Elite Capitalism – It is NOT the Future

Elite Capitalism has been running the world’s governments for 30 years, but it has failed to deliver for ordinary voters.

Elite Capitalism and Free Trade

The ideology of Free Trade is built on the premise that each nation should concentrate of those things upon which it has comparative advantage. It is a static theory, which has not changed much in over 200 years. Nor have the advocates been willing to learn from the downsides of the theory that have been experienced over the last 200 years.

The ideology of Free Trade began with the theory that, in 1820 and forever afterwards, Portugal should continue to concentrate on wine, and the UK should continue to concentrate on textiles. It is theory that is based on a static world, and actually one in which entrenched poverty should be endured forevermore. And so it has happened.

Free Trade is also built on the premise that getting goods 20% cheaper is worth whatever disruption is caused by open trade borders, even to the extent that it can cause 10% more unemployment than before. Given the loss of social cohesion of such a policy, it should never have been accepted.

Even though it was not the intention of the original theorists, Free Trade has led to intolerable levels of inequality within nations, and between nations. This is because Free Trade puts too much power in the hands of global corporations, since they are able to move operations to the cheapest place in the world, and to wherever government regulations and taxation are the weakest.

Phony arguments of Elite Capitalism – Trade

In Australia, we have a government that was elected on a mix of the ideologies of Democratic Capitalism and Elite Capitalism. In simple terms, the Nationals support the principles of Democratic Capitalism (the economy must serve the interests of the voters), and the Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull believes the nation is best served by following a model of Elite Capitalism.

Turnbull approach has some appeal, since it can lead to a higher overall national GDP. Yet in defending his theory, it is appalling that he has decided to follow the UK example of “Project Fear” (in opposing BrExit). In the last Weekend Australian he made the claim that “Protectionism leads to Poverty.” This is an absurd claim that has no foundation in history or theory.

Of course, there are sufficient examples from history to show “Isolationism leads to Poverty!” If that were Turnbull’s position, there would be no problem in accepting it, but that was not what he claimed. Turnbull is ideologically committed to Free Trade. He proves to everyone that he does not have a rational argument in favour of unrestrained Free Trade, since he resorted to this pathetic argument in its favour. Don’t stand in the way of an ideologue when he (or she) is in full flight!

Rather than being hurt by protectionism, Australia’s egalitarian society was built on protectionism: it cannot be said that it led Australia into poverty. Australia had unemployment running at around 2%  until the Labor government, blinded by ideology, decided to revalue the currency upwards and reduce tariffs over-night. Since then, unemployment has reverted to world’s average of about 5%, and global capitalists have had a freer hand to control Australia’s economic life.

The world-ranking US economy was built on protectionism in the 19th century. If the Free Traders had won the argument in the middle of that century, the US would have remained an economic backwater, mostly growing cotton and other agricultural products, and the UK’s industrial base would have kept on growing and growing. Is that what Free Traders want for the developing nations of the world? Fortunately for China (and to a lesser extent India), it thumbs its noses at the Free Trade rhetoric of the West, while taking advantage of the ideological blindness of its trading partners.

Phony arguments of Elite Capitalism – TPP

The most objectionable part of the TPP is entrenching the power of global corporations via ISDS clauses. These clauses allow global corporations to sue national governments if those national governments pass laws to reduce their ability to make a profit (even at the expense of the interests of ordinary voters). These clauses are the greatest threat to national democracy in the modern world.

Even if the TPP becomes enforceable, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for Elite Capitalism. This attempt to use the rule of law to enhance the interests of corporations over voters will not be tolerated by ordinary voters. In Australia, the first sign of difficulties to come can be seen in the attempt of Philip Morris to use the ISDS clauses of a Free Trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong to overthrow Australia’s plain-paper cigarette packaging legislation. It was the first sign of problems to come. Success would not have led to the abandonment of the rule of law in international trade, but it would have sown the seeds of that outcome.

TPP is designed to entrench the power of Elite Capitalism forever, putting ISDS clauses into law, so they cannot be overthrown by future governments. It is the enemy of Democratic Capitalism. If the current Australian government cannot see that, they are inviting other parties to take up the ground of democracy that they are abandoning. Already the Liberals are losing ground with the electorate, and it is only the complete unacceptability of the ALP opposition that is keeping the Liberals within reach of re-election to government.

Phony Arguments of Elite Capitalism – Angela Merkel

Angela Merkel has said the economic and political problems can best be solved via global solutions. She opposes Donald Trump’s proposition that nation states should solve their own problems. In this, Merkel is wrong: most problems are local, and are best solved with local solutions. Donald Trump is right.

20 years of the Euro has shown that, even in Europe, region-wide solutions don’t work. Portugal, Spain and Greece are still struggling, while Germany is going very well. It is not surprising that Donald Trump correctly says that the EU gives Germany hegemony (at least in economic matters). At least we can agree with Merkel’s response, namely that the EU can look after itself (implying that it doesn’t need Trump’s gratuitous advice). Exactly, the EU problems don’t need a global solution, they need a EU solution. It is a pity that Merkel won’t consider the obvious solution – abandoning the Euro.

Most developing nations have a dominant agricultural sector. One thing is certain from a study of economic history – global trade in agriculture has mostly led to impoverishment of the agricultural sectors of less developed nations. It has led to the over-development of single crop economies (the so-called banana republics, etc.), which has made those nations vulnerable to global price movements. Yet the agricultural sector is something that national governments could enhance, as has been done in Australia for about 100 years, starting with government funded and run storage and pricing schemes. Now, in Australia, these are often run by individual farmers, who store crops on their own farms. Such is the nature of dynamic local solutions, designed to solve local problems.

Elite Capitalism is the problem – not the solution

It is time we recognized that Elite Capitalism is the source of the world’s problem with increasing inequality. It is inevitable it will lose its hegemony. It is also ironic: Donald Trump is the only one willing to call out, “The Emperor has no clothes!”

Stable Electricity Supply & RECs

The oversupply of wind-power has seen the question of “stable electricity supply” enter into public debate in Australia. It is now very urgent that Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) scheme be modified to make it work for the nation, rather than just for “Green Advocates.”

Excuses are not enough

Update 10 February 2017. Now we discover that the REC scheme is even causing gas fired generators to be turned off. This situation is ridiculous.

RECs undermining a stable electricity supply

Who would seriously contemplate implementing a scheme that encouraged wind-farm operators to produce electricity in the middle of the night, when it is not needed? The Australian government did, via the REC scheme, in 2000. Surely it is the responsibility of governments to implement policies that result in a stable electricity supply, not an unstable one!

Under the current REC scheme, wind-farms can even deliver electricity to the grid at a negative price, since this apparent loss can be offset by approximately $25 per MWh. This is currently the approximate rated proceeds for each certificate produced, whether the electricity generated is really needed for successful grid operation or not. The electricity retailers buy this undifferentiated certificate, since this helps them to meet their “renewable obligations,” and they have no need or way to differentiate such certificates for themselves.

The downside of this is approach is that coal-fired generators (and nuclear for that matter), cannot be affordably run if they have to be shut down every day because there is insufficient demand from the grid for the electricity they would generate during the night. Unlike a wind-farm, coal-fired generated cannot be just “run on idle,” since they need the back-force of generating the electricity to offset the fierce power of their steam-driven turbines. Yet Alinta’s Port Augusta coal fired generators were turned off at night, causing Alinta’s operation to be unprofitable, and therefore to be shut down forever.

Who would support a scheme that caused the former back-bone of the South Australian electricity supply market to be shut down prematurely, causing unemployment in Port Augusta, and for South Australian businesses to consider moving interstate? The South Australian Labor government did and still does.

It is ideological madness to continue with this short-sighted approach, involving undifferentiated “Certificates” that do not distinguish between the “no need” electricity pushed into the grid by wind-power during the night, and the truly “useful” electricity generated by wind-power during the day.

Did the South Australian government know that too much wind-power was already causing disruption to the electricity supply in 2011? Yes. That was when an academic study showed the problems in the supply situation and called for an upgrade to the high voltage inter-connector to Victorian brown-coal backup power, as a way to address the difficulties. (My 2012 comments on this report can be found here.) So the inter-connector was upgraded, which led to even more wind-farms being installed in South Australia. Folly, built upon folly.

Wind-power – a viable Renewable option

The risk to the wind-power project is palpable. Yet wind-farms (and nuclear – but who wants that after Chernobyl & Fukushima?) are the only current viable solution to the need for long-term renewable electricity supply.

Despite the support of the Greens & government funded ARENA, current generation solar is a mickey-mouse solution, only able to supply electricity economically at the household level, not at the grid level, with or without batteries, except during peak periods.

Of the ARENA funded solar projects, only the Genex proposal to use grid-supplied electricity to create pumped-hydro electricity makes sense. This is a Queensland project, a state where there is almost no wind-power, despite the Queensland government dreamland proposal for a rapid uptake of renewable energy.

Grid-supplied electricity, generated overnight and purchased from the grid for about $25 MWh, and sold back to the grid at $275 MWh can make good logical sense, provided the capital cost is not too high. Pumped-hydro will deliver a stable electricity supply. This particularly applies to wind-power, because most wind-power is generated at night, when the wind blows more strongly, but also when it is not needed. By utilizing pumped hydro, “unneeded” electricity can be stored over the whole night and then released during the day. Yet it is not happening. Obviously there needs to be a push to force governments and the wind-farm industry to utilize pumped hydro. This can be achieved just by encouraging the Australian government to tweak the REC scheme.

RECs & a stable electricity supply

(Updated 10 February 2017)

My proposal is that RECs should NOT be counted if the electricity is generated in off-peak periods (10 pm to 7 am). This will allow the market-distorting effect of undifferentiated RECs to be eliminated.

Excluding electricity generated during off-peak periods means that wind-power will not soak up all the available demand during the night. Therefore there will be sufficient demand for base-load generators to keep working all night, and that unnecessary, costly, inefficient, and high carbon-emitting shut-downs and start-ups will be avoided. While it may be too late for Alinta’s Pt Augusta plants to be re-instated, it could allow the remaining Victorian Latrobe Valley generators to keep working until there is sufficient wind + pumped hydro capacity to permit them to be finally and rationally phased out. It could also mean that Engie’s Pelikan Point facility could be kept running.

While the concept outlined here may be a challenge for Greens voters and politicians, they should get on board. It is the only currently viable approach to achieving the higher level of renewable energy generation that they would prefer. At least, if the current REC scheme is continued, they are likely to see the de-industrialization of South Australia, so perhaps they will rejoice over that!

Changes to the REC Targets

(Added 10 February, 2017)

In the Australian system, given the highly politicized nature of the debate on this subject, changes to the REC target are likely to be too difficult to implement. This applies even though such changes would be needed to effectively keep the current arrangements in place. Therefore, it is proposed that no change be made to the REC Targets, but rather that, after this scheme is implemented, renewable energy providers be allow to issue a REC for each 0.625 MWh generated (rather the current arrangement of 1 REC per 1 MWh).

APEC 2016 in Peru discusses Protectionism

While the national leaders at the APEC 2016 conference in Peru are willing to acknowledge that “some people have been left behind,” there is little agreement on the action required to fix this.

Peru points the way

In an interview translated on SBS TV (in Australia), Peru’s Finance Minister, Mercedes Araoz said, “What they [the discontented voters] are taking issue with is valid in all societies in the face of globalisation, and perhaps a bit of rejection of it. The request is to apply some mechanism to make it more inclusive.”

Nowhere is the need more obvious to make national economies stronger & fairer than in the developing world. Apart from their own entrenched income inequalities, they are also faced with a most daunting prospect: the first-mover-advantage over them of developed nations. Indeed, it was the intention of the TPP to entrench that advantage well into the foreseeable future. For the sake of Peru, and other vulnerable nations, it is fortunate that this treaty has been put on hold. May it be buried forever, and along with it an attempt to game the system in favor of the largest corporations in the world.

Ms Araoz’s plea

Responding to Ms Araoz’s plea, I argue that the required first step is to convince national governments that they can manage their own affairs. Once that concept begins to be reconsidered, then each national government can look at the way in which it can increase the prosperity of its people.

We can look at the USA as an example. Prior to the current obsession with globalization, which started about 30 years ago, the USA domestic sales of goods and service was about 94% of GDP. They made stuff and consumed it themselves. It was a happy and prosperous period, when people served each other and shared a national vision. Now domestic sales are about 84% of GDP, and there is considerable angst throughout large sections of the nation.

Higher exports and imports in the USA have had three results:

  1. Many goods are much cheaper now than before, thus making the consumer (who has a job) better off.
  2. Businesses are more able to compete in the export market because they have access to cheaper labor, such as from Mexico.
  3. Whole cities have been devastated by loss of entire industries, and in many once large and prosperous regions of America the people are desperately looking just to survive. The cheap goods are not much use to them.

So one could ask, “Has the move towards free trade been worth the cost?” The answer has to be both yes and no, depending upon who you ask. Winners have won even more, losers have lost most of what they had before.

A new Economic Mechanism from APEC 2016

When it comes to finding a new economic mechanism at APEC 2016, one doesn’t need to be too concerned about developed nations. They have mature democracies, and the voice of the people will guide their leaders to work through the issues that I have discussed. The role of the leaders of APEC 2016 should be to find a new mechanism that will be useful for developing and emerging nations.

Thinking people must know that, while developing nations have improved their national GDP by exporting to the developed world, this is not a very good long-term strategy. If developing nations look forward to a future as just being a source of cheap imports for the West they are condemning themselves to a future of relative poverty. While there is any nation in the world that doesn’t take control of its own destiny, there will always be a cheaper source of labor upon which the West can depend.

Ms Araoz’s plea at APEC 2016 implies the need to create a mechanism that will enable each developing nation to develop a diverse economy, in which all its people can prosper. Such a mechanism would enable the full talents of its own people to be exercised within that nation, with the more skilled and talented being able to raise the (economic) boat for the entire nation.

Yet the question is, “How can this be done when the West owns almost all of the intellectual property, both that which is patented, and that which is inbuilt into their entire economic, government and educational system?”

A 20% Tariff would Level the Playing Field

The APEC and WTO objective of lowering all tariffs to zero rating is entirely misconceived. Such a strategy will not “lift all boats.” Rather, it will trap developing nations in a permanent dependency on the West. If APEC 2016 doesn’t change direction, the meeting can be considered to be a failure.

One of the strategies that could be adopted by APEC 2016 is to support the introduction of an extra 20% tariff across the board. This would give emerging industries in developing countries a chance to find a modest level of support so that they can find their feet. It never needs to be reduced below 20%, unless there really is a compelling case for goods to be 20% cheaper. What would be argument for that? The wealthy getting luxury goods cheaper?

A Hypothetical Example

Let us assume that there is a country with a population of 10 million people. In this country, the top 10% of the population earn 90% of the nation’s income. Most of the rest are either subsistence farmers or poorly paid factory workers. Let us assume that the national GDP is $40 billion, with the top 10% earning $36,000 each per year and the rest earning $450 each per year. In this country 40% of the national income is from exports, and it spends this on imports.

Now let us assume that a 20% tariff is applied across the board in addition to any current tariff. After this, innovative entrepreneurs are likely to see the opportunity to make many of the goods consumed by the top 10%, which were previously imported. As a result, demand for labor increases and whole new class of more highly skilled workers develops. As a result, a number of those previously in the bottom 90% now find themselves in a new echelon of society. Now the society’s division is 20% who command 80% of the nation’s GDP. While some of the relatively very rich will have lost some of their income along the way, following the disruption brought about by this reform, let us say that the nation’s GDP has now grown to $50 billion. All of this extra goes to the new top 20% of the population, so that their average income is now $23,000. This is lower than the previous average of $36,000, but it is spread over more people. The nation is already better off, but nothing has been done from the remaining 80% of the population.

Because there are now more relatively wealthy people, the service sector in the nation can grow as well, thus pushing up both wages and paid activity. The extra $10 million is now spent in the service sector, increasing the nation’s GDP to $60 billion. Most of this will go to the 80% poorer part of the population. This sector previously earned $450 per year; now these 8 million people share in the extra $10 billion, pushing up their average income by $1,250 per year.

Any reasonable and competent government would work towards ensuring that this virtuous circle continues to lift the income of these lower paid workers, through education, and improved skills at work.


It is cringe-worthy of the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to cite 1930s protectionism as if it provides the evidence for embracing free trade. Doesn’t he know that the 1930s were a very difficult period because of the crash of the world economies from over-active speculative activites in the 1920s?

Doesn’t Malcolm Turnbull know that America’s economic powerhouse was built in the 19th century, building its strength behind tariff walls?

Even less excusable, doesn’t Malcolm Turnbull know that the world became a much more prosperous place at the same time as protectionist regimes were in place in most of the nations of the world, namely, in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s?

Rather than protectionism being ridiculous, as Obama and Turnbull seem to think, the arguments presented here are just standard economics. Unfortunately, free trade advocates, many of whom are gathered at APEC 2016 seem to have stopped thinking from first principles, and have adopted a convenient, if bogus, theory.

A “protectionist scenario” has been replayed in every developed nation: it is now being played out in China. Why shouldn’t the rest of the developing world be encouraged to follow the same pattern?


Muslim Integration into Australia

In Australia, a recent poll found that 49% of Australian want Muslim immigration to be stopped, citing lack of integration as the key issue.

Muslim Leaders

There is little ordinary Australians can do to overcome their fellow countrymen’s fears about the lack of integration of Muslim immigrants into Australia. There is much that Muslim leaders can do to address the perception.

They could speak out about the following obvious sore points:

  1. Argue that the full face covering of the burka is not appropriate in a multi-cultural country like Australia.
  2. Argue that polygamous marriages are not allowed under Australian law, and should not be practiced in this country.
  3. Argue that payment of taxes is a good way to demonstrate that Muslims can be good citizens.
  4. Argue that work, not welfare, is the way to be a useful member of the Australian community.

Muslim integration failures = reduced immigration.

There will be no overt “anti-Muslim” rhetoric from the Australian government, but there are many actions that a democratic government will take to address the perceived fears surrounding a lack of Muslim integration.

One of the leading ways for Muslim immigration to be restricted is to cut back on the “family reunion” programmes. This can be done just be restricting the number of visa allocated for this purpose in any one year.

The government could adopt a non-Muslim bias in accepting refugees. Since there are many worthy refugees seeking asylum in Australia, even from the Middle East, there is no reason for Australia to take any more Muslim refugees.

Muslim Integration

If Muslim leaders want to overcome the perceived “bias” in Australia against Muslim immigration, it is entirely in their hands. Open days in mosques will not cut it. It really requires Muslims to act as if they really want to live in a multi-cultural country like Australia. If they don’t, they will hurt those they love the most.

Protectionism – A Rational Economic Framework

A rational re-adoption of protectionism is the key to returning economic strength to every nation and to the world as a whole.

Radical Protectionism

In an ideal world, every country would impose a 20% tariff on all imported goods and services, across the board. This would require no policy decision making on individual industries, and every sector would share in the same level of protection from cheap imports. This would allow every nation to develop new industries, with at least a modicum of protection, to help them get started. This would be the help that developing nations to succeed in the face of hot competition from the developed nations, who are presently living off the “wealth” of their first-mover-advantage. Such an approach would certainly not lead to a trade war.

However, this idea is far too radical for most politicians and economists, and would require a Trump-like revolution to bring it about.

Rational Protectionism

Rational protectionism would be much easier to sell, being targeted at the difficult spots in each economy, leaving the current arrangements in place for all other sectors.

In the USA, Donald Trump’s proposal to put a higher tariff on US companies re-importing goods into the USA is a case in point. His proposal impacts on companies that have moved their plants off US soil to utilize low labor costs elsewhere.

Actually it is a more reasonable way to protect US intellectual property, rather than trying to bully other nations via a TPP. Ideas that are developed in the USA, using all the resources and experience of the USA, in a way actually “belong to the USA”. Thus there is a rationality to imposing the kind of tariff that Donald Trump has proposed. It could be extended to cover any products made in foreign countries, and imported into the USA, which substantially incorporate expertise developed in the USA, whether patented or not.

The concept would also make sense in Australia, which has developed many great ideas, but for which the market here is too small to properly exploit. The Cochlear implants are an obvious case in point.

Another rational use of tariffs in Australia would include horticultural products. Here we have a natural advantage in our developed agricultural methods, but this is offset by an actual disadvantage in labor in Australia being much more expensive per hour than elsewhere. Since Australia has a emotional and rational attachment to producing its own food, it would be a good first case for the doctrine of “rational protectionism” to be adopted.

A similar case applies to the foreign outsourcing of labor services. The current outsourcing framework is far from rational. In Australia, we have payroll tax (also crazy) and a superannuation levy (rational), but suppliers of outsourced labor in India do not have to face such cost hurdles. Also India’s labor cost per hour is a simple fraction of Australia’s cost per hour. Unless something is done, more and more jobs will be outsourced to foreign countries, leaving even high skilled Australians with no jobs that they can fill.


Protectionism is not a “danger” to the world, but if adopted rationally it will restore economic health to every nation, and actually help to build up developing nations.

TPP – A Way to Preserve First-Mover-Advantage

The TPP is presented as opening up trade between the Pacific nations, but the sub-text is preserving first-mover-advantage.

TPP – Staying at the Top

The main thrust of the TPP is intended to extend the rule of law to cover intellectual property. A secondary purpose is to stop nations from passing laws that hurt an already established advantage in the market place. In other words, to preserve whatever first-mover-advantage has already been earned (or achieved by whatever means).

It may not have been the clearly thought through intention of the legislators, but the outcome is to ensure that nations that are already poor remain relatively poorer than the richer nations.

In Australia, we have the naive dream that we will be a supplier of intellectual goods to Asia. If this dream is realized, what is the result for Asia? Are all Asian supposed to be satisfied with supplying cheap consumer goods to Australia, while the Australians supply the more expensive and more profitable intellectual goods to Asia? At least, if the TPP deal is agreed in the USA, then Australians will be able to hang onto whatever first-mover advantage it has, and the Asians will be the poorer as a result.

The USA is beginning to feel the first winds of change resulting from the availability of cheap Asian goods. Its leaders also have a dream of hanging onto their hard-won first-mover advantage, which they hope will ensure that alternative jobs will become available from those that are lost. This, of course, is a forlorn hope, as current experience with structural unemployment in the USA has already shown.

Nevertheless, despite the weakness of the case for even more free trade, the intention of the TPP is to ensure that the developing and emerging nations will remain on the teat of the West for intellectual property for as long as this can be sustained, thus keeping them relatively poorer than the West.

First Mover Advantage

Any newly emerging nation would know that an existing first-mover-advantage is very difficult to overcome. It was an issue faced in the USA during the 19th century, when the cloth and clothing manufacturers on the US east coast found that they could not compete on a “level playing field” with the British manufacturers. Those politicians in the US who wanted to build up a US manufacturing industry argued for the imposition of tariffs. Eventually the advocates of the so-called American System, which involved introducing tariffs, won the political argument, and the USA went on to become a manufacturing power-house. As a consequence, UK manufacturing dominance came to an end. It was a hard-fought fight, even though it is obvious to us now that the advocates of the American System were in the right.

China has its own strategies for overcoming first-mover-advantage. This involves a combination of tariffs, subsidies and other protective measures to support its developing and established industries. It is also claimed that the Chinese use industrial espionage and the blatant stealing of secrets to leap-frog the hurdles standing in the way of developing high-tech industries. The TPP is designed to counter both of these, at least within the developing nations that are signatories to this deal.

So, if tariffs and cheating are not open as a means of overcoming first-mover-advantage what are the options for developing nations? If anyone knows what they are, please comment on this post.

Fraudulent Arguments for Free Trade

Advocates for Free Trade often argue that it lifts poor nations out of poverty. This is only partially true; and has a very limited impact. The wages in Bangladesh for textile workers have increased from $1 day to $2 day as a result of increased exports of finished garments. Yet any attempt to push wages higher, towards Western standards, is met the fierce resistance from the textile manufacturers. They probably use the argument that an increase in pay like that will make them noncompetitive. So unless Bangladesh can come up with new industries in which they can compete, so that there are other opportunities for the Bangladeshi people to gain work at higher pay, it looks like the future for wages in Bangladesh is likely to stop at a maximum of $5 day.

Also, the advocates of Free Trade are unlikely to be the workers who will be the first to be displaced in Western nations. If Western nations can claim to be virtuous by opening their industries to fierce competition from Asia (and from Mexico and South America), it is not the advocates of this policy that will bear the cost: it is the ordinary workers on those nations. These are the workers who are unlikely to get jobs in the “winner-takes-all” high tech jobs, such as in Apple and Google.

Another fraudulent argument for Free Trade is to cite China as a shining beacon. Certainly it has benefited from the opening of trade in Western nations. But it has made the most of this situation by protecting its own industries at the same time. With this protectionism (and possibly cheating as well), it is unlikely that China would have been able to move hundreds of millions of workers from farms to the cities. It is not Free Trade on its own that has helped China to develop. It also required the Chinese government to look after the interests of its own people.

TPP is a Moral Fraud

The TPP is advocated on the basis that it will help developing nations to develop. In fact, what it is designed to do is to entrench privilege. This is not the privilege of entire nations, but rather the privilege of corporations. It is not privilege of all corporations that is being protected: it is the privilege of those corporations that have an edge that makes them the best in the world.

I don’t want my world to be come a place in which only the “very best” or most successful have a reasonable share in its abundance. I want a world in which everyone has a fair chance of success, and a reasonable opportunity for each to share in the success of his or her own nation. That is why agreements like TPP are an anathema to me, along with anything that reduces the power of democratic governments to shape their societies according the needs and aspirations of their own peoples.

Do you agree?

Same-sex marriage – Australian plebiscite

Fiercely contested social questions, like same-sex marriage, are rarely the basis of voters’ decision-making during an election, but they can be.

Why a Plebiscite?

A plebiscite was chosen by the Liberal and National party room as a way of giving the NO vote a chance of winning.

However, from a theoretical point of view, a plebiscite is not without merit. Parliaments are mostly elected on economics, foreign affairs, and very importantly, on competence. Same-sex marriage does not fit in this set of criteria.

In addition, the advantage of a “people’s vote” on this matter is that such things are uncomfortable for many politicians to discuss. This is because most politicians want to be preselected and elected on economics and competence. Mostly, they do not want to stand or fall on social questions.

The cost of plebiscite is trivial – about $10 per working person. The significance is great – changing norms that have existed for over 2000 years in the western world.

Who will win the same-sex marriage plebiscite?

The advocates for same-sex marriage believe that, with the ALP virtually purged of those who oppose that change, and the minor parties in favour of that change, they reckon they will win if it comes down to a conscience vote of Liberals. So the ALP, Greens and Nick Xenophon Team are against a plebiscite and for a parliamentary vote.

The opponents of same-sex marriage hope that a plebiscite will see the measure defeated.

Neither the proposers, or the opponents of same-sex marriage have made their case clear. Both parties discuss the matter in the ether. For proposers it is all about love, but in a non-sexual context; for opponents it is all about preserving the ideal of a heterosexual couple bringing up a family.

Dysfunctional Arguments

One suspects that the underpinning proposition for male proponents of same-sex marriage is to achieve community acceptance of sodomy / anal sex. I believe that they do not talk about this in public or private because they do not think that the community will look favourably upon that proposition. So it could be argued that many male proponents hide their real agenda behind the mantra, “Our love should be acknowledged!” For most female proponents of same-sex marriage it would appear to a genuine case of arguing for acceptance of their relationship, combined with a certain defiant militancy.

For male and female opponents of same-sex marriage it is definitely about sex. Having lost the argument that sodomy should be a criminal offense, they are not prepared to use this as an argument, on the grounds that they will be labelled as “out of touch bigots.” However, an objection to sodomy lies at the root of the case against same-sex marriage, combined with a real attachment to the heterosexual relationship as the basis for nurturing families.

Possible outcome

For Christians, this is a particularly difficult question, since same-sex relationships, without sex, have been an important part of the Christian experience since earliest times. This idea even goes back into the Old Testament, with the relationship between David and Jonathan being a particularly important example (even though some have, without any evidence, claimed this to have been homosexual). So there should not be any question for Christians of acknowledging love between people of the same sex.

For Christians, sex outside of marriage is not allowed. It is considered to be a moral failure. In addition, each person is expected to only have one sexual partner during their whole life (except in the case of the partner dying), just as Jesus taught. Taking this a step further, there is no place in the Christian life for heterosexual promiscuity or for sodomy. However, there is a place for loving and committed relationships between people of the same sex. However, the debate over same-sex marriage has left no place for this Christian standpoint: it is consigned to dust bin of “elite thinking.”

Therefore, if the same-sex plebiscite goes ahead, it is likely that it will be lost.

However, a parliament vote formalizing same-sex relationships, yet without appearing to endorse sodomy as a normal part of life, is likely to receive bi-partisan support.

In a democracy, it is a question of the achievable, and of achieving a reasonable consensus. On this question, we are far from that point.




Australian Exceptionalism is alive and well

In an entertaining article in The Australian, 17 Sept 2016, Paul Kelly discusses the idea of Australian Exceptionalism.

According to Kelly, the idea of Australian Exceptionalism goes back to Alfred Deakin, PM 1903-4, 1905-8 and 1909-10. It included control of immigration, protection of industry and wage arbitration, leading to (or arising out) a sense of egalitarianism.

Apparently, Paul Kelly, Peter Costello, Henry Ergas and William Coleman (an economist at ANU) all want to smash Australia’s egalitarianism in the search for a now elusive platform of “reform.” However, those who support Democratic Capitalism love the Australian sense of egalitarianism, and would dearly love to bring these blind economic reformers to their senses.


There is only a minority of people in Australia who want to throw open our borders, like the US did at the beginning of the 20th century, and say, “Whoever wants to come, come now!” Australian know that their precious and hard-fought-for “exceptionalism” could not stand in the face of millions of uninvited arrivals. Europe now knows the same thing: it learnt that lesson the hard way.

Protection of Industry – $A

Australia now knows that its hard-won industrial base cannot survive (and has not survived) an over-valued currency. Led by the Reserve Bank of Australia, the nation has made every reasonable effort to bring the currency down to a more manageable level.

The relative value of the $A is not divinely or even particularly rationally set. It is a balance between those who want to buy $As and those who want to sell $As. As the Central Bankers of the world continue their ridiculous plan to revive their national economies by cutting interest rates, their national economies dive into a hole. This is because they are obsessed with a zero-tariff regime (but they haven’t worked yet that this is the source of their problems).

Tiny Australia is at the end of the line. We have to cut our interest rates in order to slow down the flow of funds into the country in order to stop our currency becoming overvalued. Yet there is little we can do to make investing in Australia less attractive. It is a safe haven for hot money from Asia; and the Australian economy is better run than any other G20 nation. Who wouldn’t want to invest in Australia, or live here for that matter? (A few, like Germane Greer!)

So, industry protection can be established indirectly by managing the exchange rate. This can be done with measures designed to make it harder to invest in Australia. (We have enough of our own money to fund all existing Australian businesses – we didn’t need to sell the Melbourne ports to China and other overseas buyers.) The RBA can also keep interest rates low, in order to discourage hot money chasing higher interest rates in this nation.

Protectionism – Tariffs

Industry protection can also be established by re-introducing tariffs. Yet with the current exchange rate regime, a uniform tariff of 20% on all goods is likely to over-cook the economy. However, an increase in all tariffs up to 10% is certainly worth examining. If that is too difficult to accept or implement, then an implicit 20% tariff on all goods and services being purchased by an Australian government authority could be introduced.

In regard to services, establishing a 20% “International Outsourcing Tax” would offset the massive cost differential hurdles of current international outsourcing. These include: Payroll Tax, Superannuation, generous leave arrangements, health and safety regulations.

Wages Policy

Some reform is certainly needed in the industrial relations area. Here a new government could take advantage of the “reforms” implemented by Julia Gillard under the Fair Work regime. The result or her reforms is that there is no longer any real need for unions in the wages area, since the government sets minimum wages for every class of work.

Now there is only a place for unions in negotiating enterprise agreements, conditions and in health and safety. These can also go if Fair Work takes over these roles and gets rid of the rorts currently supported by unions. These include employment-destroying double time penalty rates for Sunday work.

Fair Work Australia could also be prohibited from promoting union membership.


It would be a great loss if Peter Costello’s vision for Australia, invoking the perceived need for hyper-competition for the nation’s businesses, became the order of the day. If only the best-in-the-world can thrive in his Australia of the future, we can say goodbye to social cohesion, and hello to the dysfunctional situation currently found in so many American towns and in north of the United Kingdom.

May heaven preserve us from this kind of future.