pro big government, tax and spend loving jerkoff.

    ..
    I would prefer that to being a traitor in the cause of the worst threat freedom has seen in seventy years.

  88. JC

    Fisky

    You believe mercantalism makes countries rich, right? That’s the argument you used earlier. Basically you’re saying trade surpluses are wealth creating while deficits make countries poorer.

    Australia runs a significant trade surplus with China and the only reason our aggregate trade balance has swung into slight surplus is because of the rise of China. That good right? 🙂

  89. Stimpson J. Cat

    If you made trade decisions on every “spicy” meme in gaming, we’d have a console for every state in the union.

    Don’t you mean “free trade” decisions?
    Or are you acknowledging it simply does not exist, not matter how much you would like it to?

  90. Seriously though, mourning companies that were established 70 years ago and were wound up over 30 years ago?

    Spare a thought for small business and the mining industry.

    If they were truly world class and cost effective, they’d have lasted longer.

    They were the Holden Cruzes of the electronics world.

  91. Fisky

    I just mentioned 1/5 of our gross fixed capital formation you dullard.

    Chinese investment overall is very modest in Australia, and most of it in the extractive industries. Something else would have turned up. No biggie.

  92. “You’re a traitor if you want low taxes and aren’t a pigeon for Gerry Harvey”

    Catallaxyfiles, 2019.

  93. “Just a quarter of our national wages…no biggie”

    Catallaxyfiles, 2019.

  94. Fisky

    You believe mercantalism makes countries rich, right? That’s the argument you used earlier. Basically you’re saying trade surpluses are wealth creating while deficits make countries poorer.

    No, I’m simply countering the dumb claim that any foreign of protectionism automatically makes countries poorer, whereas virtually every major economic power in the last 200 years has had an import substitution strategy.

  95. JC

    Dave R

    They only existed because of subsidies and tariffs up the rear and into the esophagus. They weren’t world beating. They were, in the end, tax eaters. AWA existed because the government restricted choice and when choice was allowed AWA deservedly went under.

  96. Sure Stimpy, free trade doesn’t exist, the Donald offered it to the Euroweenies; we can still be free traders ourselves, which is the best policy overall regardless of the policy of foreign nations.

  97. Arky

    they work for cheaper
    have less regulations

    ..
    So did Soviet POWs in German factories in 1944.
    We owe Adolf an apology.
    He was really just a libertarian free trade nut.

  98. JC

    The US had the lowest tariffs of any significant nation since WW1. When you begin prioritizing the EPA, the lawyers guild and create regulatory barriers you end up with inflexible goo.

  99. Fisky
    #3188168, posted on October 19, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    You believe mercantalism makes countries rich, right? That’s the argument you used earlier. Basically you’re saying trade surpluses are wealth creating while deficits make countries poorer.

    No, I’m simply countering the dumb claim that any foreign of protectionism automatically makes countries poorer, whereas virtually every major economic power in the last 200 years has had an import substitution strategy.

    This is as insane as arguing that you need a welfare state to be a 1st world nation.

    claim that any foreign of protectionism automatically makes countries poorer

    It does. There is no other correct analysis. Trade creation and diversion are only correct in the context of previously managed trade.

  100. Stimpson J. Cat

    Look if it makes it easier to rationalize,
    why not just call the Chinese Nazis.
    You might be able to think things through a bit better and understand these complex concepts.
    I’m sure you would have no problem with getting on board then, am I right?
    My principled little libertarian chaps?

  101. Fisky

    Sure Stimpy, free trade doesn’t exist, the Donald offered it to the Euroweenies; we can still be free traders ourselves, which is the best policy overall regardless of the policy of foreign nations.

    But unilateral tariffs cuts will lead to a decline in net exports and falling GDP.

  102. Fisky

    It’s an interesting point – would libertarians have supported “free trade” with Hitler in the 1930s? If not, why not?

  103. But unilateral tariffs cuts will lead to a decline in net exports and falling GDP.

    No, it doesn’t work like that.

    Funny how real life doesn’t follow Keynesian models.

    Consumers will also have more purchasing power and investment and consumption domestically will rise as well.

    Also the CAD is a KA surplus, in the long run any increase in imports will increase the capital base.

  104. Arky

    These guys won’t get it until it effects them personally.
    Until they lose a freedom they enjoy, or are personally hurt, they will remain apologists for totalitarians abroad while claiming to be for freedom at home.

  105. JC

    But unilateral tariffs cuts will lead to a decline in net exports and falling GDP.

    That’s not true otherwise our tariff cuts in the 80s would have stifled our GDP our exports and made us poorer but this didn’t happen.

    I’ll tell you what makes us poorer though when subsidies are cut to import substituting industries like our car industry. That’s when the government continues to hold onto tariffs that were there when the car industry was being subsidized. That borders on criminality and why all of us should detest big government. Thanks Tony Abbott.

  106. Fisky
    #3188178, posted on October 19, 2019 at 1:45 pm

    It’s an interesting point – would libertarians have supported “free trade” with Hitler in the 1930s? If not, why not?

    As a person who boasts about giving people “helicopter rides”, maybe you should shut up?

  107. Not wanting to tax Australians to hurt Chinese workers (which usually backfires), in a vain, yet pointless attempt to hurt the Chinese regime, is not being an “apologist for totalitarianism”.

    If not, you can tell me when you have gotten rid of all of your Chinese, Saudi and Russian made crap, otherwise fuck off you virtue signalling clown.

  108. max

    Fisky:

    what China do is not important for Australia and nothing we can do about it.

    What we can do is to have freedom, honest money and little regulations and than we can compete in some area wit any one.

    your jobs start leaving Australia and America before China come to the scene — first to Japan and than to Singapor ,Korea, Taiwan …

    Problem is not over-there or them problem is US

  109. JC

    Arky

    We would have been no different to anyone else in the 30s… unable to predict the future.

  110. Arky

    fuck off you virtue signalling clown.

    ..
    After my blog posts here, I won’t fly into Hong Kong anymore, not with my family.
    Despite having many friends there.
    What personal freedoms have you been willing to give up for the liberty of all?
    You are the virtue signaller.
    Your ideology is corrupt.

  111. Stimpson J. Cat

    It’s an interesting point – would libertarians have supported “free trade” with Hitler in the 1930s? If not, why not?

    Of course they would have.

    Who cares about the enforced sterilization of the mentally ill or physically deformed which began in Germany in 1933?
    Or the Aktion T-4 plan which began in 1938, which involved starving then gassing children with physical or psychological disorders in mental institutions by the thousands?
    What is the worst that could come from these small beginnings?

    It’s not like we actually know that China is factually doing anything wrong, am I right?

    I have a shiny cheap Oppo phone.
    Yay!

  112. max

    This is problem:

    Scott Morrison announces $100million in relief funding for farmers stricken by drought.

    every one in Australia would like to be bailed out starting with government employees.
    I am not responsible for myself and for my actions is moto of western philosophy for at least 50 Years

  113. Arky

    If not, you can tell me when you have gotten rid of all of your Chinese, Saudi and Russian made crap, otherwise fuck off you virtue signalling clown.

    ..
    Would you have traded with Germany in 1938?
    Yes or no, none of your bullshit.

  114. Arky

    It’s an interesting point – would libertarians have supported “free trade” with Hitler in the 1930s? If not, why not?

    Of course they would have.

    ..
    Sadly, if they were to be consistent with their arguments above, they would have to say “Yes”.

  115. Fisky

    Consumers will also have more purchasing power and investment and consumption domestically will rise as well.

    LOL more magic pudding nonsense from “libertarians”. Tell that to the 12 million people who lost their jobs when China joined the WTO.

  116. max

    Fisky
    #3188178, posted on October 19, 2019 at 1:45 pm
    It’s an interesting point – would libertarians have supported “free trade” with Hitler in the 1930s? If not, why not?

    Ha ha ha and ho ho ho

    No one wants One law for all of us –every one wants one law for me and another law for you.

    Nothing wrong with law that say we are in war and trade is forbidden with china –no import no sale.

    But you Frisky do not have that kind of law in mind you want law for yourself to be free to trade and law to forbid me to trade

  117. Fisky

    Also the CAD is a KA surplus, in the long run any increase in imports will increase the capital base.

    Where? When? Which countries? How do you know that increased imports caused higher investment? You see, this is the problem – economics is not actually an empirical field, it’s a religion.

  118. Arky

    They won’t answer the question, will they?

  119. Fisky

    So I think Max is down for a YES on the free-trade with Hitler question.

    Dotty? JC? How about you guys?

  120. max

    Arky
    #3188204, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:06 pm
    They won’t answer the question, will they?

    It is answered here :
    max
    #3188202, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:05 pm
    Fisky
    #3188178, posted on October 19, 2019 at 1:45 pm
    It’s an interesting point – would libertarians have supported “free trade” with Hitler in the 1930s? If not, why not?

    Ha ha ha and ho ho ho

    No one wants One law for all of us –every one wants one law for me and another law for you.

    Nothing wrong with law that say we are in war and trade is forbidden with china –no import no sale.

    But you Frisky do not have that kind of law in mind you want law for yourself to be free to trade and law to forbid me to trade

  121. Arky

    So I think Max is down for a YES on the free-trade with Hitler question.

    ..
    No. He refused to answer it.
    They know it is wrong, deep in their bones, but the ideology won’t let them look at it straight on.

  122. max

    So I think Max is down for a YES on the free-trade with Hitler question.

    Dotty? JC? How about you guys?

    In a war there is no trade Frisky

  123. Arky

    Still won’t answer it.
    Probably almost physiologically incapable of answering it.

  124. Arky

    In a war there is no trade Frisky

    ..
    Incorrect.

  125. Fisky

    Here’s another one: if millions of Germans were applying to immigrate into Australia in 1938, would libertarians have waved them through?

  126. max

    Arky
    #3188213, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:08 pm
    Still won’t answer it.
    Probably almost physiologically incapable of answering it.

    Answer what Arky?

  127. Fisky

    In a war there is no trade Frisky

    We are talking about the mid-30s up to the Anschluss. Free trade with Hitler, yes or no?

  128. Arky

    Free trade with Hitler, yes or no?

    ..
    It must be written down somewhere in libertarian texts: “Don’t answer the trade with 1930s Germany question. There is no good answer. It’s a trap”!

  129. max

    Here’s another one: if millions of Germans were applying to immigrate into Australia in 1938, would libertarians have waved them through?

    If Germany will let them go yes why not –no war with Germany in 1938

  130. max

    Free trade with Hitler, yes or no?

    when?

  131. Fisky

    Hahahahaha! So the libertarian position is, YES to free trade with Hitler, and also we should import millions of potential Nazis. Okie dokie!

  132. max

    yes free trade if there is no war.

    no trade if there is war.

  133. Arky

    also we should import millions of potential Nazis.

    ..
    Only the ones Hitler was “happy” to send!
    Fucking hell.

  134. Fisky

    yes free trade if there is no war.

    FINALLY, we have an answer. The UK should have signed a Free Trade Agreement with Hitler in 1938. That’s the “libertarian” position lol

  135. max

    also we should import millions of potential Nazis.

    why do you assume that people living Germany would be nazi ?

  136. Arky

    Great idea.
    Let’s let Hitler select the Germans to send to Australia in 1938.
    Great thinking!
    Genius level.

  137. max

    Fisky
    #3188225, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:16 pm
    yes free trade if there is no war.

    FINALLY, we have an answer. The UK should have signed a Free Trade Agreement with Hitler in 1938. That’s the “libertarian” position lol

    Americans traded all the way in 1942

  138. Stimpson J. Cat

    No one wants One law for all of us –every one wants one law for me and another law for you.

    Nothing wrong with law that say we are in war and trade is forbidden with china –no import no sale.

    But you Frisky do not have that kind of law in mind you want law for yourself to be free to trade and law to forbid me to trade

    OK let’s look at a practical example in the real world.
    The anti-BDS laws in America which prohibit granting state contracts to companies or individuals for boycotting Israel.
    America isn’t at war with Israel.
    Are these just laws, yes or no?
    I love how you all have these selective principles you can switch on and off.
    They only stay switched on when someone mentions Nazis or a particular cause you agree with.

    F$cking Hilarious.
    Have a great day folks.

  139. max

    you think autralia did not have immigrants from Germany in 1938 or did not trade with Germany?

  140. Fisky

    China’s entrance into WTO cost U.S. 3.4 million jobs, new study finds

    Not surprisingly, the trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most, resulting in 1.2 million jobs lost.

    Oh that’s just great. Handing over the computer and electronic parts industry to the PRC what could possibly go wrong lol

    Good work, “free traders”

  141. Fisky

    Max, your autism is showing here, put the textbook down and talk to a fellow human!

  142. max

    Stimpson J. Cat
    #3188231, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:20 pm

    and you think this is freedom and laws are good –discriminating some citizens against another ?

  143. max

    Fisky
    #3188235, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:22 pm
    China’s entrance into WTO cost U.S. 3.4 million jobs, new study finds

    any one can claim that but reason is why?
    why did jobs go to china?

  144. max

    Fisky
    #3188236, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:23 pm
    Max, your autism is showing here, put the textbook down and talk to a fellow human!

    like I say before you can have one law for all of us:

    we are stoping trade with china –no sale no imports.

    but you do not proposing that. are you Frisky?

  145. Fisky

    but you do not proposing that. are you Frisky?

    No, if you read my comments you would see that I was in favour of the status quo ante before China joined the WTO.

  146. max

    If you see China as enemy that only logical think to do is to stop trade with them –no export no import no exchange students and so on.

    But proponents of tariffs do not say this they want some tarries not all-they want their job to be protected but not all of us.

  147. Fisky

    If you see China as enemy that only logical think to do is to stop trade with them –no export no import no exchange students and so on.

    This will undoubtedly happen in the fullness of time, but for now we’ll have a gradual decoupling in investment, migration and ultimately trade.

  148. Arky

    I personally like some of you.
    But I think it is bloody disrespectful to just piss off and go silent because there are questions you don’t want to answer.

  149. JC

    Arky

    I’m tired and extremely jet lagged. Give me half a break.

  150. Stimpson J. Cat

    and you think this is freedom and laws are good –discriminating some citizens against another ?

    Of course it’s not freedom.
    I disagree with these laws, they are against the US Constitution.
    That should be fairly clear to anyone.
    However they are an obvious legal precedent set, so they can be used against China, can they not?
    What impact would they have when combined with tariffs?

    Hmmmm.

  151. JC

    Arky

    I have no real issue restricting immigration from problematic countries. But with the Hitler/30s question you’re asking me and others to put ourselves in the 30s and then pretend we can predict ww2. That’s impossible.

  152. Infidel Tiger

    The neoliberal experiment is over! A complete and utter failure.

    And yet still the worshipers of the sacred economic models flail. “Real neoliberalism hasn’t yet been tried”

  153. Arky

    You don’t have to predict WW2 JC.
    Hitler’s behaviour towards Js and intentions were known, and the Western governments under the surface preparing like hell for what was to come.

  154. JC

    Arky

    We didn’t know 20 years ago China would impose such a repressive regime. At the same time, the US is beginning to disassociate with the regime. It’s happening now.

  155. Fisky

    Hitler’s behaviour towards Js and intentions were known, and the Western governments under the surface preparing like hell for what was to come.

    Yeah, and you could have read his book calling for the conquest and ethnic cleansing of E.Europe and not be totally surprised that he did just that. Oh I know, let’s sign a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with Hitler, because we all know that economic liberalism leads to political freedom lol

  156. JC

    Okay, restrict mainland Chinese immigration.

    But tell me, what would you do with the $50 billion trade surplus we have with China. Would you cut our exports to them immediately?

  157. Fisky
    #3188200, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:04 pm

    Consumers will also have more purchasing power and investment and consumption domestically will rise as well.

    LOL more magic pudding nonsense from “libertarians”. Tell that to the 12 million people who lost their jobs when China joined the WTO.

    This is made up bullcrap. 12 million people didn’t get sacked when it happened. Emotional nonsense.

    The ONLY magic pudding thinking here is that taxes make you wealthy.

    You are not comparing trends before or after, or if it accelerated or not, or if a similar trend happened to China, or have you mentioned the benefits of a senile industry ending.

    What personal freedoms have you been willing to give up for the liberty of all?

    That’s perverted, statist and falsely altruistic.

    You’re not going to HK so you don’t get shot. Not to help overthrow the commies.

    Fisky
    #3188203, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:05 pm

    Also the CAD is a KA surplus, in the long run any increase in imports will increase the capital base.

    Where? When? Which countries? How do you know that increased imports caused higher investment? You see, this is the problem – economics is not actually an empirical field, it’s a religion.

    It’s true by definition. You can trawl through all of the Australian economic data for starters if you like. You’re never going to disprove this, you cannot.

    I can’t believe you’re pretending to be this stupid for so long. It’s perversely impressive, but you know better, see below, quoting the EPI, a think tank that never dislikes Elizabeth Warren’s policies.

    OK let’s look at a practical example in the real world.
    The anti-BDS laws in America which prohibit granting state contracts to companies or individuals for boycotting Israel.

    I knew it wouldn’t be long before one of the Bobbsey Triplets brought up the “JQ”.

    China’s entrance into WTO cost U.S. 3.4 million jobs, new study finds

    What a joke. No mention of the BENEFITS, and as for the outfit:

    The study of the impact in the growth in the trade deficit between 2001 and 2017, published by the Economic Policy Institute, showed that it hit the manufacturing sector in particular, where 74% of those jobs were lost.

    THEY DIDN’T DO ANY ANALYSIS, they just added up the deficit and assumed that’s how many jobs were lost! What a joke. If that many people lost their jobs ON TOP OF the GFC, the US would be entirely broken right now.

    Their current work:

    State of Working America podcast

    EPI’s State of Working America podcast launched October 15, 2019! The first episode features Valerie Wilson talking with Pedro da Costa about the central role of race in the American economy. A new episode airs every Tuesday

    What a load of far left wing trash.

    The EPI is to the left of most Democrats. This is no different that wrongly, very wrongly asserting that Piketty is an authority on anything other than Alinskyism.

    You are scraping the bottom of the barrel here Fisk.

    You’re not being “clever” at all with this lame boomer Hitler *meme* either. The destruction of trade and investment helped create the crisis that saw Hitler rise to power. The Nazis were going out of fashion before the crisis of the 1930s. Putting up tariffs would have only accelerated to the path to war. Imagine if Britain had to fight in 1936 instead of 1939. It could have been disastrous.

    There is nothing wrong with legitimate defence policies regarding supply of strategic resources.

    These don’t include consumer electronics, cantaloupes, farmed fish, smoked pork or soybeans.

    Furthermore nuclear arms have made a lot of strategic considerations a joke, for a very long time.

  158. Fisky

    But tell me, what would you do with the $50 billion trade surplus we have with China. Would you cut our exports to them immediately?

    No, I would actively seek to shut down their investment and people movements first. If they want to keep buying our minerals for now, fine. That will probably go in the future too.

  159. Infidel Tiger
    #3188253, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:42 pm

    The neoliberal experiment is over! A complete and utter failure.

    And yet still the worshipers of the sacred economic models flail. “Real neoliberalism hasn’t yet been tried”

    If you want socialism, your paycheque first.

    We’ll see how the experiment goes.

  160. Fisky

    lol dotty is totally flailing now as his worldview collapses into dust

  161. max

    If you are in the war than trade should be stoped.

    If you are not in the war than trade should be free

    But you do not want this because you want to protect your job, but not mine job and other Australians.

    What are you proposing managed trade –which we have since 1945 — free trade died with WW1 — since then all you have is managed trade by your overlords — but you are stupid to see that.

  162. Stimpson J. Cat

    We didn’t know 20 years ago China would impose such a repressive regime. At the same time, the US is beginning to disassociate with the regime. It’s happening now.

    The One Child Policy was instituted in 1979.
    Try again please.

  163. JC

    LOL more magic pudding nonsense from “libertarians”. Tell that to the 12 million people who lost their jobs when China joined the WTO.

    The US is at 3.5% unemployment. They have a large trade deficit with China. We’re at 5.5% and we have a trade surplus.

    Domestic policy makes the economy succeed or fail. That’s it.

  164. Fisk

    If you think you are “winning” by quoting the EPI…oh dear.

    My world view is irrelevant to world affairs. You, me and our descendants will live in a more socialist, more protectionist world and be poorer for it.

    I’m simply trying to beat you over the head with facts. The future is likely not a bright one.

    High taxes, high tariffs, unserviceable government debt and endless transfer payments.

    That’s rather bleak and I’m not going to cheer it on because of some parlour trick you’ve cooked up about Hitler, helicopter boy.

  165. max

    The Donald’s Fake China Deal and the Rotten Predicate of His Trade Wars
    By David Stockman

    During the 2016-2017 market year which the Donald inherited, the US got the lion’s share of China’s soybean imports, taking nearly 60% of the total compared to Brazil’s 31%. And that was pretty much in line with the historical trend.

    Needless to say, the green bar for the October 2018 to May 2019 period shown below is not a green shoot of progress. Brazil snagged 75% of China’s soybean buy because the stable genius and un-paralled deal-maker in the Oval Office decided to turn the US grain belt into trading bait in his attack on China’s $443 billion trade surplus with the USA.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/10/david-stockman/the-donalds-fake-china-deal-and-the-rotten-predicate-of-his-trade-wars/

  166. Fisky

    The US is at 3.5% unemployment.

    You’re telling me! It turns out, immigration restriction and tariffs are tremendously successful policies.

  167. Arky

    It is like Brexit.
    Most people no longer believe that being part of a trading bloc run by totalitarians is of personal benefit. But more importantly they can smell where it is all going and are prepared for it to even cost them more to get out from under.
    Make all the economic arguments you like.
    Free people don’t like these large blocs that won’t let them go.
    Whether it is the USSR, the EU, or the China bloc.
    People aren’t buying your shit anymore.
    We see what they are, and the types who apologise for them.

  168. Fisky

    It’s true by definition. You can trawl through all of the Australian economic data for starters if you like. You’re never going to disprove this, you cannot.

    I don’t need to disprove anything. If you think increasing imports leads to higher investment, you need to make the case yourself. Go!

  169. Fisky

    If you are not in the war than trade should be free

    So AFTER the Enabling Act, Kristallnacht, the Anschluss, etc etc, Britain should have dropped all tariffs on the Nazis. Okay!

  170. Fisky

    But more importantly they can smell where it is all going and are prepared for it to even cost them more to get out from under.

    Exactly. Handing over your country to people who despise everything about you, it turns out, is NOT worth point two percent of GDP. It really isn’t.

  171. Stimpson J. Cat

    Can anyone tell me when China ended it’s One Child Policy?
    No?
    Why October 2015 of course!!!

  172. max

    Fisky
    #3188290, posted on October 19, 2019 at 3:10 pm
    If you are not in the war than trade should be free

    So AFTER the Enabling Act, Kristallnacht, the Anschluss, etc etc, Britain should have dropped all tariffs on the Nazis. Okay!

    I do not think there was stop of trade between English and Germans until war started 03/09/1939

  173. Fisky

    I do not think there was stop of trade between English and Germans until war started 03/09/1939

    Britain had very high tariffs on countries not part of their Empire, dufus.

  174. Arky

    These are not free trade times.
    These are blocs where one dominating power ties in surrounding states to treaties subservient to their interests.
    They are Germany in the EU. China in our region.
    How we put our head in the noose is a story to be told.

  175. max

    Fisky
    #3188294, posted on October 19, 2019 at 3:15 pm
    I do not think there was stop of trade between English and Germans until war started 03/09/1939

    Britain had very high tariffs on countries not part of their Empire, dufus.

    trade did not stop — that is point –I did not say they did not have tariffs — everyone have it even now

  176. Delcon

    max
    #3188196, posted on October 19, 2019 at 2:01 pm
    This is problem:

    Scott Morrison announces $100million in relief funding for farmers stricken by drought.

    every one in Australia would like to be bailed out starting with government employees.
    I am not responsible for myself and for my actions is moto of western philosophy for at least 50 Years

    .
    Thanks, Max.
    When you get income, you save for a rainy day, or you are a parasite.
    Whoever guaranteed to the farmers that nature will always be on their side?
    Barnaby was right: if handling the ups-and-downs that go with the farming is too hard for some, they are free to find another job.
    I have nothing personal against the people whose hard work helps food arrive into my plate, but low-interest loans is the most I would give farmers, together with support services to support them through the hard times; but, again, not cash,

  177. max

    Delcon
    #3188299, posted on October 19, 2019 at 3:19 pm

    Farmers are capitalist when it rains and socialist when is drought.

  178. jupes

    Bottom line is that importing one million of your potential enemy into your country is not a good strategy.

    Downright moronic actually.

  179. max

    jupes
    #3188301, posted on October 19, 2019 at 3:23 pm
    Bottom line is that importing one million of your potential enemy into your country is not a good strategy.

    Downright moronic actually.

    First you do not know who is enemy that is coming here peacefully
    And your schools system produce all enemies that you need — socialist thinking

  180. Fisky

    First you do not know who is enemy that is coming here peacefully

    That’s right. You do not know. So it would be weird to import millions of people from hostile countries, not having a clue which ones are a danger to you. But that’s what you support isn’t it.

  181. max

    system which you have today is this:

    free goodies, just show up legally or illegally.

    free medicare, dole, social security, education, housing access to voting

    well you get what you advertised.

  182. max

    Fisky
    #3188305, posted on October 19, 2019 at 3:28 pm

    At least two fundamental principles of Western law had their origin in Mosaic Israel. The first principle was the rule of law itself: every resident was to be protected equally by the civil law. The second principle was open immigration. The nation’s treatment of the immigrant served as a touchstone in Israel of the nation’s faithfulness to the first principle.

    Open immigration was an important means of evangelism. Strangers could come to Israel, settle there, buy houses in walled cities, become productive, and live in peace. They could obtain security of ownership for their property even though they were not citizens or members of the religious congregation. They even had access to the temple if they were willing to be circumcised, which was a unique openness in the ancient world. This was also part of the rule of law.

    Thus, Israel was not just the Promised Land for Abraham and his heirs. It was supposed to remain the Promised Land for the oppressed of the world. And, in some periods, it really was.

    the image of America as a sanctuary was a dominant one in the nineteenth century and the early twentieth.

    In ancient Israel, there was a national priesthood, which was assumed to be the primary agency of cultural assimilation for immigrants. This is why immigrants were allowed to become Israelites through circumcision. Political citizenship followed in three generations for Egyptians and Edomites, and in ten generations for Moabites and Ammonites. Confession, circumcision, and Passover were the initial means of assimilation. That is, the assimilation process began with religion. The same outlook long prevailed in the West, with the Christian church serving as the priesthood. The church was the primary means of cultural assimilation.

  183. Fisky
    #3188289, posted on October 19, 2019 at 3:08 pm

    It’s true by definition. You can trawl through all of the Australian economic data for starters if you like. You’re never going to disprove this, you cannot.

    I don’t need to disprove anything. If you think increasing imports leads to higher investment, you need to make the case yourself. Go!

    Check the macroeconomic data in Australia from 1985.

    Your ignorance is not a standard of proof to meet.

    KA = -CA by definition.

    You’re stuck on the tariff wall hypothesis investment. It only explains a small amount of FDI.

  184. Malcolm Fraser had several other Dries to deploy and draw from intellectually – John Hyde, Peter Shack, Jim Carlton, the younger John Howard, Kelly (qua columnist) – but he played it safe as a traditional Australian dirigiste. Even so, it was the Dries who kept the market fires burning in the 1970s, culminating in the Campbell Inquiry and its now storied report. A floating exchange rate, foreign banks and deregulation of the banking sector followed. Alas for the Dries, none of it happened under a Liberal prime minister. But it was Liberals who made it possible. Nobody knows what Paul Keating was doing in the 1970s but it wasn’t deep thinking about marketising the Australian economy.

    Fraser, Lynch and Howard institutionalised Gough Whitlam’s unpopular and nationally suicidal policies that are still with us today.

    They deserve no praise at all, only opprobrium.

  185. Fisky

    KA = -CA by definition.

    But we were talking about trade (which is only a part of the external sector) not the capital account as a whole. There is no evidence that imports cause foreign investment. None.

  186. Fat Tony

    Arky
    #3188151, posted on October 19, 2019 at 1:27 pm

    Arky by a knock-out!!!!

  187. Fisk

    The BOP is nearly always determined by the differential of money supplies.

    When you take out portfolio investment and money growth (obviously linked); then you’re left with trade and FDI.

    There is shit tonnes of evidence:

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=imports+and+fdi&btnG=

    1st article, quoting earlier research:

    For instance, de Mello and Fukasaku (2000), by means of bivariate vector error-correction models
    and causality analysis [good methodology] , show that a positive relationship between imports and FDI inflows exists in some of the Latin American and Southeast Asian countries selected

    You need to look into the New Trade theory. Outward/inward FDI is simply another form of trade, and it facilitates trade.

  188. Fat Tony
    #3188339, posted on October 19, 2019 at 4:22 pm

    Arky
    #3188151, posted on October 19, 2019 at 1:27 pm

    Arky by a knock-out!!!!

    …and Australia cannot do a thing about it.

  189. Jim of Wollombi

    Interesting discussion on this thread. But as often happens, impressions of what has been happening in (say) Foreign Direct Investment into Australia are inaccurate. The official stats are:

    ‘The United States and United Kingdom are the biggest investors in Australia, followed by Belgium, Japan and Hong Kong (SAR of China).

    China is our ninth largest foreign investor, with 1.8 per cent of the total. However, the levels of Hong Kong (SAR of China) and Chinese investment in Australia have grown significantly over the past decade.’

    A Table showing the top 20 invest0rs is here:
    href=”http://https://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/investment-statistics/Pages/statistics-on-who-invests-in-australia.aspx”>

    Just sayin.

  190. Fisky

    You need to look into the New Trade theory. Outward/inward FDI is simply another form of trade, and it facilitates trade.

    No I don’t need to do that because Economics does not have the track record deserving of my investing time in reading any of its theories. It is probably one of the worst social sciences going around.

    How about economists start making accurate predictions for once, apologise publicly individually and as a profession for past failures (all of them) and then perhaps maybe we will consider it a proper discipline again.

  191. Fisky

    Actually, even that’s not enough. There are real human costs involved in listening to the economics profession and criminal penalties may be needed. For example, the economists who advised Russia to sell off all their assets to oligarchs and crash the economy, they should all go to jail.

  192. So you don’t understand why FDI and trade are linked and you don’t want to know the reason why.

    You then assert you’re correct and ignore voluminous empirical proof that you’re wrong.

    From this, you then conclude Australia needs more managed trade and more tariffs, because the managed trade and tariffs we have now are sub-optimal.

    I guess we’re lucky that schoolteachers have a pretty bad chance of being elected to Parliament going off the historical records.

  193. Fisky

    So you don’t understand why FDI and trade are linked and you don’t want to know the reason why.

    No I’m saying that nothing economists have to say on the subject is worth listening to. They don’t have a clue.

  194. Right, but primary school teachers with sociology degrees do?

    Thanks, Fran “Tractor” Bailey.

  195. Iampeter

    But the loudest voices at the CatallaxyFiles are anti-free trade and anti-free markets. Even the so-called “classic economist” posting here is a pro-Trump, economic nationalist. So not sure what you’re trying to say with this post other than trying to claim credit for the liberals things which everyone here opposes anyway.

    Anti-Communism in the 1950s and 60s was perhaps the proudest moment in our history. The repeated electoral defeats of a clearly pro-Communist Labor Party were a testament to the moral character and judgment of the Australian people.

    Why would you believe that to be a proud moment? You believe politics is about your gang getting whatever it can get by any means necessary. You are therefore anti-capitalist and would actually make a pretty good communist. Like most posters here.

    That’s a strange comment coming from a supposed ‘libertarian’, the DLP in its day and its founder Bob Santamaria were hostile to economic and social libertarianism and individualism.

    So are most people here at The Cat. It’s a very, very confused blog.

  196. max

    People who call for tariffs, newer asking for tariffs across the board, export and import, equal for everybody.
    They always calling for special-interest groups subsidy.

  197. Iampeter

    China became rich when their government started introducing some basic rights-protecting policies, like property rights, after Mao’s death. They did this out of sheer pragmatism as they were basically down to eating their own dead at that point.
    A billion people, with key technologies and ideas, like electricity and manufacturing, invented by actually free cultures, could produce an awesome amount of wealth in record time. That’s how China got rich. It had nothing to do with trade, or Western businesses moving to China.
    The only reason businesses off shore to China today is because of the regulatory burden placed on them in Western countries.
    If we had free markets in the West, most businesses wouldn’t have anything to do with China. The only reason they would offshore would be for comparative advantage, instead of escape from regulation and taxation.
    As for trade, it has benefited the West at the expense of the Chinese, not the other way around.
    Thanks to the Chinese agreeing to accept Western paper money in exchange for their actual goods, we’ve been able to maintain our first world standard, while maintaining an ever growing, almost-soviet-bloc-level of central planning and bureaucracy. All at the expense of Chinese wealth and prosperity. You think they’re wealthy now? Just imagine what they could be if they didn’t have third World Western countries leeching off them. Then again, without those Western countries, which used to be much freer, inventing everything the Chinese use, they’d still be starving. It’s a pretty crazy circle that keeps allowing everyone to evade dealing with the consequences of their bad politics.
    In any case, if not for the foolish Chinese, cluelessly trading with us in exchange for nothing, most Western countries today would resemble Venezuela. And we will eventually.

    But the Chinese not really understanding free markets are buying us time to rediscover these principles for ourselves.

  198. Old Lefty

    I’ve always believed [Whitlam’s tariff] cut was more a function of his Mandarin upbringing (the instilled loathing of dirty commerce and its Liberal practitioners) than it was an impartial dalliance with laissez-faire rationalism

    Exactly! The great Gough once said to an acquaintance of mine: ‘The real trouble in November 1975? Kerr and Barwick: lower middle class’.

    For the same reason, he showed no concern about the budget catastrophe under Cairns, went along with Connor over the Loans Affair, and was blithely unconcerned about the wage explosion that destroyed our competitiveness. When even Clyde Cameron started to worry about the impact of Halfpenny’s wage claims, Gough brushed aside a cabinet paper with a yawn, saying ‘is this important?’

    I remember talking in the late 80s with an old blue-collar worker who had known Chifley and who volunteered that we priced ourselves out of a living in the 70s; he had no problem with Keating’s pursuit of a budget surplus, low inflation and liberalisation.

    If you want a culprit for the decline of industry, Fisky, I suggest you look hard at John Halfpenny.

  199. C.L.

    That’s a strange comment coming from a supposed ‘libertarian’, the DLP in its day and its founder Bob Santamaria were hostile to economic and social libertarianism and individualism.

    No, it’s strange to argue a libertarian may not admire or praise another person or organisation which did great things for liberty by other lights and means. You’re also conflating libertarianism with libertinism. The DLP favoured private enterprises and social associations – to say nothing of democratic freedoms in unions, universities and schools – as well as the rights of individuals and the family over against the state. If you can point out what of this is incompatible with Hayek, I’d be grateful. I’m not sure what is meant by hostility to “individualism.”

  200. Old Lefty

    A sidelight on Santa and the DLP below, in the form of a sectarian anti-Catholic rant by former Victorian ALP premier John Cain (the second ALP premier of that name) on the return to parliament of the DLP in 2006. This might seem to be of historical interest but for the fact that John Cain III of that illustrious dynasty is, courtesy of the Andrews government, principal solicitor in the ‘independent’ and ‘apolitical’ Office of Public Prosecutions. On his watch the OPP has distinguished itself by dropping blackmail and intimidation charges against Mr Setka, finding that no ALP MP has anything to answer for over the Red Shirts affair, and of course delivering Pell’s head on a plate to the Socialist Left and the ABC. Of course I wouldn’t think of suggesting such a thing, but someone with a nasty, twisted, suspicious mind might see political influence in those decisions and, in the Pell case, the Cain dynasty’s revenge on the DLP. George was, after all, a protege and friend of Santamaria.

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/cain-warns-on-dlp-comeback-20070216-ge48jx.html
    Cain warns on DLP comeback
    By Paul Austin
    February 16, 2007 — 11.00am
    FORMER Labor premier John Cain has hit out at the resurgent Democratic Labor Party, warning of the danger of religious fundamentalists seeking to influence mainstream political parties.
    Mr Cain, whose father John Cain snr’s state government was destroyed by the 1950s Labor split that led to the formation of the Catholic-based DLP, said it was vital to avoid sectarianism and protect a secular society.
    “Fundamentalist religious beliefs are growing in strength and seeking to further their ends by influencing political parties,” he said. “The principal parties have to be aware that this is emerging and that they should resist any attempt, from within or without, to achieve political influence through religious pressures. The key issue, 50 years on, is whether we maintain the separation of church and state — our widely accepted secular society.”

    Mr Cain was responding to this week’s inaugural parliamentary speech of Peter Kavanagh, who at November’s election became the first DLP member of State Parliament since the 1950s.
    In his speech Mr Kavanagh painted the DLP as a keeper of the Labor tradition of helping battlers and fighting for social reforms. He criticised John Cain jnr for having referred to DLP members as “sectarian serpents” and suggested Mr Cain snr’s bitterness against the DLP was fuelled by “deep-seated religious prejudices”.
    Asked for his response, John Cain jnr told The Age: “The social conscience of DLP members to which Mr Kavanagh refers is not the issue. The people he lauds cast aside their role as members of a Labor government in implementing the reforms he cites. They did this in pursuit of what they saw as a higher cause when the (B. A.) Santamaria and (Catholic archbishop Daniel) Mannix forces sought to have the Catholic Church dominate the Labor Party by stacking its membership with their supporters.
    “There was understandably great bitterness (in the Labor Party) about that disloyalty to their colleagues.”
    Mr Cain said Mr Kavanagh remained silent on whether he and the DLP supported a secular society. But Mr Kavanagh last night said he did believe in the separation of church and state ….

  201. Arky

    It’s OK libertarian free trade cock smokers.
    Iampeter has ridden in to your rescue.
    Phew eh?
    Always good to get supported by the blog’s biggest communist troll.

  202. So why then are you shilling for autarky – loved by Lenin, Mussolini and so on?

  203. Arky

    Why are you shilling for the one of the World’s few remaining communist parties in power?

  204. ???

    By removing tariffs that are taxes on Australians?

    When you lower tariffs, more FDI comes into the country. This will mean we have higher wages, partly at the expense of the Chinese.

    None of this “supports” the awful CCP regime.

  205. C.L.
    #3188459, posted on October 19, 2019 at 6:35 pm

    That’s a strange comment coming from a supposed ‘libertarian’, the DLP in its day and its founder Bob Santamaria were hostile to economic and social libertarianism and individualism.

    No, it’s strange to argue a libertarian may not admire or praise another person or organisation which did great things for liberty by other lights and means. You’re also conflating libertarianism with libertinism. The DLP favoured private enterprises and social associations – to say nothing of democratic freedoms in unions, universities and schools – as well as the rights of individuals and the family over against the state. If you can point out what of this is incompatible with Hayek, I’d be grateful. I’m not sure what is meant by hostility to “individualism.”

    What % of GDP did he want as government spending?

    If it’s over 20% I can’t call him a conservative and if it is over 25%, he was definitely a socialist.

  206. max

    You are arguing that when the government increases taxes, the nation as a collective gets wealthier. ( tariffs are taxes if you don’t know )

    They love the state. They love taxes. They love subsidies for special-interest groups.

    “Hey, boy, I’ve got this gun. I’ve got this badge. The gun is pointing at your belly. Don’t you trade with that guy. This is good for you. This is good for him. This is especially good for me. That’s why I have a badge and a gun.”

  207. Fisky

    When you lower tariffs, more FDI comes into the country. This will mean we have higher wages, partly at the expense of the Chinese.

    OK, well wages have totally stagnated over the past decade, so that’s another one that didn’t work out thanks libertarians!

  208. Arky

    By removing tariffs that are taxes on Australians?

    ..
    You spend many many thousands of words every year opposing a tax on imports from communist China, and almost none on taxes like income and stamp duty.
    So yes.
    By your actions and words you support one of the few remaining communist regimes.
    And you do it in the name of liberty.
    Even while the Hong Kong protest are suppressed and when you know the abuses being perpetrated.
    You are despicable.

  209. Fisky

    It’s worth noting that Bob Santamaria did far more for civil liberty in this country than the effete “libertarian” movement, particularly by halting the march of the trade union Communists and also by keeping Doc Evatt out of power.

  210. Arky

    You can oppose tariffs on communists after you succeed in getting income tax repealed.
    After all, even limited governments need to tax.
    Why shouldn’t a tariff on communism be the preferred method?
    For those concerned about liberty.

  211. Fisky

    You spend many many thousands of words every year opposing a tax on imports from communist China, and almost none on taxes like income and stamp duty.
    So yes.

    The amount of energy people spend on certain issues is always a tell. They love globalism and propping up Communist regimes, but become very angry and scream “protectionist” if you want to help small business.

    But letting the CCP censor speech on our campuses is fine.

  212. Fisky
    #3188486, posted on October 19, 2019 at 7:06 pm

    When you lower tariffs, more FDI comes into the country. This will mean we have higher wages, partly at the expense of the Chinese.

    OK, well wages have totally stagnated over the past decade, so that’s another one that didn’t work out thanks libertarians!

    That’s not true, real growth has been above zero, about 1.05% per annum.

    You spend many many thousands of words every year opposing a tax on imports from communist China, and almost none on taxes like income and stamp duty.

    Are you kidding?

    I constantly harp on about how stamp duty, income tax and excise tax ought to be abolished.

    Even while the Hong Kong protest are suppressed and when you know the abuses being perpetrated.
    You are despicable.

    Taxing Australians won’t stop Chinese bullets.

    This is like the carbon tax for nationalists.

  213. Arky
    #3188491, posted on October 19, 2019 at 7:10 pm

    You can oppose tariffs on communists after you succeed in getting income tax repealed.
    After all, even limited governments need to tax.
    Why shouldn’t a tariff on communism be the preferred method?
    For those concerned about liberty.

    The communists don’t pay knucklehead, we do.

    The amount of energy people spend on certain issues is always a tell. They love globalism and propping up Communist regimes, but become very angry and scream “protectionist” if you want to help small business.

    But you are a protectionist. You are also probably a socialist. You always laugh off “how much should we spend as a % of GDP on the government?”.

    You don’t want to answer the question. You really want to get into Parliament and you know you have to pretend that you’re a socialist for at least a little while.

    But letting the CCP censor speech on our campuses is fine.

    No it isn’t, I have never gone along with this, no one in their right mind would, this is utterly detestable.

  214. Arky

    The communists don’t pay knucklehead, we do.

    ..
    Yes they hate it when we buy their goods.
    Knucklehead.

  215. max

    Mr. Frank Walker, for some people, like Fisky and Arky problem is always some enemy, real or imagined. it is newer Our problem Our fault.

  216. Fisky

    No I’m sorry, but if you support unconditional free trade with and mass migration ftom the PRC then you are objectively in favour of CCP censorship. There is no longer any option of a value-free engagement with tge PRC. If you want a deeper economic relationship then you are pro-CCP and anti-freedom (see HK).

  217. Iampeter

    At The Cat, nationalists and statists are not communists but individualists and capitalists are communist trolls.

    I hope you guys pull a salary for your work here. This is top notch writing that those hacks at the Onion and the Babylon Bee could learn from.

  218. Arky

    Max.
    Is free trade mutually beneficial?
    Yes or no?

  219. Arky
    #3188505, posted on October 19, 2019 at 7:26 pm

    The communists don’t pay knucklehead, we do.

    ..
    Yes they hate it when we buy their goods.
    Knucklehead.

    But who pays the higher price on the imported good or the protected locally produced good? Cui bono? What about cascading tariffs and effective rates of protection?

    In all likelihood, you’re only going to have a marginal effect on the volume of trade, which won’t hurt the regime at all.

    Trade sanctions do not work. They did not get rid of Saddam, Mugabe or anyone else. They just punish western consumers and the producers living under tyranny.

  220. Fisky

    That’s not true, real growth has been above zero, about 1.05% per annum.

    The number you are looking for is zero. Especially since the flood of CCP investment from 2008. Terrible, just terrible.

  221. Iampeter

    You spend many many thousands of words every year opposing a tax on imports from communist China, and almost none on taxes like income and stamp duty.
    So yes.
    By your actions and words you support one of the few remaining communist regimes.

    It’s good that having absolutely no idea what you’re talking about doesn’t stop you from mouthing off like an expert.

    Good work!

  222. Fisky

    Why am I not surprised to see Iampeter on here demanding we give the CCP an easy ride?

  223. Iampeter

    Actually I’m going to stop interrupting. The battle between religious kook max and crazy poster Frank Walker vs politically illiterate leftards like Fisky and Arky will be entertaining indeed.

    Please continue…

  224. Arky

    Iampeter
    #3188517, posted on October 19, 2019 at 7:35 pm

    ..
    You are a communist stooge with zero idea.
    Now fuck off, adults are talking.

  225. Iampeter

    Why am I not surprised to see Iampeter on here demanding we give the CCP an easy ride?

    Mate…I don’t even know what you think you’re saying and neither do you.
    You don’t even know what tariffs are. You have absolutely no idea.

    But anyway, don’t let me interrupt your engrossing debate with equally exceptional individuals.

  226. Iampeter

    You are a communist stooge with zero idea.
    Now fuck off, adults are talking.

    HAHAHAH…yep. That’s exactly what’s happening here! Please continue, I will not interrupt you adults talking The Polimatics and Ecnominatronics!

    Please continue… XD

  227. No I’m sorry, but if you support unconditional free trade with and mass migration ftom the PRC then you are objectively in favour of CCP censorship.

    No, I don’t have to support whatever you say I support.

    I support free trade and investment with China, welcome Chinese to leave China to weaken the regime and free speech is sacred. Our biggest allies all have nukes and we can do whatever the hell we please.

    There is no longer any option of a value-free engagement with tge PRC. If you want a deeper economic relationship then you are pro-CCP and anti-freedom (see HK).

    That’s not true at all. It’s nearly slanderous (I’m not going to threaten anyone) it is that awful.

    We don’t trade with “China” anyway. Our citizens trade with their citizens. We don’t have Morrison and Jintao walking up to each other at border gates and exchanging gold coins for bills of lading.

    Not wanting to allow Chinese citizens to hide their money from the regime does not mean you are helping the HK protests. At best it has got nothing to do with it.

    Trade embargoes have never worked unless they become an act of war such as a blockade.

  228. Fisky
    #3188515, posted on October 19, 2019 at 7:34 pm

    That’s not true, real growth has been above zero, about 1.05% per annum.

    The number you are looking for is zero. Especially since the flood of CCP investment from 2008. Terrible, just terrible.

    Fuck off it is.

    Why are you lying?

    I went off AWOTE, May 2009-May 2019, not even counting overtime, in real dollars.

    You are lying, to support higher taxes, Keynesianism and reduced purchasing power.

    Whatever you are supporting now, it isn’t liberalism and it isn’t conservative.

  229. Fisky

    I support free trade and investment with China, welcome Chinese to leave China to weaken the regime and free speech is sacred

    But that isn’t actually happening. Instead, the CCP is wesponising its economic heft and foreign agents to destroy free speech. So that’s another fail.

  230. Arky

    Not wanting to allow Chinese citizens to hide their money from the regime does not mean you are helping the HK protests. At best it has got nothing to do with it.

    ..
    You know nothing about this.
    You don’t speak the language or know the people.
    Who do you think it is getting their money out?
    Who do you think is sending their children here?

  231. Fisky

    Every PRC “private” enterprise is expected to serve the interests of the CCP at home or abroad, with mainland family members used as collateral in case anyone gets ideas. There is no possibility of a normal relationship with this regime.

  232. Besides you pulling “factoids” out of your arse Fisk that are demonstrably false, how is the CCP “using economic heft and foreign agents to destroy free speech”?

    That’s worrying, but:

    1. Shouldn’t ALDI cash winners in Parliament be locked up?
    2. Isn’t this illegal anyway?
    3. Why do they want to destroy free speech?
    4. What free speech did we have left after Ridd and Bolt anyway?
    5. If we had explicit free speech (like the US) wouldn’t this be a fruitless exercise?

    No one is shutting up because some goofy sportsball guy told them to shut up. It’s having the opposite effect. The Streisand Effect ought to be renamed the Le Bron Effect, perhaps.

    Quite frankly I find the ALP left like Carr (formerly of the ALP right) seriously considering alignment with China over the US to be far, far more disturbing.

  233. You know nothing about this.
    You don’t speak the language or know the people.

    …I thought your wife was from Taiwan. I would like to know more.

    Who do you think it is getting their money out?
    Who do you think is sending their children here?

    Party dignitaries that are no longer loyal.

  234. Fisky

    Fisk that are demonstrably false, how is the CCP “using economic heft and foreign agents to destroy free speech”?

    By forcing foreign companies to support their policy or be bankrupted – see Cathay Pacific, see also the fuckung NBA. Jesus dotty this is a new record in autism.

  235. Fisky
    #3188545, posted on October 19, 2019 at 7:53 pm

    Every PRC “private” enterprise is expected to serve the interests of the CCP at home or abroad, with mainland family members used as collateral in case anyone gets ideas. There is no possibility of a normal relationship with this regime.

    Nothing would change if we cut ties with them completely. They’d use lower grade coal and pollute more and we’d lose hundreds of thousands of jobs within months.

  236. By forcing foreign companies to support their policy or be bankrupted – see Cathay Pacific, see also the fuckung NBA. Jesus dotty this is a new record in autism.

    The CCP aren’t going to bankrupt Cathay Pacific or the NBA. This is world class hyperbole.

  237. Fisky

    Kidnapping company execs for doing market research on the mainland, even disappearing the head of Interpol lol. So yeah nah there’s no “free trade” with that regime.

  238. Fisky

    You really struggle to understand human interactions dotty so let’s break this down. An NBA coach supports the HK protests. The PRC reacts by cancelling NBA games and coverage on the mainland. Every NBA major backs down, apologises, kowtows and begs for forgiveness. There’s your “free trade” dotty!

  239. They’d kidnap them regardless if we traded with them or not.

  240. It has been explained to you over and over again.

    We cannot make China free traders. We cannot influence their evil regime.

    We benefit the most from totally free trade policies ourselves, regardless of the policies of any other nation.

    We don’t help the Chinese by being protectionist. We only hurt ourselves.

  241. An NBA coach supports the HK protests. The PRC reacts by cancelling NBA games and coverage on the mainland. Every NBA major backs down, apologises, kowtows and begs for forgiveness.

    …and that is horrible but it is not going to “bankrupt the NBA”, even if the NBA did not back down.

    Nor is there anything anyone can do about it. The US government can’t do anything but stop them going to China, which won’t hurt the regime at all.

  242. Fisky

    Here’s another one. An academic says something naughty about organ harvesting or HK. Guess which VC suddenly has the Consul on the blower saying, Shut Up or lose all of your foreign students. Wakey wakey!

  243. Fisky

    Jesus dotty you aren’t getting this at all – the reality is closer relations are destroying OUR liberties and forcing all levels of society to align closer to the CCP.

  244. Fisky
    #3188574, posted on October 19, 2019 at 8:09 pm

    Here’s another one. An academic says something naughty about organ harvesting or HK. Guess which VC suddenly has the Consul on the blower saying, Shut Up or lose all of your foreign students. Wakey wakey!

    …and the academic ought to tell them to get fucked.

    The university cannot shut the academic up. They cannot. They cannot make them take their statement back.

    This isn’t China man, this is Australia.

    China can call as many people as they like in Australia, and we don’t have to do shit.

  245. Fisky
    #3188579, posted on October 19, 2019 at 8:11 pm

    Jesus dotty you aren’t getting this at all – the reality is closer relations are destroying OUR liberties and forcing all levels of society to align closer to the CCP.

    No they’re not. We’ve got corrupt MPs and one whinging Chinese consul. Australia did not have free speech after the Bolt case, we already had absurd “unexplained wealth laws”, gun grabbing and effectively a surveillance state and you think that increasing taxes on Australians is going to end the Bejing regime and suddenly, bam, we’re free again.

    Your heart is in the right place but you are a dreamer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.