Country towns not well
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
From: JL on 1 Dec 2008 23:00 On Dec 2, 10:28 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > On 1 Dec 2008 23:12:39 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:38:14 +1100 > >Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > >> Some had become ghost towns, others looked terminally ill. It was > >> quite depressing. I don't hink it's ever picked up much since then, > >> and now that our mad embrace of globalisation means our rural > >> industries have to compete with places where workers are paid a > >> pittance, I don't see a real lot of hope for them. > > >I don't think country towns ever did things that compete with workers > >in other countries. > > >They were mainly agriculture. They profited a lot from tarrifs and > >from other rorts, and they profited from unsustainable farming > >methods. > > >The problem for Oz will be that much of the land isn't useful for > >anything but housing and we aren't putting houses on it... And if we > >did, there'd be no water for them. > > >In 50 or 100 years time you won't see much inland at all unless > >there's a way to farm roos and rabbits, but you might see fewer people > >in Oz generally and them starving as they've built on the ground with > >good soil and water. > > >Given the high demand for meat in developing countries, raising and > >marketing roo might be a boom industry. Won't employ that many > >people, but then farming hasn't either. The days of huge demand for > >seasonal labour in the wheat and canefields is long gone. Fruit > >picking doesn't sustain country towns either. > > I don't think tarrifs are necessarily a bd thing. A world with zero tariffs across the board has lower deadweight losses (1) to both the consumer and producer than a world that has tariffs. So in that sense they are bad - they make everyone worse off. On the other hand, in a world that has tariffs it can be sensible for you to impose tariffs - they are a "beggar your neighbour" exercise - if someone can produce it cheaper than you but the govt imposes a tariff that forces the price of the cheaper goods up to what your country's producers can (or will) sell it for then both producers are producing on an equal footing and hence the ability to keep producing that continues in your country. The consumer is worse off though because they pay more for the goods. If you value keeping that production in your country (ie you want to have a local car manufacturing industry for some strange reason) more than you value the cost increases you are forcing on the consumer then there may be an overall benefit to the country, even if the economic outcome is poor. > I do think a lot of our manufacturing and primary industry has been > hurt by cheap imports. Of course it has, if you can't compete on price then you have to either find some other way of convincing people to buy or go out of business. On the other hand the consumer has benefited mightily from the dramatically dropping prices of numerous items (electronics, clothes etc) > And I do think it has affected the rural > economy. Possibly, but I doubt it's been significant to be honest - rural townships have primarily been based on supporting agricultural and mining industries, both of those have been more impacted by the mechanisation of production over the last 150 years than anything else. When it takes 5 people (now) instead of 50 (50years ago) to farm a couple of hundred thousand acres in the far west then those people have to find something else to do. It's an inevitable consequence of the Industrial Revolution and has been happening since the 1700s when thousands poured off the farms into the cities. Capital and labour are substitutes and agriculture is now capital intensive. > And I'm opposed, in principle, to globalisation. Call me an economic > luddite... <shrug> Depends on what you mean by globalisation and what it is you object to. Self interest and optimisation of economic outcomes are two very different things JL
From: Zebee Johnstone on 2 Dec 2008 00:06 In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 1 Dec 2008 20:00:46 -0800 (PST) JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > If you value keeping that production in your country (ie you want to > have a local car manufacturing industry for some strange reason) more > than you value the cost increases you are forcing on the consumer then > there may be an overall benefit to the country, even if the economic > outcome is poor. > The major reason to keep things in your country is war. If excrement encounters airconditioning, you need to be able to make things you can no longer easily import. Oz was able to make weapons and clothing in WW2 and be self sufficient in food. There was enough manufacturing capacity that we weren't helpless. Of course there's no way to know if there'll be another war or what form it will take. The other reason is money.... We are at the end of a long supply road, things are cheap now but if freight becomes very expensive then rebuilding manufacturing without something to bankroll it (like wool and meat...) will be tricky. Supposing importing costs quadruple, how many things will need to be made in Oz to be affordable and can they be? Zebee - figuring that crippling import costs will mean a lot more old bikes on the road!
From: JL on 2 Dec 2008 03:42 On Dec 2, 4:06 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 1 Dec 2008 20:00:46 -0800 (PST) > > JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > If you value keeping that production in your country (ie you want to > > have a local car manufacturing industry for some strange reason) more > > than you value the cost increases you are forcing on the consumer then > > there may be an overall benefit to the country, even if the economic > > outcome is poor. > > The major reason to keep things in your country is war. > > If excrement encounters airconditioning, you need to be able to make > things you can no longer easily import. > > Oz was able to make weapons and clothing in WW2 and be self sufficient > in food. There was enough manufacturing capacity that we weren't > helpless. Indeed - that's exactly the best non-monetary reason to subsidise local manufacturing capacity that exists. Of course the most likely scenario for a war is one we have a snowball's chance in hell of winning (although if I'm physically capable I'll be bloody well on the front line with whatever weapon I can lay my hands on) - which is a Chinese invasion in about 10-25 years pursuing more land and resources- it's the only realistic threat we have in the near future unless Indonesia finds an unexpected pot of gold that would allow them to finance the venture they'd love to execute but can't afford to. > Of course there's no way to know if there'll be another war or what > form it will take. True enough, it's very rare to see it coming. It behoves a nation to be prepared, and Little-Johnny wasted a lot of money sucking up to the yanks that could have been better spent building our capacity to defend (Abrams tanks for fucks sake ? You can't even move the fuckers around in Oz without breaking a bridge or a road) > The other reason is money.... We are at the end of a long supply > road, things are cheap now but if freight becomes very expensive then > rebuilding manufacturing without something to bankroll it (like > wool and meat...) will be tricky. Supposing importing costs > quadruple, how many things will need to be made in Oz to be affordable > and can they be? Mmm. Possible but I suggest unlikely - I think we're more likely to pay in time than dollars - you can sail from Japan to Oz in under a year if diesel became prohibitively expensive, how long before sails (albeit in a high tech format) make a come back ? The only reason we'd be cut off is war, not cost. Wind and tide won't abate any time soon. Even in your scenario, we can build manufacturing for most things reasonably easily and those we don't currently have capability for like RAM and LCD/plasma screens are relatively high value per Kg - ie the shipping costs are a relatively small proportion of their value by weight. The big danger is we continue the dumbing down of Oz that has been going on for the last 10 years. If we lose the knowledge we lose the capability. We need to spend significantly more on both higher education and trade training (tafe and apprenticeships). The current situation where we are engaging fewer apprentices than we need and then have to import them is unsustainable and bloody madness. > Zebee > - figuring that crippling import costs will mean a lot more old bikes > on the road! Can't be a bad thing ! Every cloud has a silver lining and all that !!
From: Iain Chalmers on 2 Dec 2008 03:43 In article <b7f6b85d-a389-4dd8-ad3d-1568e2682b89(a)g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > <shrug> No economy is truly independent. The more important question > is about independence of the truly critical areas - food, electricity > generation, critical manufacturing capacity, critical electrical > manufacturer. Firearms, ammo, tinned food, shovels... <smirk> big -- "Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history, all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled, watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people you hate." Mr Jalopy quoting Hooptyrides (on jalopyjunktown.com)
From: JL on 2 Dec 2008 03:51
On Dec 2, 7:43 pm, Iain Chalmers <bigi...(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: > In article > <b7f6b85d-a389-4dd8-ad3d-1568e2682...(a)g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > <shrug> No economy is truly independent. The more important question > > is about independence of the truly critical areas - food, electricity > > generation, critical manufacturing capacity, critical electrical > > manufacturer. > > Firearms, ammo, tinned food, shovels... > > <smirk> Don't forget the underground concrete bomb shelter :-) JL |