February 09, 2004

FREEDOM INCREASED

It ain’t perfect, but it’s an improvement:

Australia and the United States today signed a free trade deal eliminating duties from more than 99 per cent of American manufacturing exports to Australia, but local sugar producers have missed out.

US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said the agreement was only finalised after Prime Minister John Howard spoke directly to US President George W. Bush.

Watch for pundits to paint that reduction of duties as a benefit solely to the US, rather than a benefit to Australian consumers, who’ll now pay lower prices on imported US goods. Here’s News Ltd’s list of Who Gets What:

AUSTRALIA:
• Immediate access to US market for almost all manufactured goods and services exports
• Improved access for agricultural sector including beef and dairy producers
• Full access to Australian goods and services in US government procurement
• Protections for Australian health services and environment
• The right to ensure local content in Australian broadcasting retained
• Duty free access to metal and mineral exports
• Immediate removal on tariff on canned tuna, worth $US20 million ($26.3 million) dollars a year
• Zero tariffs for wheat and cereal flour and within four years for some fruit

UNITED STATES:
• 99 per cent of US manufactured exports to Australia immediately duty free
• Benefits for US chemicals, auto, plastics and infotech sectors
• All agricultural exports to Australia, worth $US400 million ($526.3 million), to go duty free
• Australia to open service access, including telecom, express delivery and computers
• Australia to adjust Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme
• US contractors to get access to Australian government procurement

The “right to ensure local content in Australian broadcasting” should be in the debit column.

UPDATE. AAP reports:

The free trade agreement signed between Australia and the United States was not perfect but was "the best we could get in the circumstances", Prime Minister John Howard admitted today as Opposition leader Mark Latham labelled the pact a dud.

[Howard] said he was astonished by Opposition Leader Mark Latham's carping negativity about the deal.

I’m not. And it didn’t take long for the prediction above (“Watch for pundits to paint that reduction of duties as a benefit solely to the US, rather than a benefit to Australian consumers”) to come true:

The Greens said tariff abolition on manufactured goods would cost thousands of Australian jobs while many farmers would be saddled with US tariffs for a generation or more.

While we’re sort of on the subject, here’s a piece by Andrew Bolt on Mark Latham that I meant to link to the other day:

It’s the way Mark Latham keeps misremembering his boyhood that shows us what makes him dangerous. Take his recent speech to Labor's national conference.

"When I was young, my mum used to tell me there were two types of people in our street -- the slackers and the hard workers," he thundered.

In fact, his mum thought we were all either no-hopers or hard workers, as Latham explained in the draft of speech.

But then his shadow treasurer, Simon Crean, checked the draft, took out his red pencil and turned all those no-hopers into slackers -- presumably because he knew Labor delegates hate such judgmental language.

And that's what Latham ended reading out -- Crean's version of what Latham's mother said, and not the truth.

Well, there could be an innocent explanation; perhaps Simon Crean is Mark Latham’s mother. Bolt also highlights this Latham speech extract:

"Delegates, you hear some funny things in politics," he confided. "When I became leader, some in the media were asking: where did he get that expression, 'the ladder of opportunity'?

"Well, I didn't have to look too far. It comes from a place called Green Valley. It comes from who I am and where I've been."

In fact, Latham didn't even have to go back to Green Valley, his childhood home in western Sydney, to find his ladder.

He just needed to flip open a book of Ronald Reagan's famous speeches. And there it was -- "ladder of opportunity", used by this conservative president in his speech to accept the Republican nomination in 1980, in his State of the Union addresses in 1986 and 1988, and in a radio address to the nation in 1986.

Ha! ALP delegates were applauding the Gipper!

Posted by Tim Blair at February 9, 2004 12:20 PM
Comments

London to a brick on, Howard will get no credit at all from the luvvies for exempting Australian content from the FTA.

He should have traded it off just to stuff them.

Posted by: The Mongrel at February 9, 2004 at 12:37 PM

I'm waiting to hear Robyn Nevin thank John Howard for protecting local content. I might be waiting a long time.

Posted by: Freddyboy at February 9, 2004 at 12:42 PM

A good step in the right direction.

I'm in favor of anything that opens borders to competition. I hated it when the US car market tanked due to competition from Japanese imports. I knew people who became unemployed as a direct result.

However, in the long run I see we (US) have benefitted. Our car companies stopped taking the US market for granted and giving us crap, consumers got good cars at lower prices, and new car factories opened in the US to help support demand for Japanese cars.

I'm in favor of free trade with countries who are on a par with the US in terms of shared values, strong consumer, and labor laws. I am a bit worried about free trade with countries that don't have the same values and laws because our own US companies can, and do, exploit people in those countries.

I've wanted to see the US give very favorable trade status to all the nations who are part of the coalition in Iraq and remove same from those who are not. I'd love to give my consumer dollars to countries who are friends.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at February 9, 2004 at 01:27 PM

A dark day for the ozzie left.

Posted by: Papertiger at February 9, 2004 at 01:53 PM

That "adjustment to Pharmaceutical Scheme" sounds like one to get the bitchers and whiners especially exercised, and I don't even know what it means. Pity you couldn't wring a concession on the sugar tariff out of us; I'm sick and tired of gross corn syrup in every damned thing because sugar is too expensive. Coke especially; when I finally leave Canada, I don't know how I'm going to get used to the domestic crap again.

Posted by: Evan McElravy at February 9, 2004 at 02:03 PM

I hope Australia will still be able to import overblown military intelligence, outright lies about weapons of mass destruction and phony justifications for war from the US without hinderance.

I suppose that comes under services.

Posted by: Jim at February 9, 2004 at 02:09 PM

The sugar tariff has been in place so long it would take a minor miracle to shift it.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 9, 2004 at 02:10 PM

Legislators in Florida are terrified of Big Sugar. Jeb Bush is governor, but he doesn't seem to have any balls when it comes to the sugar companies than any other governor we've had. Don't look to be free from Corn Syrup Taste Hell any time soon.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 9, 2004 at 02:15 PM

I read a report recently about companies moving food processing operations to Mexico so that they can get cheap sugar.

Surprise. (Not.)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 9, 2004 at 02:21 PM

Cool. Danny Deckchair 2 will no doubt be hitting cinema screens right across Australia.

Posted by: gaz at February 9, 2004 at 02:40 PM

Coming soon, a new ABC miniseries with a theme of the flowering of Australian culture against the backdrop of growing Australian-US friendship following the 2004 Free Trade Agreement ...

Losing Time, an Australian television drama set in Hackley, a fictional rural town, examines a year in the life of 19-year-old Al, who meets and falls in love with Amber, the daughter of an American businessman. It's the first Australian television drama to explore the beneficial impact of the Howard government’s free trade agreement with the US on ordinary people.

A beautiful coming-of-age love story, mostly it's a fable about journeys. Al's journey to manhood, Amber's journey as a teenager falling in love for the first time, and the Australian left-wing media and entertainment alliance's journey into the light - from being closed, mistrusting and xenophobic to being proud, open and no longer nursing a reflexive knee-jerk hatred of the US.

After last year's effort I'm sure the ABC has already rushed to commission a script.

Posted by: ilibcc at February 9, 2004 at 02:40 PM

I think the most obvious benefit for the US has to be lamb - which in an edible and cheap from is entirely absent from US supermarket shelves.

Posted by: Giles at February 9, 2004 at 03:04 PM

Sugar is an industry that has been dying for years, mainly due to the agrarian socialism endemic in any dealings successive governments have had with all types of primary industry; it is very much a third world crop in any case, and now clogs a lot of valuable coastal real estate with an uncompetitive crop.

The mill at Nambour (north of Brisbane) recently closed with dire predictions of a collapse in the local economy, conveniently ignoring the fact that this area is one of the fastest growing population centres in the state.

I wish I owned a cane farm or two (as long as the incredibly intrusive local council allows sub-division).

Any cane cocky with half a brain could coin it in.

Posted by: Habib at February 9, 2004 at 03:11 PM

A particularly cruel blow would be if Labor gets up in the next election, and oversees the benefits that this agreement will bring. Like the chinese gas deal, this agreement would not have happened without Howard's intervention/lobbying, so it seems only fair that he is allowed to reap the political benefits that will flow from the economic benefits.

Posted by: Paul Dub at February 9, 2004 at 03:12 PM

Particularly revealing in this is that several of the "benefits" are issues on which our only gain is we haven't been forced to give ground.

The ratios of the dollar numbers are also noteworthy ($400 million to $20 million in favour of the US). A similar (10 to 1) ratio applies in manufactures.

Posted by: John at February 9, 2004 at 03:18 PM

Forgive me if i am misinterpreting your post John, but are you using an agricultural to tuna ratio there?

Posted by: Paul Dub at February 9, 2004 at 03:21 PM

Pixy wrote:

"I read a report recently about companies moving food processing operations to Mexico so that they can get cheap sugar."

One of the countries the US should have eased into in terms of trade is Mexico. Their environmental and labor laws are appalling. When I can, I avoid purchasing anything I'm going to eat that's imported from Mexico. The water they use on their crops is not as clean as I'd like.

There should be a way to trade with Mexico, helping its economy rise, while at the same time encouraging laws many of us take for granted in terms of labor and the environment. Not that Mexico could change overnight but find some way to encourage gradual change.

I'm not against companies taking advantage of the cheaper labor to be found in countries like Mexico. That's what companies do and it's good, for now, for Mexico.

However, I'm afraid that companies may grow so attached to the cheap labor that they'll discourage any sort of laws or movements that threaten their pool of cheap labor. I'm not sure what *THE* answer is; but there has to be a way the US could write laws to encourage a better wage and standard of living in the countries we trade with. I don't mean overnight change. Gradual change.

I also don't mean to impose US standard of living on countries. But, a heathier standard than what exists now. I would expect the people working in those countries would welcome a rise in their living standards as long as they are encouraged to make the laws for themselves and come up with what fits them best.

Globalization and free trade can have a positive impact on everyone. But we have to be realistic and realize our companies won't want to see anything threaten cheap labor. This could lead to situations where our companies threaten the people not to enact laws and regulation that could reduce the supply of cheap labor. We need to have laws that would counteract this.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at February 9, 2004 at 03:25 PM


• Full access to Australian goods and services in US government procurement

***************************

Does this mean Aussie companies can compete for US Defense contacts?

ta

Ralph

Posted by: Ralph Buttigieg at February 9, 2004 at 03:32 PM

I hope Australia will still be able to import overblown military intelligence, outright lies about weapons of mass destruction and phony justifications for war from the US without hinderance.

I suppose that comes under services.

Don't worry petal, you'll be able to save now on your Moore/Krugman/Chomsky texts!

Plus you Yanks get Pilger even cheaper!

Everybody wins!

Posted by: Quentin George at February 9, 2004 at 03:35 PM

Should of traded the content and health protections for an end to the sugar tariff. Triple plus good!

Posted by: hast at February 9, 2004 at 03:37 PM

Hey, guys, guess what: Its all about SUGAR!

Posted by: Quentin George at February 9, 2004 at 03:44 PM

Free trade, hell! That ain't the half of it. What I want to see is a goddamn federation between Australia and the US....joint foreign policy, military, free movement of people, goods and services.....add in a EU-free UK and perhaps Canada, Ireland, and NZ, and you got yourself one powerhouse nation with the common law and shared values.

Okay, you mighy say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

Posted by: KevinV at February 9, 2004 at 03:47 PM

Forgive me if i am misinterpreting your post John, but are you using an agricultural to tuna ratio there?

He's basing a point on two unrelated pieces of information, disregarding other information which does not fit his theory and then creating a conclusion out of thin air.

That's all.

Posted by: Quentin George at February 9, 2004 at 03:47 PM

Chris Josephson,

While purporting to be in the interests of workers in developing countries, requirements on labour standards in trade agreements are only ever there as a sop to workers in wealthy (read: expensive) countries. No-one is forced to work in 'sweatshops' in third-world countries - those that CHOOSE to work there do so in their best interests. Usually it's because it pays better, is safer and easier than alternatives open to them. And evryone benefits - workers are better off, company makes profits, and I get cheap shoes. Oh the benefits of globalisation!

For a great article on this issue - it's anectdotal, but illustrates the concepts well - see:
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=53

(sorry, can't be arsed finding original link)

Posted by: Chris at February 9, 2004 at 03:48 PM

W didn't give up sugar, but you got dairy. Not bad.

Posted by: Sandy P. at February 9, 2004 at 03:54 PM

KevinV:
I'm with you. Winston Churchill figured it first - he coined the term 'Anglosphere', ie, where they speak English. Read his 'History of the English Speaking Peoples'.

It may happen, but the conditions that would make it more likely would involve a huge increase in world tension, with maybe an actual war. Not a good look.

If communications were as good (ie, internet, TV, jet travel, cellphones etc) in WWII as today, likely it would have happened then.

Posted by: Arik at February 9, 2004 at 04:03 PM

Yay! At last: Calvin Klein, Levis, Nike, Tommy Hilfiger, Kenneth Cole, Ralph Lauren, Anne Klein, Perry Ellis, Vera Wang, Marc Jacobs, Michael Kors, and Oscar de la Renta (just to name a few) at a reasonable price. Is Jimmy Choo American too? Let all consumers say: God Bless America!!!

Posted by: Drooble at February 9, 2004 at 04:03 PM

Scratch Canada off that list, they're pretty much Eurostooges at this point, and the Red Green Show is just about their only worthwhile export right now, it seems.

Posted by: Vexorg at February 9, 2004 at 04:06 PM

New Zealand doesn't have a navy but plenty of swords left over from Lord of the Rings.

Posted by: ilibcc at February 9, 2004 at 04:12 PM

Hey, ilibcc, a great concept for a mini-series. There's a twist to the story: downtrodden Afghan refugeess work as slave labour on a QLD sugar plantation owned by evil Americans. Local aborigines, bitter and twisted because John Howard hasn't said sorry, set fire to the cane. The brigade from Fireflies arrives to put out the fire, but too late to save Randa(left over from the prevous series), who dies a harrowing death.

Plenty of pathos guaranteed to warm the heart of any lefty. Should be a good enough for John Doyle who is currently marking time anyway (aka unemployed).

Posted by: Freddyboy at February 9, 2004 at 04:16 PM

Oh, I thought using an agricultural:tuna ratio was some new form of economic ratio analysis that i was unfamiliar with.
I am waiting for the day when John realises that *shock* the US economy is bigger than Australia's, and that the FTA doesnt contain a clause that any benefit shared by one party must equate exactly with any benefit of the other.
In other words, some feel that if Australia is better off by $10 billion, but the US is better off by $20 billion, the FTA is automatically 'unfair' and shouldn't have been signed.
Thinking like that is a small example of why economies run by lefties always go bang in a rather large and spectacular way.

Posted by: Paul Dub at February 9, 2004 at 04:21 PM

Freddyboy,
Great story line - but rework to include lots of swords, fake hairy feet and the occasional Elf. We can them in cheap from NZ.

If possible write me in as Legolas (yeah, I know, but I can lose weight ...).

Posted by: Arik at February 9, 2004 at 04:38 PM

What does "adjust the PBS mean"?

Posted by: Nemesis at February 9, 2004 at 04:44 PM

"That "adjustment to Pharmaceutical Scheme" sounds like one to get the bitchers and whiners especially exercised, and I don't even know what it means."

Those bitchers and whiners being...the vast majority of Australians, perhaps?

Posted by: Steve Edwards at February 9, 2004 at 04:56 PM

Don't know, need an Aussie for the specifics. I would guess it would be prescription drug pricing.

Posted by: aaron at February 9, 2004 at 05:02 PM

Well, it does seem a bit of a sleeper, doesn't it?

That said, I think it's an "OK" deal. Tend to agree with Howard (first time for everything, I guess) that he couldn't throw the deal out for the sake of sugar.

The beauty of it is that they won't see it this way in the sugar seats, a number of which are marginals, I'm told...

Posted by: Nemesis at February 9, 2004 at 05:03 PM

Aussie wine even cheaper? Yay!

Can we export Budweiser to Australia to pay them back for Foster's?

Posted by: timks at February 9, 2004 at 05:28 PM

Tim has been quite generous to the American position in the talks. But Americans should not let the Bush Administration take a pass. Speaking as a resident of the US, I find the agricultural provisions quite unfortunate. Tim suggested that protection for local content regulations should be listed under a debit column. In the same spirit, the lack of US concessions on sugar should be listed under the US's debit column.

Someone suggested that the local content regulations should be junked just to spite the protectionists. Spiting the protectionists is a noble cause and I second the idea. In that spirit, US intransigence on sugar is very unfortunate. Not a single additional milligram was conceded. The US sugar industry is responsible for keeping US domestic sugar prices 3 times higher than it would be under free trade rules. It is also working to scuttle the recently negotiated Central America Free Trade Agreement. This atrocity has got to end.

Posted by: HTY at February 9, 2004 at 06:07 PM

timks,
Thats a helluva punishment. Sending Bud Downunda cause they palmed all their 'Fosters' grade beer off on us - can a small nation withstand the shock to the palate ?

BTW, its not very well known state-side, but in Aussie they have names for the 'grade' of their beer. I'm not sure if I got it right, but an Aussie explained it to me this way:
XXXX - Brewery dregs, maybe poisonous
Fosters - Next grade up, very cheap, 'street-persons' drink
Swan/Cascade - Not sure about this one I think this means B grade
Tooheys - A grade. Some brands in this grade, like 'New' are highly prized.
Coopers - I think this is the highest grade, anyway its very hard to get. I have been told to go for the 'Pale' brand in this grade, if I can get it.

Arik - bringing beer sophistication to America !

Posted by: Arik at February 9, 2004 at 07:13 PM

Aussie wine even cheaper? Yay!

What about expensive lunches?

Posted by: Andjam at February 9, 2004 at 07:19 PM

Thanks for your kind comments, Arik.

I see myself in the starring role of Randa, the poor but proud Afghan refugee oppressed by the F.N.QLD sugar farmer patriarchy: a cross between Anna Magnani in Bitter Rice and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard. I'm ready for my big scene, Mr De Mille...

Camera sets the scene: angry sugar farmers in marginal seats are setting fire to their cane to protest against John Howard's FTA. Randa lies dying, horribly burnt by the fires (memo to Makeup Dept:lots of disfigurement needed here).As she dies, her sad pathetic life flashes across the screen: the time she nearly drowned in the Timor Sea, as her refugee boat was sinking, the RAN vessel standing by, guns pointing, the Arab people smugglers sneaking away; and the time on Nauru, lips sown together (Makeup: lots of work needed here)... all too horrible..

Sorry, folks I have to go. The ABC just called. They love my idea. And why wouldn't they? Now that John Howard has succeeded in keeping Hollywood out, the ABC will be desperate for more stories like mine.

Posted by: Freddyboy at February 9, 2004 at 07:27 PM

There is only one thing that "adjust the PBS scheme" can mean.

Higher prices in Australia, for the benefit of US drug companies. Paid either by the general taxpayer, or the consumer.

Anyone going seriously to suggest that drugs will be cheaper in the future?

And all those US designer labels - are the actually manufactured in the USA?

Posted by: Peggy Sue at February 9, 2004 at 07:39 PM

The Sydney Morning Herald is very down on this free trade agreement. They have John Howard "admitting" that it was the best he could do. In other admissions he is quoted as saying: "It will add enormous long-term benefits to the Australian economy". In a shock move, the Greens have voiced their total opposition. The Democrats spokesperson was reportedly too pissed to speak.

Posted by: The Gnu Hunter at February 9, 2004 at 07:51 PM

I can assure you seppo (read American) readers that the Foster's shite you get tastes nothing like the Foster's we have here. It is brewed under licence in North America. You need to taste the real thing. Thanks to Howard's free trade agreement, maybe you can.

Posted by: The Hack at February 9, 2004 at 08:58 PM

WRT the PBS, maybe y'all should check out this weeks "TIME" magazine (Aus edition) It gives a great expose on the pharmaceutical industry in the US. They (The US) want to get their hands on OUR PBS so they can screw all the normal people out their in favour of their VERY influential group of lobbyists in the Capitol

Posted by: Pat D at February 9, 2004 at 09:05 PM

Actually, a great deal of the sugar problem in the US is due to our subsidizing sugar made from sugar beets. Somthing like 300 family corportation farms get $300M (total, about $1M apiece) to grow sugar beets, which are about 1/6 as useful as sugar cane form making sugar. This dates back to WWII and a fear the US would not have enough sugar. It is a perfect example of the Iron Triangle in action. And, since it costs the average person in the US about a dollar a year, no one pays attention.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at February 9, 2004 at 11:52 PM

Addendum to JorgX...

sugar beets but also massive corn subsidy. That keeps corn syrup prices artificially low and also results in corn-fed beef. Corn-feed for beef results in large antibio and additional beef costs since it isn't a healthy diet for them (as I understand it) although they do get fat quick!

It also keeps the Latin American countries producing coca, since they can't compete with the subsidized corn prices nor enter the sugar market in a meaningful way.

The whole thing is an embarrassment and we should let all the prices float.

BTW, for those worried about poor conditions for foreign workers...it's all relative. In third-world countries work at a US-owned plant is virtually always highly sought after. Even if the conditions are not up to our standards they are always well above the standards of the rest of their local economy. There is no instant step from poverty to first-world standards. The best way to bring them up is to export work to begin the slow process of building a middle class. If it is not cheaper for Western countries to export work then they do not, the the extreme detriment of the third-world.

Trade is always beneficial to both parties, otherwise the parties would not trade. Non-beneficial trade only happens with coercion and we have a special word for that. It's called "theft".

Posted by: jonathan at February 10, 2004 at 01:56 AM

Quit complaining about higher drug prices. We are not the world's HMO.

We pay even higher prices to subsidize the world.

About time the world starts paying it's fair share.

And if you want to profit, buy pharm mutual funds or individual stocks.

Posted by: Sandy P. at February 10, 2004 at 02:32 AM

Freddyboy, you must be careful when you write your sugar saga. You have workers burning the fields. You must be sure they don't burn them at harvest time, or no one will care. (Sugar cane fields are supposed to be burned before the cane is harvested.)

Posted by: Angie Schultz at February 10, 2004 at 02:48 AM

Sandy P: hell yes, you are right.

I may add: stop bitching if you want to see additional new drugs developed. And who knows, maybe some big pharma will move to Australia. Can you say: new jobs?

Posted by: Katherine at February 10, 2004 at 02:57 AM

"Sugar saga". Man, try saying that 10 times fast.

Posted by: dorkafork at February 10, 2004 at 05:15 AM

Hey Arik,

When I was down unda' about 20 years ago I was told the XXXX wasn't a grade but the way Queenslanders talked 'cause they couldn't spell "beer".

Drank VB, Tooth's and Tooheys (Tip a Tooheys or two) while there. Almost no one drank Foster's (or admitted it).

Cheers

Posted by: Alan at February 10, 2004 at 05:29 AM

Hey Arik,

When I was down unda' about 20 years ago I was told the XXXX wasn't a grade but the way Queenslanders talked 'cause they couldn't spell "beer".

Drank VB, Tooth's and Tooheys (Tip a Tooheys or two) while there. Almost no one drank Foster's (or admitted it).

Cheers

Posted by: Alan at February 10, 2004 at 05:31 AM

I can assure you seppo (read American) readers that the Foster's shite you get tastes nothing like the Foster's we have here. It is brewed under licence in North America.

I read somewhere that the Fosters sold in UK was made to a different recipe from the Oz version, and tastes different - so may be its the same in US.

We don't need to import Budweiser, we can make shandy ourselves.

Posted by: Peggy Sue at February 10, 2004 at 07:03 AM

Sorry Arik, but whoever the Aussie was the explained the beer rankings to you was obviously from NSW. New South Welshman know jacksh_t about beer.
This is evidenced by:
- listing Cascade as level B (cascade is brewed in Tassie, and is a top drop)
- listing Tooheys as grade A. Tooheys spent a fortune trying to flog Tooheys New, and it received the welcome that such warm cats piss deserves.
- The complete lack of any of the Carlton & United family of beers. Specifically Draught - a very good everyday beer, and Crown Lager - One beer to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.
As for slagging off Fosters - nobody here drinks it and anyway - the Fosters brothers were from California!

Posted by: Paul Dub at February 10, 2004 at 07:46 AM

I just love the way the so-called Greens are now the most protectionist outfit in Oz. I guess it fits in with their French style anti-mondialisation. What a bunch of losers. But how can they be on the side of the sugar producers? Aren't they part of the ruination of western civilisation through poisonous overuse of chemicals? Don't they produce something causing the epidemic of obesity in the west?

Sure the agreement is not perfect, but it's pretty good. Now for that Dodge Ram V10 3500 at a reasonable price.

Posted by: theories at February 10, 2004 at 08:25 AM

In fact, Latham didn't even have to go back to Green Valley, his childhood home in western Sydney, to find his ladder.


He just needed to flip open a book of Ronald Reagan's famous speeches. And there it was -- "ladder of opportunity", used by this conservative president in his speech to accept the Republican nomination in 1980, in his State of the Union addresses in 1986 and 1988, and in a radio address to the nation in 1986.

And before Ronnie, Winston Churchill used the same metaphor (though not the same phrase). I came across it in a book of Churchill speeches. It went something like this:

They (the Labour opposition) think of life as a queue. We (the Tories) think of life as a ladder...

Not surprising, really: it's a damn good image. What's interesting is that, whereas Ronnie and Winston were conservatives, Latham comes from a Labour background. Perhaps the Tories should be cheering Latham on for merging Labour party values with this classic conservative image...

Posted by: TimT at February 10, 2004 at 09:34 AM

Sod the Ram, if you are going to peruse the Dodge catalogue, it begins and ends at Viper. Loud, crude and with enough torque to pull away in *fifth* gear!
I would have it with baby seal interior but apparently that has been phased out...

Posted by: Paul Dub at February 10, 2004 at 10:11 AM

Paul Dub
You need to catch up on the Dodge Ram SRT10 - all the guts of the Viper in a truck - 500 hp 8.4L v10, 525 ftlb of torque, 0-100kph in 5 secs...and a 500watt sound system! Call me a greeny but I like the sound of that. Besides more space than the Viper. No baby seal seats, but consumes more fuel than many small countries do in a year.

Check this for details:

http://www.dodge.com/srt-10/index.html?context=homepage&type=top

Posted by: theories at February 10, 2004 at 02:05 PM

I refer this post to a couple of complaints against my post .. Sandy P (who chooses to hide behind a Hotmail account - fakeaddy@hotmail.com) and Katherine - kudrycki@mindspring.com).

Perhaps these two people work for, or have shares in a pharmaceutical company? We may not be (nor the US) the world's HMO, but at least our citizens get a fair and (reasonable) equitable access to health care. You (US consumers) aren't paying higher drug prices to subsidise the world, you are paying higher drug prices to subsidise the drug companies profits!

The final lines in both of their posts *really* highlight the patronising manner in which these and perhaps others hold the world. They seem to think that their way is the only way. I humbly suggest that a majority of citizens in a majority of the "developed" world would indeed be happy with their lot in life, unlike perhaps a significant percentage of citizens in the US with their exhorbitant drug prices, as well as an *entire* economy that is beholden to vested and exceedingly rich interest groups.

I repeat my first advice, have a read of this weeks' TIME magazine (I have no financial involvement with TIME, or any of its subsidaries), as it is a *real* eye opener.

Posted by: Pat D at February 10, 2004 at 04:44 PM

Stephen Conroy, Labor's trade spokesman said today that not one Austalian cow alive today would ever make it onto an American BBQ. Would it be too much trouble for Lathum to get someone who actually knows what they are talking about? At the moment Australia can export 376000 tonnes of beef to the US tarrif free, which is the equivalent of more than 1000000 cows, and this will rise by 20000 tonnes in the first couple of years of the FTA. Not that we'll have it to sell in the next couple of yaers becuase of the drought. I wish the Labor party was as concerned for us farmers when I was paying 22% on my loan when they were in power. While I am at it, if Lathum wants to reform parliament, what about getting rid of ALP Caucus solidarity, which forces ALP politicians to vote the way that the party tells them to on pain of expulsion. This is more of a corruption of parliament than a dotothy dix question surely.

Posted by: Ambrose Doolan at February 10, 2004 at 09:52 PM