Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,237
- Reactions
- 8,483
The more the world relies on trade with each other the more national security we all have, there is a reason Europe was constantly at war when they were all mercantilist.You are looking at things from a purely capitalistic viewpoint.
There are other considerations like national security, supply line security and self reliance which actually have a value in an increasingly uncertain world.
Until you run out of raw material to export, then the problem becomes we really can't compete with Asian sweatshops, so where we finally end up will be quite interesting.I would much rather divert capital to truly profitable export industries and use the profits to buy all the stuff we couldn’t be profitable in, and provide jobs that are better than sweat shops.
The future o f manufacturing is robotics, that's where the jobs will come from, designing and maintenance of manufacturing machines, not in human 'sweatshops', and if we make no attempt to improve our technology then we get left even further behind.I would much rather divert capital to truly profitable export industries and use the profits to buy all the stuff we couldn’t be profitable in, and provide jobs that are better than sweat shops.
Yep, I agree, and that might change the investment dynamics and make it worth deploying capital into making bonds undies here. But those investments will happen naturally, just like manufacturing leaving didn’t take government mandates, so will returning it here not require mandates.The future o f manufacturing is robotics, that's where the jobs will come from, designing and maintenance of manufacturing machines, not in human 'sweatshops', and if we make no attempt to improve our technology then we get left even further behind.
We likely have at least a thousand years of some of our resources, and by then we might be operating 100% closed loop recycling or mining the ocean, or harvesting space rocks who knows.Until you run out of raw material to export, then the problem becomes we really can't compete with Asian sweatshops, so where we finally end up will be quite interesting.
It won't abandon it completely but the situation today looks very similar to that of 110 years ago which is the last time globalisation peaked then declined.The world isn’t going to abandon global trade.
Lowering of tariffs by the Hawke/Keating government was a major reason why a lot of Australian manufacturers went offshore.just like manufacturing leaving didn’t take government mandates,
Argentina, left wing clique promising your neighbours money and complaining about Chinese imperialism (in 1 generation) and reaching 40% below poverty line.Until you run out of raw material to export, then the problem becomes we really can't compete with Asian sweatshops, so where we finally end up will be quite interesting.
I wouldn’t say it’s cyclical, I would say it’s 3 steps forward 1 step back, the long term trend towards interconnectedness is here to stay in my opinion, especially for small nations like Australia.It won't abandon it completely but the situation today looks very similar to that of 110 years ago which is the last time globalisation peaked then declined.
Declining doesn't mean going to zero, it just means declining.
The way I see it, stand back far enough and most economics is at least somewhat cyclical. Random examples:
Protectionism > free trade > protectionism > free trade > now looks to be going back to protectionism. All in the past 160 or so years.
Private ownership of utilities > nationalisation mostly around WW1 and WW2 depending on which state > privatisation 1990's - 00's > government now getting back in.
Medium density housing (townhouses) > freestanding suburban houses on small blocks > freestanding houses on large blocks > freestanding houses on small blocks > medium and high density now the major trend.
Tram systems installed > trams taken out to make way for more cars > trams now being put back in many cities.
Lots more things like that where if you stand back there's a long cycle and even in relatively trivial things that can be seen.
Eg for a relatively trivial one: Recorded music as single songs up to 1948 > albums of ~40 minutes duration became the dominant format 1950's - 80's > album length increased to 70 - 75 minutes 1990's - 00's > now we're back to recorded music mostly being consumed as single songs via streaming.
In all cases though it doesn't go to zero. Pick any of the above examples and there was never a time when it went 100% in a particular direction, it's just the ratio that shifts to favour one thing over another.
Assuming that continues, it's a given it'll shift again and for those inclined toward long term investing that does present investment opportunities with some research.
Yeah, which was a good thing, the only things that went offshore were the industries that were being subsidised by tariffs.Lowering of tariffs by the Hawke/Keating government was a major reason why a lot of Australian manufacturers went offshore.
Until you run out of raw material to export, then the problem becomes we really can't compete with Asian sweatshops, so where we finally end up will be quite interesting.
Made in Australia collapses
Mainland Australia’s last wind tower manufacturer will be forced to mothball its plant in a major embarrassment for the Albanese government after cheap imports using heavy-polluting Chinese steel have destroyed the local industry and cast a shadow over Labor’s domestic renewables policy.
Keppel Prince has blasted the federal and Victorian governments after a long-running lack of certainty and failure to deal with heavily subsidised Asian steel imports forced the Portland-based manufacturer to close its wind tower manufacturing facility, once one of the nation’s biggest.
Keppel Prince executive director Stephen Garner singled out Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen for criticism, saying he had been to the plant and was well aware of the challenges facing local producers who are competing with China, where there are generous subsidies for producers that have crippled Australian competitors.
Local Liberal MP Dan Tehan said the government’s Made in Australia policy was “failing before their eyes”.
…“All the people are using the Chinese (towers). They want to import the things because it’s cheaper. But the quality is no good,’’ Mr Garner said.
…He also said the Victorian government, which has embraced renewables, had failed to follow through with contracts in recent years, making it even harder to survive.
At one point, Mr Garner had considered Chinese steel but it was being offered at double the price of that being given to his overseas competitors.
…“For many, many years I feel like I’ve been the pied piper,’’ he said. “I’ve been standing on a soap box preaching this for so long, that China has been subsidised. We know that (in) China the government gives a 12 per cent subsidy for every tower that they export.
The are many issues here:
This is no surprise. The same thing will happen to Albo’s Made in Australia solar panels rubbish.
- There is no industry policy.
- Australia produces roughly three-quarters of its steel from blast furnaces, which can’t compete with dumped Chinese steel.
- The other quarter is electric-arc furnaces run on exceedingly expensive power thanks to the gas cartel.
It will be nothing more than an assembly plant of Chinese manufactures that will go out of business the moment subsidies are dropped owing to much higher labour costs.
The answer is not subsidy or bailout; it is to fix policy and market structure:
This does not guarantee that wind tower manufacturing will survive, but it does mean Aussie manufacturing will be cost-competitive and stop shrinking.
- Get an industry policy that includes preferred local supply to the government.
- Fix the gas cartel to lower energy costs.
- Quality control behind the border where it is necessary.
- Slash immigration to lower interest rates and currency.
- Use macroprudential policy to ensure land prices fall.
- Train local labour.
As I said, every country subsidises themselves one way or another, whether it's by cheap or slave labour, tariffs , direct subsidies, quotas or meaningless "quality standards" , so we have to get real and decide whether we want industries or just cheap foreign goods that last 6 months after which we have to buy more cheap foreign goods.Yeah, which was a good thing, the only things that went offshore were the industries that were being subsidised by tariffs.
we also have to get rid of the Australia expensive but good quality vs overseas cheap but trash legend;As I said, every country subsidises themselves one way or another, whether it's by cheap or slave labour, tariffs , direct subsidies, quotas or meaningless "quality standards" , so we have to get real and decide whether we want industries or just cheap foreign goods that last 6 months after which we have to buy more cheap foreign goods.
Non tariff barriers to free trade.
Non tariff barriers: Beyond Tariffs: The Hidden Obstacles to Free Trade - FasterCapital
Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) refer to a broad range of policy measures that are not tariffs but can still have a significant impact on international trade. In today's globalized world, NTBs have become critical obstacles to free trade, affecting both developed and developing countries. While...fastercapital.com
but China would consider steel making an essential industry , useful for making rail-lines , war toys , etc etcI don’t know, we seem to be doing pretty well out of it.
I mean, we have managed to keep the highly profitable industries here, while exporting low profit or loss making industries.
Take the steel industry for example, we are the largest supplier of Iron Ore to the global steel industry, and we make shiploads of profits, taxes and wages on the back of it.
However the steel industry even in China is losing money half the time, would we really want to take Labour and capital away from Iron Ore production and deploy it into steel making? I don’t think so.
There are very real limits to the amount of labour and capital we have available locally, we need to deploy them efficiently, into the parts of industries where they are most productive.
Two things that come to mind:Yeah, which was a good thing, the only things that went offshore were the industries that were being subsidised by tariffs.
If Australian consumers can buy the same product cheaper from Thailand they should not be forced to pay tariffs, and then that frees up the labour and capital to go to an industry that has a real advantage, not an artificial advantage caused by a tariff.
That graph is a bit deceptive, if you canned all the mining activities in WA it would decimate Perth altogether, even in other regional areas that rely on mining like Makay, Townsville, and Rockhampton.Two things that come to mind:
One.
In an ideal world what you are saying about freeing up labour sounds wonderful, but where does all this freed up labour and capital go to work? When mining doesn't really employ that many people and the numbers are decreasing constantly due to automation.
The concept you propose can only work if we are increasing our employment opportunities, when at the moment the only increases in employment are either in public sector related jobs, or jobs related to residential construction due to the influx of migrants.
Neither of these fields of employment are increasing our balance of trade, they are being funded by printing money to circulate, which in turn puts pressure on our currency.
Two.
If we can encourage a manufacturer like Samsung, LG, Tesla, Catyl, BYD to build a grid battery manufacturing plant in Australia, why shouldn't we? That is my question.
PS
According to available data, the Australian mining industry employs around 2%of the total Australian workforce, representing a relatively small portion of the overall employment landscape.
Key points about Australian mining employment:
View attachment 188449
- Percentage of workforce: Approximately 2% of Australian workers are employed in the mining sector.
1, The Labour goes to the next best place/industry that pops up. I mean 99% of people used to work on farms, now less than 1% do but we don’t have 99% unemployment, new industries popped up.Two things that come to mind:
One.
In an ideal world what you are saying about freeing up labour sounds wonderful, but where does all this freed up labour and capital go to work? When mining doesn't really employ that many people and the numbers are decreasing constantly due to automation.
The concept you propose can only work if we are increasing our employment opportunities, when at the moment the only increases in employment are either in public sector related jobs, or jobs related to residential construction due to the influx of migrants.
Neither of these fields of employment are increasing our balance of trade, they are being funded by printing money to circulate, which in turn puts pressure on our currency.
Two.
If we can encourage a manufacturer like Samsung, LG, Tesla, Catyl, BYD to build a grid battery manufacturing plant in Australia, why shouldn't we? That is my question.
PS
According to available data, the Australian mining industry employs around 2%of the total Australian workforce, representing a relatively small portion of the overall employment landscape.
Key points about Australian mining employment:
View attachment 188449
- Percentage of workforce: Approximately 2% of Australian workers are employed in the mining sector.
A lot of those are the consequences of an ageing population, and the economy isn't growing as fast as you think, in fact on a per capita basis we are going backwards. And we are one of the most backward countries in terms of economic diversity which mean that if another covid or world war happens we will be severely restricted in things that people want or need to buy.New jobs are popping up everywhere, we have more doctors and nurses than ever before, more aged care workers, more teaches, more police, more soldiers, more baristas, more delivery drivers, more miners, everything is growing Etc etc.
A lot of those are the consequences of an ageing population, and the economy isn't growing as fast as you think, in fact on a per capita basis we are going backwards. And we are one of the most backward country in terms of economic diversity which mean that if another covid or world war happens we will be severely restricted in things that people want or need to buy.
Productivity comes from technology, and its better to be able to produce our own technology than to depend on others.Isn’t the fact that people are living longer a good thing? And that we have taxes and dividends from mining coming in to support that?
Mate we have like 26 million people here, we will never be self sufficient unless we regress to the economic equivalent of subsistence farmers.
Would you enjoy knowing that Australia didn’t require imports or exports knowing that we had real productivity at half of what it is now? I for one like our economy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?