# $$$ - Protectionism - $$$



## noirua (15 November 2008)

China and Japan are said to have $2 trillion that could be lent to the International Monetary Fund.  However, in these very difficult times they may consider investment in Asia and the Far East a far better bet.  Or they may keep the money at home as protectionism spreads.

Many countries may have little option now than to put up trade barriers.  So if the IMF are constrained it may end up, every country for themselves.


----------



## numbercruncher (15 November 2008)

Im all for protectionism and a wind back of the globilisation experiment.

We should concentrate on close relationships with countries of similar agendas ...

The NWO crew wont like it ....


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 November 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Im all for protectionism and a wind back of the globilisation experiment.
> 
> We should concentrate on close relationships with countries of similar agendas ...
> 
> The NWO crew wont like it ....




Indeed, bonecruncher - the NWO led by Big Chief Burning Bu$h is making a deperate Custer$ La$t $tand for de-regulated markets at the G20 pow-wow.  

On a lighter note, how is your now-not-so broken leg going? Any physio exercise with a cast on yet? I got out of my cast a week ago *YAY*  and the next day stubbed my little toe on that same leg HARD against a chair leg *BOO* . My cussing nearly collapsed the roof!!

Thought I had broken it for a day or so - but turned out just badly sprained - it has turned black and puffed up the whole foot again and set me back ANOTHER week. Only just managed a short hobble around the block today. That'll teach me to be more careful where I put my size 13 clod-hoppers! LOL

Hope you are feeling a bit more chipper.  

Chiz,

aj


----------



## The Once-ler (15 November 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Im all for protectionism and a wind back of the globilisation experiment.
> 
> We should concentrate on close relationships with countries of similar agendas ...
> 
> The NWO crew wont like it ....





I think Australia would fair badly, as we are such a 'one trick pony' country.

We export two thirds of our food, and a heap of coal, gas, iron ore, metals, uranium, and not much else.

We import just about everything else. 

How would we build all the factories to start manufacturing computers, whitegoods, TV's, boats, airplanes, etc?. Who would we sell our commodities to? We could only eat a third of our food, and consume a tiny percentage of the hard commodities.

Globalisation may be bad in some ways, but it's better than the alternative. The whole world is stuck with it, and it's too late to go back. Every country is now specialising in what they do best, and they have forgotten how to do the other stuff.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 November 2008)

The Once-ler said:


> Globalisation may be bad in some ways, but it's better than the alternative. The whole world is stuck with it, and it's too late to go back. Every country is now specialising in what they do best, and they have forgotten how to do the other stuff.



We've done it before after the last failed experiment with what is now termed "globalisation" and we built plenty of factories after that. So we're certainly not stuck with it forever although it will take time to wind back.

My personal expectation is that the current financial crisis when viewed in the future will have marked a major turning point and the end of the previous paradigm.  Basically everything economic that became fashionable over the past 35 years is set to be reversed. Out with privatisation, in with nationalisation. Out with free trade, in with protectionism. 

I'm not judging good or bad but I think we've seen the end of the notion that everything is best left to unregulated markets.


----------



## prawn_86 (15 November 2008)

In theory free trade works. Problem is and always has been protectionism, more of it isnt going to solve anything.

But 'democracy' and communism also work in theory...


----------



## Panacea (15 November 2008)

If worse comes to worst, Australia will be OK. 

We inhabit a large continent with relatively few people and sufficient arable land. We can provide for our own needs. We have a strong primary industry, a skilled workforce, a culture of looking after each other, a strong democratic and legal framework, and a capacity for hard work. 

We should all have faith in this country and it's people. (Not that it will come to that).


----------



## pacestick (15 November 2008)

ive always favoured  a degree of protectionism it does however have difficulties . These include inflation and  possible balance of payment difficulties. The balance of payment problem comes about if you dont sell more  to others than they buy from you but they are likely to want to know why they cant sell their manufactured goods   to you and therefore get their raw materials from someone who will take their manufactured goods  in this regard  canada and brazil  come to mind as australian competitors. If you allow your balance of payments to get too far out of hand  you can become a defaulter on your debt and that has horrific consequences  check out argentina on this one


----------



## noirua (16 November 2008)

What happens when individuals in countries are strong enough to not buy foreign goods.  In many ways it is the people of a country that hold the whip hand here, "if it's foreign don't buy it".


----------



## pacestick (16 November 2008)

noirua said:


> What happens when individuals in countries are strong enough to not buy foreign goods.  In many ways it is the people of a country that hold the whip hand here, "if it's foreign don't buy it".




Unfortunatly i have no confidence in aussies being that strong. Also when China  refused to buy anything off Britain the Brits forced them to take opium which the Brits grew in India  specially to addict them and  get the trade going


----------



## aleckara (16 November 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> In theory free trade works. Problem is and always has been protectionism, more of it isnt going to solve anything.
> 
> But 'democracy' and communism also work in theory...




Used to think like this as an economics student however it isn't quite the case in reality. In reality everyone is out there serving their own interests. If China has no protection (i.e a floated dollar, no export subsidies, etc) I can tell you now the chance that China would become a powerhouse in manufacturing would be a lot less. Most people used to find it 'too risky' to set up shop in China due to the government. Anyone producing in China has exploited this protectionism, nothing more. And people are talking about them being the new superpower and more efficient. Protectionism is great when everyone else is playing free markets. Like lambs to the slaughter for you to suck their wealth.


----------



## prawn_86 (16 November 2008)

I agree that there is already a large amount of protectionism in place across the world, much more than govs and the like lead us to believe.

A good example of why not to go down the protectionism route is ABC Learning. If we cant regulate a supposedly 'free market' properly, then what hope do we have of trying to protect every industry and different rules and laws for each of those industries


----------



## numbercruncher (16 November 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Indeed, bonecruncher - the NWO led by Big Chief Burning Bu$h is making a deperate Custer$ La$t $tand for de-regulated markets at the G20 pow-wow.
> 
> On a lighter note, how is your now-not-so broken leg going? Any physio exercise with a cast on yet? I got out of my cast a week ago *YAY*  and the next day stubbed my little toe on that same leg HARD against a chair leg *BOO* . My cussing nearly collapsed the roof!!
> 
> ...






Hey AJ !

Glad to hear youve finally escaped your cast! bet you had a good itch huh ? and you poor bugger kicking your toe like that, im glad to hear it wasnt as bad as it could of been !!

Thanks for asking ..... Mines in a velcro removeable brace, got out of hospital about 10 days ago, all sorts went wrong in hospital ....... Im in it for the long haul it seems, saw Doctors on Thursday they are tipping I will be one year to get my leg back to a good working ability - but there are also variables like cartilage damage and theyve said I wont get the leg back to 100pc ...... I go back in 3 weeks for an xray/progress check ... but its a bit dissapointing atm, last assessment they said it would be a 4 months(ish) recovery, so going to a year is a massive jump, been a costly little adventure lol ! But i keep saying it could of been worse ...... In hospital guy across ffrom me died and guy beside me had his lower leg amputated ......

I guess I should put my update in the thread Julia kindly made ....

But thanks for asking, im plodding along, 12 months hobbling is rather daunting, pretty big interuption in life !

Hope your recovery powers along too !


----------



## noirua (19 November 2008)

One form of protectionism, in a hidden form, is to allow certain companies in a country to go bust.  Thus releasing them from expensive agreements to buy iron ore and coal.


----------



## Aussiejeff (19 November 2008)

noirua said:


> One form of protectionism, in a hidden form, is to allow certain companies in a country to go bust.  Thus releasing them from expensive agreements to buy iron ore and coal.




Or, in a not-so-hidden form to promise to keep struggling or un-competitive companies or sectors operational "at any cost" - eg: 

(a) Oz car industry (but bailout might fail in the near future), 

(b) Oz child-care centres (but bailout cracks are appearing),

(c) Oz tourism industry (bucket loads are going to be spent here by the sound of GuvMint rhetoric),

just to name a few.

Specifically "bailing out" a company, companies or sector by GuvMint$ that have a vested interest in doing so (mainly claimed by them to be in the best interests of local economic and employment reasons but often I suspect short term political survival reasons figure as well) also raises the question of altering the "fair trading" landscape.

Continuous bailouts significantly weaken the resolve and confidence of "free market" operators to be profitable and competitive. Why bother if your competitor is going to get a free handout from the GuvMint? Why bother fixing an uncompetitive business if you think you can wangle a golden parachute and bailout yourself from your mates in GuvMint? The opportunity for that is pretty clear ATM and into the near future. 

This is a fine mess we are in and $$$ - Protectionism - $$$ seems to be the name of the game right now. Protect the country, protect the state, protect the shire, protect the local business. May "god" (whoever he/she/it is) protect us all! 



aj


----------



## noirua (19 November 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Or, in a not-so-hidden form to promise to keep struggling or un-competitive companies or sectors operational "at any cost" - eg:
> 
> (a) Oz car industry (but bailout might fail in the near future),
> 
> ...



Australia is in a better position to protect industries than Europe. Any country, part of the European Common Market, needs to get permission from Brussels to bail out an industry.  Australia can do what it likes.

The problem with letting an industry go down completely is, that there is little chance of having one again.

Tourism looks to be a big plus situation as the AUD plunges. Only South Africa, Iceland, Argentina and Pakistan have weaker currencies than Australia.  Even the dodgy British Pound is doing better now.


----------



## Aussiejeff (19 November 2008)

noirua said:


> Australia is in a better position to protect industries than Europe. Any country, part of the European Common Market, needs to get permission from Brussels to bail out an industry.  Australia can do what it likes.
> 
> The problem with letting an industry go down completely is, that there is little chance of having one again.
> 
> Tourism looks to be a big plus situation as the AUD plunges. Only South Africa, Iceland, Argentina and Pakistan have weaker currencies than Australia.  Even the dodgy British Pound is doing better now.




There is still a big risk IMO that the GuvMint spends truckloads on tourism, yet even with a puny BananaBuck the eagerly anticipated tourist bonanaza doesn't eventuate. They still might not come in sufficient numbers - because THEY simply can't afford to because of THEIR crap economies.

What happens "over there" (China, Japan, Europe, US, where the tourists come from) is appearing to be much more important for tourism than whatever we may try here to promote it.



aj


----------



## noirua (21 November 2008)

China is to help its struggling textile industry through difficult times. 
The time has come when the strongest countries are forced into protectionism.
Japan, South Korea, China, Germany and the USA are now in a situation where they will be forced to bailout their car industries.

All the G20 talks will in the end be nothing short of waffling in the dark.


----------



## prawn_86 (21 November 2008)

noirua said:


> All the G20 talks will in the end be nothing short of waffling in the dark.




Is it ever any different?


----------



## Nyden (21 November 2008)

noirua said:


> Tourism looks to be a big plus situation as the AUD plunges. Only South Africa, Iceland, Argentina and Pakistan have weaker currencies than Australia.  Even the dodgy British Pound is doing better now.




That's so reassuring. Honestly, stick that in the good news thread; I jest 

Sorry noirua, but a falling AUD really is quite bad for every day residents here. There is no silver-lining to a falling aud, even in the export industry. 

Exports are of course slowing way down, and people world wide are losing too much money / jobs to even *think* about taking an international holiday right now - sorry, but that's just nuts.

So, I think I've established now that as a result of far less tourists, and far less exports (at heavily reduced prices) that the exporters aren't doing any _better_ from this; rather they're just doing less than worse. 

On the flip-side though, many industries are suffering greatly as a result! Importers, small business, and average-folk. Oil prices have plummeted world wide, but Australia has hardly felt it because our dollar has sunk along with it! Certain goods are going up in prices; in a period where people are already not wanting to spend, or simply cannot afford to - how can this possibly be a good thing?

Am I right noirua that you are currently living overseas and not in Australia? If so, how can you honestly say what is good for us?


----------



## Kipp (21 November 2008)

noirua said:


> Tourism looks to be a big plus situation as the AUD plunges. Only South Africa, Iceland, Argentina and Pakistan have weaker currencies than Australia.  Even the dodgy British Pound is doing better now.



You are kidding right noirua?
So you be okay getting paid in Indonesian rupees or Vietnamese dong then?  Cause they are not on your list- so therefore they're obviously stronger, more stable currencies than the AUD.


----------



## Kipp (21 November 2008)

Nyden said:


> Exports are of course slowing way down, and people world wide are losing too much money / jobs to even *think* about taking an international holiday right now - sorry, but that's just nuts.



I am not sure... I think if I had just been made redudant at ANZ, and no hope in hell of getting another banking job,  it'd be a great time to take off for 12 months backpacking.  That is of course, if the AUD was worth more than the Vietnamese Dong. :


----------



## Nyden (21 November 2008)

Kipp said:


> I am not sure... I think if I had just been made redudant at ANZ, and no hope in hell of getting another banking job,  it'd be a great time to take off for 12 months backpacking.  That is of course, if the AUD was worth more than the Vietnamese Dong. :




You're one of the few exceptions (as you clearly have no responsibilities, and perhaps have savings). Most people have mortgages, a family, bills to pay, and such things are out of the question right now.


----------



## noirua (21 November 2008)

Nyden said:


> That's so reassuring. Honestly, stick that in the good news thread; I jest
> 
> Sorry noirua, but a falling AUD really is quite bad for every day residents here. There is no silver-lining to a falling aud, even in the export industry.
> 
> ...




Hi Nyden and all, A low Aussie is good for the mining industry and will help Australia with the big slide in commodity prices.  Not to say it is an escape from all the woes, just a buffer or silver lining, if you will.
So exports will be greatly helped, and the downside an increase in import prices. But, with prices dropping the impact of higher import prices will fall away.

On the tourism side, the Japanese are going to find prices in Aus well down, and few other countries wont.  Australia Zoo is one of those benefiting with their building of hotels.  

I am in the UK, but that doesn't mean everyone else I know is abroad or everything I own is abroad, quite the reverse.

From my own experiences in the past, I know it is an individual who suffers, whilst others are unaffected.  Always the sad part about it.

Good luck - noi


----------



## numbercruncher (21 November 2008)

> So exports will be greatly helped




Noirua - Our manufactoring base has been destroyed in the great globilisation experiment and the demand for our only export ( stuff out of holes in the ground ) is being destroyed at such a rate that the collapsing AUD wont even go close to compensating that .....

maybe our big export will soon be people looking for jobs ?


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 November 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Noirua - Our manufactoring base has been destroyed in the great globilisation experiment and the demand for our only export ( stuff out of holes in the ground ) is being destroyed at such a rate that the collapsing AUD wont even go close to compensating that .....
> 
> *maybe our big export will soon be people looking for jobs ?*




Hi bonecruncher 

"The Big Apple" and "Motor City" sound like hip, exciting places for our growing lines of unemployed to find work...


----------



## noirua (26 November 2008)

Is protectionism having Government tax reductions and borrowings, because that country is relatively strong and can do so?

Is bailing out one of your own banks or protecting the customers by covering all of their losses also protectionism?

A country that has loads of dollars to protect runs on their currencies. Is this not protectionism?

God help the weak countries who cannot get the IMF to bail them out of trouble. Their people will starve.


----------



## noirua (29 November 2008)

"Economic Crisis Deepens in Europe, Asia..."  http://www.compareshares.com.au/show_news.php?id=S-533866

It is getting difficult for strong countries now and it is starting to become "everyone for themselves", whilst, of course, being willing to attend any conferences offered and promising to meet again in the future once we've had time to think about it.

Whilst thinking about it, matters will get much worse, so after meeting again it would be better to iron out the problems presented and revamp the whole package and meet again in late 2009.

By late 2009 matters will be too bad in some countries, so it would be far better to strengthen our own asset bases, because if any of us falter badly it would be curtains for the rest. So further meetings are no longer necessary.


----------



## noirua (7 December 2008)

Interesting to see now if commodity dumping heats up or not. Reports that China are set to sell coking coal as thermal is dire indeed for Aussie exporters.  If oil stays around US$40 per barrel, then thermal coal could tank to US$50 per tonne against US$194 in May this year. 

OPEC meet again in about 11 days time and could bite the bullet, maybe dropping production by 10% or more.


----------



## numbercruncher (7 December 2008)

Yes looks like the contract price for coal and iron ore will get smashed going forward, along with demand .....

We still have Mangos and Bananas though hey ? 


Everyones got to eat, Mango prices to boom forever !


----------



## numbercruncher (7 December 2008)

I see your Chinese mates are making it perfectly clear that they are focussing inwards a.k.a Protectionist ?




> HONG KONG ”” The chairman of China’s sovereign wealth fund said on Wednesday that China had no plans for further investments in Western financial institutions, nor did it have any plans to “save” the world through economic policies.




..........




> Asked whether China might pursue economic policies aimed at saving the world, Mr. Lou said that the country’s leaders had a narrower focus. “*China can only save herself *because the scale of China is still rather small,” he said, adding that while China has more people than any other country, economic output is still low enough that the Chinese economy is not yet big enough to have a big effect




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/business/worldbusiness/04yuan.html?

Your on your own Mango munchers and Ruddy has nearly spent all the ca$h !

When do we declare globilisation a failure ?


----------



## noirua (10 December 2008)

As Russia is downgraded with reports of wages being slashed 50% in the commodity related industries, it is looking like everyone for themselves.

Western countries put out spiel that protectionism is a bad thing whilst doing precisely that. 

Australians need to realize that imports must drop decisively and you just must cutback on buying foreign goods.


----------



## GumbyLearner (10 December 2008)

I agree noirua.

International leaders and the powerful advocates of "free trade" have argued for years that globalism is the answer. Yet it is these same high and mighty who are now begging for a financial saviour and state aid but decrying the need for regulating free markets. 

Like Wall St and the car industry in the States. 

Maybe they should make a new Rocky movie, where Rocky has to fight a person who defects from United Socialists of America. These guys cant have it both ways. Either a free market run by incompetents or a regulated one run by elected incompetents. 

You can't have your cake and eat it too!


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (10 December 2008)

noirua said:


> As Russia is downgraded with reports of wages being slashed 50% in the commodity related industries, it is looking like everyone for themselves.
> 
> Western countries put out spiel that protectionism is a bad thing whilst doing precisely that.
> 
> Australians need to realize that imports must drop decisively and you just must cutback on buying foreign goods.




Protectionism was one of the main factors of prolonging the great depression. I'll try to find the link I read.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 December 2008)

noirua said:


> As Russia is downgraded with reports of wages being slashed 50% in the commodity related industries, it is looking like everyone for themselves.
> 
> Western countries put out spiel that protectionism is a bad thing whilst doing precisely that.
> 
> Australians need to realize that imports must drop decisively and you just must cutback on buying foreign goods.





Russia leading the way .....

Wont be long for our mole men to take 50pc shavings as well or lose their jobs .....

wont bode well for those million dollar houses in the middle of the desert that were going to boom forever ?

Private debt in Australia is gi-normous, just watch it transfer to the government at breakneck speed !


----------



## GumbyLearner (10 December 2008)

Your right Snake, protectionism did prolong the Great Depression.

I think it is also logical to assume that US Democrat administrations
tend to be more protectionist in economic policy than Republicans.

With their current account shot to bits, out of control debt, rising unemployment, Obama's announcement of a  'new deal' Keynesian type spending on infrastructure (the greatest since the 1950's I think he recently announced) then I think the US will inevitably whether its intention or not, become more protectionist.

Especially, if they are willing to pump-prime the failout packages with government money. IMO!

Protectionism = Trade Barriers = Tariffs = Higher prices 

This is would be a good place to look at the effects of protectionism during the great depression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley

I think this may be what you are looking for


----------



## numbercruncher (10 December 2008)

And without protectionist policy how do you compete against a workforce of 800 million who work for communist currency manipulators for next to nothing ?

Protectionism will be forced on us.....


I imagine carbon tariffs and other climate change initiatives will also effectively be protectionist and punish unsustainable and deadly polluting practices of the developing world.


Globilisation is nice in theory, right up until everyone is working for 5 bucks a day and a handful of global elite own and control everything.

I suspect that Globilisation is going to be a failure, China recently said they intend to look after themselves - we should too.


----------



## Aussiejeff (10 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> And without protectionist policy how do you compete against a workforce of 800 million who work for communist currency manipulators for next to nothing ?
> 
> Protectionism will be forced on us.....
> 
> ...




Hi BC 

Ah well. It would appear our esteemed and learned Mr KRudd is going to single-handedly save the Great Globalisation Experiment by loaning Indonesia $1Billion of our hard-earned.

Fortunately, none of our own local industries or social organizations need any money right now, so we have Billion$ to give away. Aren't we nice? I'm sure The World will give us a tick. *coff*


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 December 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Hi BC
> 
> Ah well. It would appear our esteemed and learned Mr KRudd is going to single-handedly save the Great Globalisation Experiment by loaning Indonesia $1Billion of our hard-earned.
> 
> *Fortunately, none of our own local industries or social organizations need any money right now, so we have Billion$ to give away*. Aren't we nice? I'm sure The World will give us a tick. *coff*




Gee, it's getting bad when you have to quote yourself with a Dorothy Dixer! 

_"AJ you are mistaken! What about all those $Billions given to the Oz car industry and the bailout of ABC Learning now rapidly inflating it's own bailout debt balloon?"_

Ah, yes. You are quite right learned poster *coff* 

In fact I WAS a tad concerned at the way Ms Gohard fobbed off Ke-e-e-e-rry on the ABC's very own 7.30 Report the other night.

Ke-e-e-e-rry had rightly raised the question (with respect to precedence set by the ABC Learning bailout) of whether the Oz GuvMint (having set the precedent) will now be forced to bail out a whole raft of failing companies over the coming year(s).

Ms Gohard assured Ke-e-e-e-rry along the lines of "the situation with ABC Learning is unique. Child care has always been very important to us".  

Hmmm. So, was the situation requiring the bailout of the "important" major car manufacturers also uniqe?

What about the bailout of the "important" car dealers. Were they also "unique"?

The major banks bailout? Unique?

All these bailouts within just a few months at the very start of the *R*ecession. How many more failing "important" businesses are going to require "unique" soothing with GuvMint financial salve? Remember, this "unique" precedent HAS already been set - 4 times if I'm not mistaken! 

The GuvMint can't bailout of bailouts without getting _mucho-eggo_ on its face now. Unca Sam has set THAT precedent.

IMO


----------



## Julia (11 December 2008)

That was a very soft interview by Kerry O'Brien.  He should have pursued the question of precedent with more vigour.  Just let her waffle on about how much the government cares about the mums and dads.
Come March let's not be surprised when even more taxpayer dollars are thrown in ABC's direction.


----------



## noirua (15 December 2008)

To what extent is reducing wages protectionism and having a weak currency. If the AUD gets even weaker against the USD then the main export industries in Australia could be saved. The problem may be, that if it happens too quickly then the changes for the worse affected companies could be dire indeed. Is the Governments real policy one of holding the currency around present levels for a while and then letting a further slip happen after commodity export deals are agreed with Japan on 1st April 2009?


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 December 2008)

noirua said:


> To what extent is reducing wages protectionism and having a weak currency. If the AUD gets even weaker against the USD then the main export industries in Australia could be saved. The problem may be, that if it happens too quickly then the changes for the worse affected companies could be dire indeed. *Is the Governments real policy one of holding the currency around present levels for a while and then letting a further slip happen after commodity export deals are agreed with Japan on 1st April 2009?*




Interesting thought there, noirua.

On a side note to that, we have just witnessed a MAJOR rejig of world power, given the historic "protectionist" agreements and handshaking by China, Korea & Japan over the weekend.

Not only are they pledging to loan more to each other (which leaves US and Eurozone worse off?) and set up their own self-help mega-fund to draw on (which leaves US and Eurozone worse off?) but they are also setting up a new "free trade deal" between the three nations (which leaves US and Eurozone worse off?).

Forget the smiles and platitudes of "this will help the world recover from the finanacial crisis" rhetoric - this is the New World order shaping up - the Triumvirate Of Three - China, Japan & Korea - WILL be a financial force to be reckoned with AS OF NOW and Unca Sam will not be amused as their future influence has suddenly been drastically further diminished.  

Obama better have a sense of wry humour! 

aj

Edit: Hey, maybe Rudd San can beg for a spot at the Triumvirate's New Table. Who knows, with some smoooth dialectics, he might even get us into a Gang Of Four!! LOL


----------



## noirua (15 December 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Interesting thought there, noirua.
> 
> On a side note to that, we have just witnessed a MAJOR rejig of world power, given the historic "protectionist" agreements and handshaking by China, Korea & Japan over the weekend.
> 
> ...



I wonder Aussiejeff, if they have plans to buy up most of Australia and treat it as their backyard, as a certain other country has in the past. Probably more likely to take the coal, iron and uranium, and dump the uranium waste somewhere in the outback.


----------



## numbercruncher (22 December 2008)

As the great globilsation experiment coninues to show its monumental failures more and more protectionist policy appears ......




> Protectionist dominoes are beginning to tumble across the world
> 
> The riots have begun. Civil protest is breaking out in cities across Russia, China, and beyond.
> 
> ...






> The last great era of globalisation peaked just before 1914.





cont ......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/3870089/Protectionist-dominoes-are-beginning-to-tumble-across-the-world.html


PS. The buck stops here - Buy Australian made @! ( not that we have any manufactoring base left)


----------



## GumbyLearner (22 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> As the great globilsation experiment coninues to show its monumental failures more and more protectionist policy appears ......




Marxism could never work because of human greed. After all humans are malleable and corruptable just like anyone else. And what Bush and his cronies did was to allow the market especially in the US to go about its business without regulation and/or with crony regulators who were TOO SCARED to blow the whistle and call these mega fraudsters ie. Citigroup, Lehmann, WaMu, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Chrysler, GM, Ford, Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Lloyds TSB, RB OF S, Bernie MAdoff etc.. (This is a non-exhaustive list, there should be more yet  )

And so the unfettered free-market capatilism needs checks and balances too.
Well this is where the system has failed. I know there are commentators like Schiff will disagree with me but I cannot rely as an investor on the "goodwill" of unregulated or lazy bureaucrats to protect me from the fraudsters. The system needs more transparency and anyone who would continue to invest in a system without it will do so at their own risk.  

I think the problem with the FAILOUTS and bankruptcies in the US it should really fall into the laps of guys like this.... Mr.Gramm from TAXUS!!!




Thanks Mr. Gramm


----------



## numbercruncher (22 December 2008)

I always suspected that Carbon trading / Green policy would be protectionist to the core ! and here we have the Governments own Professor Garnaut confirming that .....

Hilarious really, Gov is pro Globilisation in one breath and seriously protectionist in another ..... actions will prove louder than words and sentiments though .... 




> Professor Garnaut is even more alarmed at the dangers posed by the Government's decision to issue free carbon permits to industries exposed to international competition, such as steel, chemicals and paper and pulp.
> 
> He writes that this is an act of protectionism that threatened to provoke other countries to follow suit.
> 
> He likens the potential to the notorious US protectionism that deepened the Great Depression of the 1930s.




http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/carbon-plan-fuels-meltdown/2008/12/19/1229189886133.html


May the protectionist political warfare begin then ?


----------



## GumbyLearner (22 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> May the protectionist political warfare begin then ?




And you know what NC, your absolutely right! I cant argue with you mate about that point. Because the truth from a couple of my Yank friends is "..what's good for GM is what's good for America!.."

But GM is completely operationally and financially smashed!!!!!

But in reality they will still consider our farmers "collateral damage" in world markets and we will still have to fight tooth and nail to get out stuff to market internationally.

This is going to be BIG, REALLY F***** BIG!


----------



## Aussiejeff (22 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> And you know what NC, your absolutely right! I cant argue with you mate about that point. Because the truth from a couple of my Yank friends is "..what's good for GM is what's good for America!.."
> 
> But GM is completely operationally and financially smashed!!!!!
> 
> ...





We have stopped waving to the neighbours across the road. Now we are beavering away nailing boards over the windows and doors to keep them out. Then we will start stockpiling some useful weapons "just in case" something "bad" happens.

Describing my local neighbourhood in the Wild West of Wodonga?

Nope.

Just the current state of the planet! 

aj


----------



## Aussiejeff (22 December 2008)

More BAD news (for our economy) today...



> *A Chinese conglomerate has promised to spend 2.6 billion dollars on Liberia's main iron ore mine in the biggest investment ever made in the African nation*, Investment Minister Richard Tolbert told AFP on Saturday.
> .
> Tolbert said the China Union company had promised that within 12 months it will have built a one million tonne a year capacity refining factory at the Bong iron mines, about 150 kilometers (95 miles) north of Monrovia.




Seems China is forging ahead with deals to shore up an iron ore supply that is going to be far cheaper than what they can get from Oz. 

More very bad news for our big iron ore miners?  I guess the Chinese are holding the whip handle.. :horse:


----------



## numbercruncher (27 December 2008)

Russians head back to nationalisation ? setting the pace ?




> THEY bought country houses, superyachts and football clubs, but the era of the Russian oligarch may be drawing to aclose.
> 
> Details of the financial bailout being offered by the Kremlin toRussia's richest men have revealed that many could be stripped of power by next Christmas. The loans will last for one year only and will be collateralised against shares owned by the oligarchs.
> 
> Most are expected to struggle to repay the loans within a year, raising the possibility that the Kremlin is trying to engineer the renationalisation of the Russian economy.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24838594-5018063,00.html


Isnt it fun to watch the debt fueled super-rich get spanked ? !


----------



## tech/a (27 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Russians head back to nationalisation ? setting the pace ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why?

I see it as amusing as watching some poor bastard lose their house!

Same thing different size chips.

But hey your probably more comfortable in a communist state where all is equal comrade


----------



## numbercruncher (27 December 2008)

tech/a said:


> Why?
> 
> I see it as amusing as watching some poor bastard lose their house!
> 
> ...





Because it was all debt fueled gambling young Tech .... they just kept borowing and doubling and gambling more and more and more until it crashed around their sorry ears .... unsustainable economics you see ...


A roof over someones head is a completely different kettle of fish and a necessity for survival ....


----------



## chops_a_must (27 December 2008)

tech/a said:


> Why?
> 
> I see it as amusing as watching some poor bastard lose their house!
> 
> ...



Considering most got their "wealth" through violence, theft, corruption, black mail etc. etc. I can see no reason why it isn't funny.

But hey... I probably wont have much sympathy for anyone that loses their property over the next few years either, and I doubt many young people will.


----------



## numbercruncher (27 December 2008)

> But hey... I probably wont have much sympathy for anyone that loses their property over the next few years either, *and I doubt many young people will*.





Very good point Chops !


The 95pc of ipod owning Gen-Ys who wernt stoopid enough to buy overpriced boxes will do very nicely one would summise.


----------



## chops_a_must (27 December 2008)

It's just a lot have had rents increased 400% or so, whilst not having a meaningful increase in earnings themselves.

They've seen people get wealthy, increasingly greedy and ask for more, on the back of them. A lot have had appalling landlords kicking them out at a moments notice. Not exactly lending itself to sympathetic treatment in return.


----------



## Julia (27 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Considering most got their "wealth" through violence, theft, corruption, black mail etc. etc. I can see no reason why it isn't funny.



Did they really?   Perhaps you could explain how you reached this conclusion?



> But hey... I probably wont have much sympathy for anyone that loses their property over the next few years either, and I doubt many young people will.



Given that an increasing number of people will lose their jobs in the next few years, it's likely they will indeed lose their houses.
What is it about this that gives you so much pleasure?


----------



## chops_a_must (27 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Did they really?   Perhaps you could explain how you reached this conclusion?



Heard of the Russian mafia?

A lot of property owners in Russia have acquired them burning people's houses down, where the Russian law states that if a property is burnt down, the land is no longer owned by the occupants. Just one example.



Julia said:


> Given that an increasing number of people will lose their jobs in the next few years, it's likely they will indeed lose their houses.
> What is it about this that gives you so much pleasure?



Opportunity Julia.

At the expense of those that knew nothing of risk.


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 January 2009)

> Agence France-Presse
> 
> From correspondents in Washington
> 
> ...




"Buy America" bailout provisos? Just a tad protectionist?


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 January 2009)

Protectionism - The Platform's of both Scullin and Hoover.

Well raised point AJ about the US Steel industry.

Its funny who do the Titans of US industry blame now,
the steelworkers of the US, UAW etc....

Or the underpaid workers in China and the deals that these same US industry Titans made with their commie overlord employers 

http://www.gulfshipper.com/news/article.asp?sid=2024&ltype=customs


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 January 2009)

From your article Gumby....



> Looking ahead, Phelps said final numbers for U.S. steel imports for November 2008 could be as high as they were in October, because those orders were placed last June through August when no one foresaw the extent of the global economic downturn. *Now, new orders for foreign shipments are way down, he said, because demand from manufacturers who use steel is weak*.
> 
> What does that mean for steel imports? *Phelps expects a big falloff in imports in January, and probably an even bigger drop in February. “It is hard to be optimistic,” he said. If any optimism returns to the steel market by January, it won’t show up in import statistics until at least April.*




Unfortunately, that lag time is what is fooling Mr & Mrs Average Aussie into thinking "Huh? What recession".

How much of OUR Lil' Bleedin' Ozzie GDP depends on feeding The Great Steel Monsters around the globe - who are suddenly stricken gravely ill by some strange, incurable  Ponzivirus and now heading for a comatose state?

aj


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 January 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> From your article Gumby....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I totally agree AJ. 

The reality of recession is only when your neighbour loses his job. 



Also, the waste paper market in both the US and Uk has completely collapsed. The bulk carriers used to haul a lot of this stuff to Asian markets especially China. But now Asian markets have no need for this stuff because the a*** has fallen out of a lot of Asian-based manufacturing.

Its pretty obvious but its not apparent to many lemmings yet. 

http://www.gulfshipper.com/news/article.asp?ltype=customs&sid=2006

Just count the sheer amount of boats docked in the Straits of Salamis as we speak!


----------



## noirua (7 January 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> From your article Gumby....
> Unfortunately, that lag time is what is fooling Mr & Mrs Average Aussie into thinking "Huh? What recession"
> aj




Remember they should, that the weak Aussie$ signals the problems heading Australia's way. The Rudd Government wants people to spend, my view, "do the opposite, save".


----------



## noirua (8 January 2009)

Is the best form of protectionism for Australia in the hands of the Rudd and Co Government?
Yes, of course it is.
Now is the time to start new major Government financed projects. Not peanut affairs, start with $200 billion over 2009/10.


----------



## noirua (13 January 2009)

noirua said:


> Is the best form of protectionism for Australia in the hands of the Rudd and Co Government?
> Yes, of course it is.
> Now is the time to start new major Government financed projects. Not peanut affairs, start with $200 billion over 2009/10.



Richer countries are continuing with "Protectionism" as they make financial handouts and reduce taxes to stave off a prolonged recession.  
Australia is changing at a faster pace than ever before as the Aussie$ tanks and mines and projects are mothballed.
Kevin Rudd & Co need to take very big steps now. One is to put the pressure on and future blame, if interest rates are not lowered to zero quickly.


----------



## numbercruncher (14 January 2009)

noirua said:


> Is the best form of protectionism for Australia in the hands of the Rudd and Co Government?
> Yes, of course it is.
> Now is the time to start new major Government financed projects. Not peanut affairs, start with $200 billion over 2009/10.





200b ?


----------



## numbercruncher (14 January 2009)

dble post


----------



## noirua (17 January 2009)

The UK is reported to be about to announce the setting up of what is commonly called a "Bad Bank". This bank will take all the bad mortgage debt and other problem debt, off of the banks, in the UK, and this will put them in a better position to start lending again.


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 January 2009)

noirua said:


> The UK is reported to be about to announce the setting up of what is commonly called a "Bad Bank". This bank will take all the bad mortgage debt and other problem debt, off of the banks, in the UK, and this will put them in a better position to start lending again.




Oh, really?

And who may I ask will ultimately be mega-funding this "Bad Bank's" Really Bad Book Balance? 

*GASP* Surely not the Taxpayers? 

Looks like a fun game of "Pass The Bad Bucks" to me. Bit like a legalised Ponzi scheme.


----------



## noirua (18 January 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Oh, really?
> 
> And who may I ask will ultimately be mega-funding this "Bad Bank's" Really Bad Book Balance?
> 
> ...



From what I've read on ceefax, it seems as if the Government may back all these bad loans and put them into Bad Bank PLC - only of course a name given to it by the media.
The British Pound has sunk badly and it looks a bit dodgy in the UK now. 

One Aussie bank has very large involvements in Europe, including the Anglo-French Channel Tunnel that is now showing a big fall in passenger numbers.


----------



## noirua (26 January 2009)

All eyes now on the big four, USA, Europe, Japan and China.  Can they really help other countries in recession whilst they move downwards themselves?  I doubt it now as the biggest economies have to protect themselves and the groans of pain elsewhere will gradually not be heard.


----------



## Aussiejeff (26 January 2009)

noirua said:


> All eyes now on the big four, USA, Europe, Japan and China.  Can they really help other countries in recession whilst they move downwards themselves?  I doubt it now as the biggest economies have to protect themselves and the groans of pain elsewhere will gradually not be heard.




Ah yes. The "Gang Of Four".

I seem to remember something happened to that other "Gang Of Four"?


----------



## noirua (26 January 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Ah yes. The "Gang Of Four".
> 
> I seem to remember something happened to that other "Gang Of Four"?



Jiang Qing, Zhang Chunqiao, Yao VVenyuan and Wang Hongwen were the gang of four.  They were originally the gang of six, Kang Sheng and Xie Fuzhi died before being captured. 
Two were sentenced to death, but these were commuted to all life sentences. They were all later released but all have since died. One committed suicide.


----------



## noirua (28 January 2009)

It is moving more and more to everyone to protect themselves, whilst saying to everyone else, "they must not do it."

President Barrack Obama is seen as being woolly over a free market, that President George W Bush was in favour of. So it looks like everyone for themselves.


----------



## numbercruncher (28 January 2009)

Yes time to close the borders, unemployment is about to go feral ...


----------



## numbercruncher (30 January 2009)

Its gaining momentum ....




> 'Buy American' - Sparks fly
> 
> Stimulus provision that places bans on purchasing foreign construction materials for public works projects gets jeers from economists, Europe.




http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/29/news/economy/buy_american/index.htm




> FEARS that the world downturn will spark a trade war have been stoked by the inclusion of measures to protect the US steel industry in Barack Obama's $US819 billion ($1.25trillion) package to stimulate the US economy.
> 
> The package, which Mr Obama hopes will jump-start the recession-hit US economy, contains about $US90 billion worth of infrastructure projects, with about $US64 billion subjectto mandatory US steel requirements.
> 
> In a further sign of world trade tensions, a war of words erupted at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland over claims by the newly appointed US Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, that China was "manipulating" its currency by artificially holding down its value against the US dollar, supposedly swelling the US trade deficit.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24982537-2702,00.html

Let the trade wars begin then ! reform close blocs of trade partners like the good ole days .... fun fun .....


----------



## numbercruncher (1 February 2009)

Interesting times ahead !



> Rudd and Turnbull feud over capitalism
> 
> Watch out - the Cold War's back.
> 
> ...




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=736176


----------



## Aussiejeff (1 February 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> Interesting times ahead !
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, what was the ghost-minister-for-trade (is that really you, Mr Cream?) doing when he was pleading in the last few days with the EuroBloc to essentially *"stop plans to further protect the Euro dairy industry *(presumably tarrifs etc)*, as it is unfair on workers and farmers in our own Oz dairy industry"?* Isn't that a de-facto way of "protecting" Oz jobs in itself? 

Oh, right. I stand corrected, Mr Cream. That is what YOU and your KRuddy mates call "*free trade* talks"? R-r-r-i-i-g-h-t.  


_"We in Australia are 100% for Free Trade & the Rights of Australian Workers"_
[size=-2]Written & authorised by S. Cream, Laborious Party. [/size]


----------



## shaunQ (1 February 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> "Free market fundamentalism, underpinning greed, caused the global financial crisis which has now caused a global economic recession affecting every country in the world," Mr Rudd said on Saturday.




I reckon this is a political move. It is quite likely Rudd will need to go into deficit shortly. Whatever he does Turnball is there to say, "you shouldn't have done it that way!". Such as the Commercial real estate funding proposal and tax cuts or stimuli.

He knows as Australia crumbles it will be him that ultimately has to cop the flack, regardless of what he does, and in many ways, there isn't much he can do.

So what do you do? You start an ideological war. Turnball has no option but to defend the "free market" and Rudd is trying to look more pure than the merchant banker whose friends all caused this mess (or so the spin will go).


----------



## numbercruncher (1 February 2009)

The Doha fans are starting to get restless including our own Crean machine .....




> Trade Minister Simon Crean hopes a long-awaited world free trade deal can be wrapped up soon to help countries tackle the global financial crisis.
> 
> Crean was among a group of about 18 trade ministers who met at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Saturday to discuss how to inject new life into the stalled Doha round of trade talks which have still not been finalised after eight years.






> Many countries, including Australia, have voiced concern at a "Buy American" measure in US President Barack Obama's $US819 billion ($A1.26 trillion) stimulus package which bans the use of foreign steel in infrastructure projects.
> 
> The European Commission's plans to reintroduce dairy export subsidies have also been seen as a threat to Australian farmers.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=736287


----------



## noirua (2 February 2009)

Memo US: Protectionism experiment tried in 1930 and didn't turn out well:  http://www.stockhouse.com/News/FinancialNewsDetailFeeds.aspx?n=12233439&src=cp

Paragraph that says its perfectly OK for some countries to stimulate demand and then goes on to say, the problem is if everyone else does it.


----------



## Aussiejeff (2 February 2009)

noirua said:


> Memo US: Protectionism experiment tried in 1930 and didn't turn out well:  http://www.stockhouse.com/News/FinancialNewsDetailFeeds.aspx?n=12233439&src=cp
> 
> Paragraph that says its perfectly OK for some countries to stimulate demand and then goes on to say, *the problem is if everyone else does it*.




IMO the Current Currency Catastrophe (CCC) is in the "*everyone will protect their own interests at all cost, while at the same time disseminating blatant lies about free trade*" category.

Why not. If it's good enough for the Goose to lay a brick.....


----------



## numbercruncher (2 February 2009)

More and more people are recognising the great globilisation experiment for the failure it is ....




> Crisis means death of globalisation: WSF
> 
> The world economic crisis spells the death of globalisation and action is needed to protect the poor, say organisers of the World Social Forum in Brazil.
> 
> "We have come out against neo-liberal globalisation, and now that this globalisation is destroying itself we have to define the world we want," the founder of the annual event, Candido Grzybowski, told AFP as the forum wrapped up on Sunday.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=736486


----------



## noirua (4 February 2009)

Is President Obama taking up the mantle of protectionism, in his stimulus bill, by insisting companies in the US buy American?

EU warns Obama on protectionism in the stimulus bill:  http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9646OIO0.htm


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 February 2009)

Noirua

Thanks again for starting this thread. Very pertinent to the times the global economy is in.

Just one question?

Do you think the annexing of bad loan toxic sludge debt is protectionist?

What I'm trying to say is there are shaky things with Obama's current platform via Keynesian type programs to re-build the American economy which appear on the surface to be protectionist.

But do you think the George W Bush administration were also just as protectionist to protect the US banks via the government taking on bad-debt and not allowing liquid non-exposed market-forces to take them over and re-build again?

They both seem like protectionists policies to me?
Am I on the wrong track here???


----------



## noirua (8 February 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Noirua
> 
> Thanks again for starting this thread. Very pertinent to the times the global economy is in.
> 
> ...




Some say a Keynesian approach should be started in an upturn. Windfall taxes on companies that gain significantly by a commodity boom and Banks that have so much cash they don't know where to put it. High airport taxes to stop people travelling abroad too much. Very high taxes on high earners. High stamp duty on share trading to dampen it down a bit.

Thus the upturn is lessened and there is a lot of money in the bin for the rainy days ahead, such as now.

Unfortunately countries appear to be trying to lessen the downturn without having applied Keynesian type policies earlier. This means having to borrow money.  Great if there is a boom then they can get it all back. If not then big problems and having to go to the IMF.

It is every country for themselves now.  If a country needs money they should go to the IMF.
If the IMF can't help then depression arrives in poorer and incompetent countries. Such as, Iceland and many, many more to follow.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 February 2009)

noirua said:


> Some say a Keynesian approach should be started in an upturn. Windfall taxes on companies that gain significantly by a commodity boom and Banks that have so much cash they don't know where to put it. High airport taxes to stop people travelling abroad too much. Very high taxes on high earners. High stamp duty on share trading to dampen it down a bit.
> 
> Thus the upturn is lessened and there is a lot of money in the bin for the rainy days ahead, such as now.
> 
> ...




Thankyou for your response to my question.

I'm no genius on this sort of stuff but again thankyou for the logic in your response.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 February 2009)

noirua said:


> Some say a Keynesian approach should be started in an upturn. Windfall taxes on companies that gain significantly by a commodity boom and Banks that have so much cash they don't know where to put it. High airport taxes to stop people travelling abroad too much. Very high taxes on high earners. High stamp duty on share trading to dampen it down a bit.
> 
> Thus the upturn is lessened and there is a lot of money in the bin for the rainy days ahead, such as now.
> 
> ...




Take Cobb & Co as an example.
Similar to the mail carrier most prominent in 19th century Australia.
Not involved in dodgy-lending banks or financial instruments.

In the United States, Wells Fargo. 
Not exposed to sub-prime AT ALL and also not a Big name on WALL street!
End up taking over Wachovia!
Completely liquid bank with zero exposure to toxic sludge lending.
But at the same time, restricted as to how they conduct business.

Is it protectionism, that a liquid bank like Wells Fargo could'nt launch a takeover bid for Lehmann, Merrill and alike? 

That is protectionism!


----------



## noirua (18 February 2009)

The World looks to be in quite deep trouble now and Australia must look to itself.  China continues to be interested in Aussie assets and are willing to pay over the odds, as in the case of Rio Tinto, seems not a bad way to go now.


----------



## Aussiejeff (18 February 2009)

noirua said:


> The World looks to be in quite deep trouble now and Australia must look to itself.  China continues to be interested in Aussie assets and are willing to pay over the odds, as in the case of Rio Tinto, seems not a bad way to go now.




Yes, I'm looking forward to being employed as a planter by the new OzChina Rice Paddy Co.

Apparently they are going to cover every spare inch of Oz with rice paddys and will employ every man, woman & child. Great times ahead!!


----------



## lusk (12 September 2009)

*Obama Imposes Tariffs on $1.7 Billion in Chinese Tire Imports *
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Mark Drajem

Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama imposed tariffs starting at 35 percent on $1.7 billion of tire imports from China, backing a United Steelworkers union complaint against the second-largest U.S. trading partner.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in an e-mailed statement that the additional duties would last for three years, dropping each year by 5 percentage points.

The case is the largest so-called safeguard petition filed to protect U.S. producers from surging imports from China, and was a test of Obama’s approach to trade disputes. The steelworkers union represents 15,000 employees at 13 tire plants in the U.S.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aWWHfEfWIvhA


Looks like Obama has saved 15000 employees in the tire industry but l wonder how many jobs he may have eventually lost with this decision elsewhere.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 November 2009)

LOL

Didn't the GeeWhizz 20-somethings PROMISE THE WORLD that they WOULD NOT RESORT TO PROTECTIONISM?

Errm. Wots dis den?



> [size=+2]*UK shuts door on foreign workers*[/size]
> 
> _Prime Minister Gordon Brown has outlined a series of proposed reforms to Britain's points-based immigration system, which is based on the one developed in Australia.
> 
> ...



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-foreign-workers/story-e6frf7kf-1225797194837

Tsk, tsk.

Liar, liar, Mr Brown - your pants are on fire. :angry:

Careful, or you will end up like our pompous lil' Emperor Without Clothes....


----------



## doctorj (13 November 2009)

Folks here love it.

What they don't realise is that with the pound going through the floor, taxes going through the roof and significant risk of regulatory/legislative changes to remuneration, mobile professionals will and already are looking elsewhere.

London was convenient, but markets are global and companies can be easily re-domiciled.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 November 2009)

doctorj said:


> Folks here love it.
> 
> What they don't realise is that with the pound going through the floor, taxes going through the roof and significant risk of regulatory/legislative changes to remuneration, mobile professionals will and already are looking elsewhere.
> 
> London was convenient, but markets are global and companies can be easily re-domiciled.




In the not-too-distant future when China & India become the World's no.1 & 2 manufacturing/service sector behemoths, guess where almost all "labour" will be sourced from when each tries to "gain a competitive advantage" over the other?

Australia?  Nope. Labour too expensive. 
UK?  Nope. Labour too expensive.
US?  Nope. Labour too expensive.

I could go on for some considerable time, but... 3 strikes and I'm out....!! DOH.... 

The West trying to protect it's over-paid, over-here workers through panicky protectionism will in the end be no more effective than the levees were in protecting New Orleans against the ravages of Katrina.

Are we really so smug to think the residents of Mumbai & Beijing give a toss about our poor, (comparatively) rich workers who face losing their jobs in the coming labour force shootout??

The West's pollies are even encouraging Chindia to develop their economies to be more self-sustaining from local consumerism. Where is the labour force for that expansion going to come from?

Say no more....


----------



## condog (22 November 2009)

Already India is becoming increasingly more expensive with IT and proffessional services and we are seeing a mass of IT outsourcing going to other areas of Asia and Romania etc.....

In a global market, labour will allways pack up and move to cheaper locations when the economic fundamentals dictate its viable.... Just as Japan became too exensive, so too will China as its residents standards of living rises.... Its just a matter of time....

Western governments are electorally bound to be short sighted and populous, which forces them to make dumb protectionist decisions to appeal to the fears of their electorate....

Just as Johnny howard and his team used boat people to their advantage, the US, UK are now using quasie protectionism as a way of settling the nerves of there own voters...

But in the long run its a really stupid move.... It ultimately makes your own country less efficient and lowers your standard of living....  With the exception of a few key industies crucial to national security and population survival, protectionism should allways be phased out or eliminated.....

If Australia / US / UK as a country wants to be competitive on a world stage they need to have the intelligence, flexibility and entrepreneurial spirit to develop industries that are viable and profitable without any use of protectionist strategies.....  EG: Biota, IDT, Cochlear etc

Whe cannot compete on labour, but we can compete with intelligence and technology....

The biggest exception to this is food supply...  PErhaps western countries should use farm subsidies, but only to a level needed to ensure domestic survival.....


----------



## noirua (8 April 2018)

noirua said:


> China and Japan are said to have $2 trillion that could be lent to the International Monetary Fund.  However, in these very difficult times they may consider investment in Asia and the Far East a far better bet.  Or they may keep the money at home as protectionism spreads.
> 
> Many countries may have little option now than to put up trade barriers.  So if the IMF are constrained it may end up, every country for themselves.




And so it came to pass.  Ten years later and crunch time has come.  At least China will have lots of cheap steel for sale and America lots of pork and beans.


----------



## Value Collector (8 April 2018)

noirua said:


> And so it came to pass.  Ten years later and crunch time has come.  At least China will have lots of cheap steel for sale and America lots of pork and beans.



I am sure they will find uses for their steel, they are currently building and planning many global infrastructure projects, and building future markets.


----------



## noirua (28 April 2018)

In a war of words it can be difficult to see who will win in reality. The Trump game is that the biggest and toughest guy on the block must always come up trumps in the end. In the game of double bluff something can go terribly wrong. In the old Wild West it depends on what is held at the hip rather than face down on the table.


----------

