“We Love you, Joe, but…”: Hollywood’s Advice to…

There is something to be said about ignoring actors. They assume roles,…

The Birth of the Australian Dollar: From Gold…

By Denis Hay Description Birth of the Australian Dollar. Learn how Australia can use…

Australian Koala Foundation Chair calls on Prime Minister…

Australian Koala Foundation Media Release The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) has today released…

NAIDOC Week: A Celebration

By Maria Millers Naidoc Week (7th July-12th July) is an annual event dedicated…

Terminating Partnerships: The UK Ends the Rwanda Solution

The dishonour board is long. Advisors from Australia, account chasing electoral strategists,…

New solutions to keep drinking water safe as…

University of South Australia Media Release Water scientists from Australia and China have…

The IPA just exploded their argument that the…

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has just shown its links to…

Is your favourite store next? Why businesses are…

Corporate bankruptcy filings began ticking up in Australia and beyond in 2023,…


Money makes the world go round … which is why we had a flat earth before it was invented!

OK, Dr. Joanne Howe’s report on the China Free Trade Agreement is brilliant and extremely accurate. No, I haven’t actually read it, but not reading it didn’t stop Mr Turnbull from dismissing it or Andrew Robb as describing it as “not worth the paper it’s written on”. One doesn’t need to read something to dismiss it. Think Christopher Pyne’s proud declaration that he hadn’t read “The Gonski Report”.

I may actually get around to reading the report on the Chinese Free Trade Agreement. After all, I read just about everything. I even read the Liberal’s “Real Solutions” booklet which was mainly full of problems. In fact, it can be summarised by simply stating that the fundamental problem is that we have a Labor Government being run by a woman, whatsmore!) and the solution is to vote us in. As Tony and Joe used to say ad infinitum, “We have a plan”, and when that wore thin they developed it a bit further and said it was for “Jobs and Growth”. When it became clear that it was their own jobs and growth that they were talking about, even their own party realised that it was time for a change.

Anyway, I was reading the Fairfax Fluff this morning and apart from an opinion piece stating that it was only Muslim young people who were joining IS which completely ignores a couple of non-Muslim boys who went and joined, I was most taken with the editorial, “Trans-Pacific trade deal has tremendous potential”.

It began with an economics lesson:

“The fundamental reality driving economics, politics and public policy is scarcity – there are unlimited wants but limited means.”

So far, so Year Eleven Economics. Of course, the trouble with this truism is that, like all truisms, it often moves from the indisputable part to a justification of what the speaker actually wants.

Not everyone gets what they wants, so you’ll just have to compromise and go and see the movie I want to watch!”

Or to use a more recent example.

“There are limited means in the economy so the well-off can’t afford to pay any more tax on their superannuation, but you need to cut your penalty rates so that businesses can work 24/7, just like 7/11!”

Similarly, the editorial jumped from this economics lesson to the rather interesting proposition:

“Most of the industrialised world has come to the conclusion that open markets provide the best outcomes for the biggest number of people.”

Now this is an interesting statement for a number of reasons. The first being that it excludes the non-industrialised world, but still has the qualifier, “most”.

However, it’s when we start to think about this in terms of the generalisation that we realise that it’s not just full of qualifiers, but a bald-faced lie. Granted that they are primarily talking about free trade between countries. Nevertheless, even the TPP doesn’t completely open the markets between countries, it just makes them slightly freer. And, as has been pointed out so many times, it makes corporations so much freer to sue governments when their profits are threatened.

Of course, the idea of “the best outcomes for the biggest number of people” is an interesting concept in itself. Slaughtering everyone in Florida and distributing their wealth equally to the people of Cambodia would also provide the best outcome for “the biggest number of people” but there are all sorts of moral and ethical issues as to why this isn’t a good idea.

But it’s the whole idea of how we perceive economics that most intrigues me. Like this particular editorial has done, we reduce it to a simple concept and then jump from that concept – whether it’s true or simply a belief – to make a whole lot of judgement calls which often move so far away from the concept that we don’t realise the journey we’ve been taken on.

We’re persistently told that free markets are the best by governments who insist – often quite correctly – on a whole range of restrictions. Why can’t I sell alcohol to ten year olds? Why can’t I start my own pharmacy and dispense medicine without all the red tape of requiring a prescription for certain medications? Guns, I’m not allowed to sell them from the back of my car. In fact, why can’t I turn my house into a nightclub and pump out loud music till the wee hours of the morning?

There’s a whole range of restrictions that we all consider reasonable before we even start to look at the ones about which there could be an argument for “freer markets”. (OK, when I say “all”, I’m ignoring David Leyonhjelm whose views seem a bit extreme when compared to moderates like Abbott and Trump).

For years we’ve been removing tariffs and eliminating subsidies in certain industries. The idea is that it’s the “best outcome for the biggest number of people”. This may well be true.

But I have a few truisms of my own. And one of them is when someone says, “Trust me, and don’t listen anything that’s questioning what I want to do, because I don’t”, it’s time to to ask for the evidence.

And when the government’s own modelling suggests that the China Free Trade Agreement will only bring about 6,000 extra jobs, claims made by Mr Robb seem a little far fetched.

Yeah, trust me. Don’t listen to those unions. They’re just racist and they’re concerned that Chinese workers will improve the prosperity of this country so much that people will realise that the unions never did anything for the workers of this country.



Login here Register here
  1. Terry2

    Seems there is a problem about reading reports in the Liberal Party. Remember the illustrious Senator Ian MacDonald when chairing a Senate estimates committee condemned the Human Rights Commission and Gillian Triggs on her report on children in detention but finally admitted :

    “I haven’t bothered to read the final report because I think it is partisan,” Senator MacDonald told the hearing.

  2. Sirage

    For most recent policy justification the above template could be repeated: Using Year Eleven (insert subject of choice) truism, then jump to any random conclusion that fits proponent’s annoying self-interested simplistic view of a better Australia.

  3. keerti

    Interesting to note your union quip: I was working for Perth Transit a few years ago. We won very signifigant wages and conditions improvement. That included a raise in line with cost of living adjustment (6 monthly) and $1.00 an hour each year over the three years of the EBA. Added to this ability to commute overtime to extra leaveand insurance getting to and from work. My income went from about $52,000 to $75,000 The next time negotiations for EBA came around the catch cry of the union doesn’t do anything for us……Many peole in this country seem to lack adequate thinking ability!

  4. Kyran

    Well said, Rossleigh. Today’s comedy, direct from the ABC, substantiates both truisms, “money makes the world go round” and “trust me”.


    It wasn’t until I got to the comments at the end of theirs that I realised it was a serious news report about a serious property developer who seriously went to the High Court to challenge the NSW laws “that impose caps on political donations and ban donations from property developers.” Apparently, this bloke McCloy hit a spot of bother with ICAC. Clearly, having far more money than intellect, he has pursued the matter. His defence is nothing short of hilarious…..seriously!

    “McCloy’s most audacious argument involved admitting that political donations are made to gain access to politicians, acquire influence and advance the interests of businesses. His counsel argued that this is constitutionally protected by the implied freedom of political communication because it is a form of political participation in the system of representative government. This argument did not go down well with the Court.”

    But wait, there’s more.

    “McCloy contended that the acquisition of influence through donations did not amount to corruption. The High Court, however, took a much broader view of corruption. It recognised the “more subtle kind of corruption” where office-holders who are dependent upon the financial support of wealthy donors make decisions “not on their merits or the desires of their constituencies, but according to the wishes of those who have made large financial contributions”.

    I think he used Hockey’s lawyers, probably got them cheap. When life imitates art, and news imitates satire. Thank you Rossleigh. Take care

  5. jim

    In 1982 the Forbes rich list saw those involved in finance of at only 4.4% to-day that figure is 21% these are the same people that the public bailed out in the GFC. of 2008. To-day the richest 400 entities own around $2.3 TRILLION a new RECORD. In 2009 this figure was around $1.27 Trillion so almost doubling their “wealth” in six years. These are the same people that are pushing for the TPP these “people” had around 600 “trade advisers” that where allowed to access the actual text of the TPP but only three people from each nation where allowed the see the same text. The USA has around 20 million people living in deep poverty so far. read; https://wikileaks.org/tpp/ ,https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10/03/rich-o03.html

  6. Bronte ALLAN

    As usual, the obscenely rich keep on getting more richer, whilst the rest of the world’s peoples keep getting poorer! STOP CHINA FREE-TRADE! STOP THIS TPP!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page