From: jl on 3 Dec 2008 06:23
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:48:24 -0800 (PST), JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com>
> When I become Dictator of Australia, you super won't be worth zip.
> But you won't need it where you're going, boy... :-)
My my you've taken a nasty turn haven't you. No the smiley doesn't make
(and no I'm not upset before you go all George on me)
From: jl on 3 Dec 2008 07:13
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:53:54 +1100, jl <not-here(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Putting words in my mouth mate, where do I say or even imply "who cares
>> about the losers". In fact I think there should be sufficient govt
>> support to ensure people can & do retrain.
> Yes using Australian taxpayer funds to train our workers to work for
> foreign corporations. Band aid stuff, that is... I still argue that
> the fundamental issue ought to be Australia striving for economic
<Shrug> from my perspective I don't see your obsession with the
ownership, it's the skills that determine our long term viability and
future- it makes no economic sense to "sell the farm to consume" so I'm
no big fan of privatisation for its own sake. Natural monopolies should
stay with the govt. But other than that capital makes it's rent in
profit and labour makes it's in wages, but the difference is dollars are
dollars and entirely substitutable, people and skills aren't as
> That would require a pardigm shift in what we see as the econimc
> imperatives. It would require a commitment to downsize our economy,
> our needs, our wants, until we get down to a sustainable,
> self-sufficient Australian economy. A pipe dream I know...
> Mainstream economists will always laugh this off, but they've already
> sold us out to the hightest bidder.
>>> Oh I don't know, I think when wealth keeps bleeding out of the country
>>> that's as detrimental as jobs or skills leaving the country.
>> Bollocks. Money is an illusion. As long as capital is available to build
>> what you need the absence of the skills is what's going to stuff you. In
>> the war example the govt can nationalise (or just take over for the
>> duration of the war )foreign owned manufacturing plants (for example) -
>> if you don't have them, and don't have the skills to build them, you're
> Bwahahaha... In one breath you say that money is an illusion, and
> then in the next breath you say "as long as capital is available".
Fair enough, perhaps I need to reword that for you.
Money is an illusion, a collective delusion we all choose to participate
in because it's convenient. Skills however aren't illusory, either you
know how to weld or you don't.
We can remove money out of society and society can still exist. When you
remove enough skills, society is unsustainable.
The "as long as capital is available" was a reference to the war example
- it doesn't matter whose capital or where it comes from (if you retain
the money illusion) - so we go to war and then the govt substitutes its
capital for the foreign capital and no one is affected at all
> About taking over and nationalising foreign coprporate stuff, that
> woud be a very provocative thing to do. A little guy kicking a big
> guy in the shins is not a smart thing for a little guy to be doing.
<shrug> the example was a war, we're already kicking someone or trying,
you can't make it much worse if you seize their assets, wouldn't be at
all surprised if it's in the "rules of war"(1) such as they are
>>> I think there's a HUGE difference between protecting an Australian owned
>>> and operated enterprise via tariffs and chucking megabucks of our
>>> hard-earned at foreign companies make it cosier for them to stay here.
>> You may well think that but you gave (and still give) no reasons.
> To me the diference is self-evident. I'm getting to the point where I
> say "If I have to explain it to you, you aren't capable of
> understanding the explanation."
Yeah OK Gerry, I'm too thick to understand your genius and insight
Tariffs are a blunt instrument of extremely dubious efficacy, however
they don't actual give money to the companies they protect - the govt
gets that. Are you confusing the difference between a subsidy and a tariff ?
>> The money is being spent to keep jobs in Oz, that's protectionism which
>> in a perfect world you wouldn't have to do, however refer to all the
>> stuff you snipped and other thread responsse for reasons why you might
>> want to do that. It really makes little difference most times whether
>> the business is foreign owned or not.
> Yes, if the subject is limited to "jobs". If the subject is
> "Australia's economic self-sufficiency and independince", then the
> difference is HUGE.
<shrug> Jobs and skills matter in our ability to survive in a changing
world. Throwing up trade barriers doesn't really do what you're
proposing - North Korea and Burma aren't exactly doing well.
>>> An ever growing number of people are starting
>>> to question all sorts of stuff in the airy fairy fictional world of
>>> "econonmics". Many of them are economists. Paradigms are collapsing
>> <chuckle> So point out the bits that are not being questioned in any
>> science, thats what academics do, that's how we advance civilisation.
> Our so-called "civilisation" <oxymoron alert> is collapsing, I think.
> but I'm neither an academic, nor a scientst, nor an economist.
OK, so other than the black dog camped at your place, in what way is
civilisation collapsing? Serious question.
We've just had a sharemarket and financial crisis - OK, but we had one
of those in 1930, 1890 (and if I recall correctly 1850 odd, 1810 ish.
1775 ish and 1670 ish) asset bubbles and severe recessions happen. I
very much doubt this one will be anywhere near the 1930's one - yes
Iceland is going to be in a bad way for a long time, and probably the
Ukraine as well, but the developed countries can weather another
recession without the sky falling in.
> I'm just one guy with a bunch or opinions doomed to irrelevance by
> those who "know better". What do you want from me? At the end of
> the day you have a piece of paper which says you know better. Good
> luck to you. I was just airing my opinons.
>> The trouble is people like you...
> Oh...the old "People like you.." gambit... Ooer...
Oh for heavens sakes Gerry - you come over all conspiracy theory and
trade protectionist and you object to me mentioning the fact that I've
heard this argument before ?
>> ...try and lump all economists together
>> the way Shock-Jocks and Howard era politicians lump muslims together.
> If you'd actually cognited about what I said, you'd have seen the bit
> where I said "An ever growing number of people are starting
> to question all sorts of stuff in the airy fairy fictional world of
> "econonmics". Many of them are economists." Please tell me how
> that equates to lumping all economists together, John.
Very simple - shall I quote back at you the parts you snipped where you
made sweeping statements about what economists believe, say, think etc ?
That's what I was referring to.
If you'd said "some right wing economists think" or "keynesians say" or
etc then you're not lumping everyone together. When you say "economists
<insert verb>" you're lumping in
If you say so Gerry
>> Well there's not much point discussing it then is there. OK, you don't
>> want to convince me or the people reading that's fine
> I'm just sharing my opinions. That's all. I can't speak
> authoritatively because I have no basis on which I can claim to be
> right. They are just my opinions. Do with them what you will.
<shrug> You can have an opinion that the moon is made of green cheese
too, and if you assert it I'll ask for something that verifies or
supports your opinion.
(1) Legal conventions and etc that govern this sort of stuff - I'm no
expert on what's what in that space
From: Diogenes on 3 Dec 2008 07:26
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:19:30 +1100, jl <not-here(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:51:59 -0800 (PST), JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com>
>>>> We get to support our own textile mills. (Australian jobs)
>>>> We get to support our own clothing manufacturers. (Australian jobs)
>>>> We get to keep these industries going instead of killing them by
>>>> buying imports.
>>> Why not let some other sucker grow the cotton and wreck their
>>> backyard, turn it into cloth and pollute their backyard which we
>>> import at a couple of bucks a roll, then turn it into highly priced
>>> garments with huge profit margins that we export
>>> Oh wait, we already do that.
>> And that's ethical?
>> When I become Dictator of Australia, you'll get a short stint as my
>> economic adviser, and if you could convince me that cotton growing
>> waas bad for the environment we'd be banning all cotton products.
>> They tell me hemp is good though...
>Points to Boxer's note. Not that there seems to be any possibility of
>convincing you of anything.
I just told you you'd get the chance to convince me, and quick as a
falsh, you convince yourself that I can't be convinced. Have you
ever considered the possibility that your synaptic processes are
From: Diogenes on 3 Dec 2008 07:41
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:52:04 +1000, "Capt.about_lunchtime"
>">>So what incentive is there for the Oz jeans manufacturer to get
>>>competitive, or even of a higher quality? What prevents us from
>>>fellating the local industry? What do we gain for our $47?
>> We get to support our own cotton growers (Australian jobs)
>> We get to support our own textile mills. (Australian jobs)
>> We get to support our own clothing manufacturers. (Australian jobs)
>> We get to keep these industries going instead of killing them by
>> buying imports.
>> We get to keep the money in Australia.
>And likely we end up wearing shoddy jeans made by inefficient textile mills
>while paying heaps for low quality clothes and the value of the dollas kept
>in Aust.falls even more..
>Competition, real competition, is the only thing that industry will respond
>to in the name of greater quality and cost effiencies. Tariffs while
>supporting local jobs is a severe determent to improving quality and
>efficiency unless they are accurately targeted and short lived.
>One example is Harleys' plea for the US govt to impose tariffs on the
>Japanese MC manufactures in the 80s' due to their alleged dumping of bikes
>into US markets. The US gov. agreed to a 5 year tariff imposition
>Honda decided to produce Goldwings, a big US seller, in the US thus
>bypassing the tariff. Harley however had enough time to launch the
>Evolution motor. This was so successful that Harley asked the Gov to axe
>the tariff a year or so earlier than they originally proposed.
>Well targeted, short-lived and successful in keeping a local manufacturer
>afloat while improving the product out of this world.
>Yes I know Harleys are actually made in China and only assembled in the US
>but not even the die hards can afford 75USD for an 883
I was in the mood for a bit of flippancy.
But I would like to see us change radically how we do economics.
I'm completely _not _sold on globalisation. I think it will lead to
Australia losing what little remains of its economic independence
I think we ought to be heading in the opposite direction, i.e.
economic self-sufficiency in all vital areas of the economy.
I don't mind if I get called an economic nationalist. I think it's a
lot better than us being a slave to the big economic powers.
I don't think it would be easy. I don't think it would be painless.
But I do think fighting for our economic freedom (and that's what it
would be) would be worth it in the long run.
And I don't have any problem with tariffs, governement control or even
publicly owned enterprises.
I'm a dreamer, I know.
Now, this is the end of this thread for me.
Seeya, dudes and dudettes.
>Eventually the wages in these third world countries rise and the cycle
>continues, its a small world out there and getting smaller by the week
>putting up tariff walls is a short term insular bandaid. Long term it just
From: Diogenes on 3 Dec 2008 07:46
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:14:04 +1100, jl <not-here(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> > One year after I become Dictator of Australia, I PROMISE you the
>> rortists woud either be digging for water or they'd have bolted
>> I have so many good ideas I can hardly wait to implement them. :-)
>> Our very own JL would come under particular scrutiny, as would Theo.
>What makes you think I rort the tax system Gerry ?
I've shut this thread down for myslef, but in departure, let me just
say that you misunderstood what I menat by rortists. to me all
economists, numbercrunchers, et al who support the "free market"
model of econmics are rortists. It was just another little epithet I
threw your way so as to help you get offended.
Good night, John.