Tim Blair

Why jump from farmers to film stars?

While the terrorism angle is far-fetched, the basic point about agricultural subsidies and free trade is dead on.

Government welfare is used to ensure a high standard of living in developed nations, and I don't think people are willing to sacrifice that in the interests of a more egalitarian world.

Not to mention the IP provisions of the free
trade agreements. Every developed nation flouted
the IP laws of other countries right and left
during their own rise to prominence, then rushed
to impose their own IP laws on other developing
nations. Long live the Mouse...

Why the jump from farmers to film, Michael? Because the film industry opposes reduced farming tariffs, for one. Here’s the MEAA’s Chris Warren:

“We don't accept that it's OK to trade off our important industries for the interests of, perhaps, agricultural products, or for some other gain.”

Surely in that quote he is opposing sacrificing the TV/film industry in exchange for reduced *US* farming tariffs?

He does not appear to be commenting on reducing Australian farming tariffs.

We demand zero tariffs on rusty vans, knit vests, C4, Semtex and nitropril! (And maybe assorted bits of hardware, ball-bearings and attractive goats- they do NOT have foot-and-mouth disease, Infidel quarantine officer, it is merely a mild case of herpes).

In fact, I think the quote from Tutu is practically perfect, if you take it out of the link-everything-to-terrorism context. It's a good explanation of third world poverty, and why the situation is unlikely to change.

Michael you are a dope!

High tariffs don't "ensure a high standard of living in developed nations". Economic development in rich countries like US and Australia has been achieved despite, not because of, the trade sanctions we impose on ourselves in the form of tariffs.

The biggest winners from cutting tariffs are consumers in the country that cuts them. Foreign producers, including those in poor countries, would also benefit from access to our markets – an added bonus.

You are right to say that lower tariffs in the west would help poor countries (tell it to the local unions and the think-global-act-stupid crowd). But the benefit is tiny compared to the benefit poor countries would get if they addressed their own often insane domestic policies and corrupt public institutions.

matt, I do not believe that your assertion is correct. If agricultural tariffs and subsidies were dropped in Australia, America and Europe there would be a lot of unemployed farmers shortly afterwards, no? I certainly don't think that tariffs have *harmed* economic development, as you seem to imply. All of the economic giants of today were incredibly protectionist at the time their economies were developing, and have only adopted free trade in specific instances where it was to their benefit.

While some consumers benefit from cutting tariffs, the newly-unemployed consumers do not. The fact is, people overseas can do a lot of the stuff we do for less, and put us out of a job or greatly reduce our working conditions if we attempt to compete fairly on price. So, we don't, instead we put up tariffs and subsidise our local producers, to maintain our high standard of living. That is an obvious choice that people make time and time again, for the thought of losing your own livelihood for the abstract benefit of others is not generally palatable.

I believe that the lack of free trade does much more harm to poor countries than "insane" domestic policies (any examples?) and corrupt public institutions. It would also reduce the global drug trade, which is often the only cash crop worth producing given the barriers to the trade of others.

Tutu has done a fine job of explaining why all the 9/11 terrorists came from Costa Rica. If only America would open its markets to imported sugar like it has for imported oil, we'd be as safe from Latin American terrorism as we are from Middle Eastern terrorism.

Iraq has zero tariffs- that's why Syrians, Saudis, Pakistanis and assorted other dingbats have stopped flocking over the border to blow themselves (and lots of other people) to bits.
Tutu is a flake- he should be lashed around the midriff of some sweaty ballerina.
And I'm all for free trade, but not to pander to terrorists or bucketheads like deadshit Des.

Michael, mate, if you were not real PJ O’Rourke would have made you up. Read “Eat the Rich” it’s examines the very issue you are talking about and it’s very funny.

Even the (sane) opponents of tariff cuts no longer argue that high tariffs are good for the economy – they make up all sorts of bogus reasons like the benefits of quaint mini-farming culture (‘multi-functionality’ of some crap), defence capacity through manufacturing, protect our creative class blah blah blah… You’re really on a loser with this line of argument Michael.

Any examples of insane economic policies in the third world? Oh, I don’t know, Zimbabwe’s ‘land reform’, India’s bureaucracy, Peru’s virtually non-existent contract law, Latin America’s appallingly vague property rights and almost complete lack of capital markets.

A much better question is “Can you tell me a poor third world country that has open markets, free trade, strong property rights, democratic institutions and doesn’t have a government culture of corruption”? Taiwan perhaps? Guess that’s why they’re no longer poor.

Tutu is out to lunch if he means that literally, but I still think the world, including the west, would be much safer and better off if we started seriously reducing our agricultural subsidies now.

Most gripes the 3rd world have with the west are either far-fetched or long ago, but we have every reason to be ashamed of paying big tax payer subsidies to our farmers at the cost of 3rd world countries.

Well, our farmers should be ashamed of accepting them and still crying poor-mouth, then, as they seem to do every year or so. Michael: I refuse to cry over the poor, unemployed farmer. I used to, and then in occurred to me that I had had to get a new job after my previous employer went bust, why can't they? Screw "lifestyle" and fantasies of being a son of the soil and all that.

But in any case, your earnest, thick-headed posts have once more taken the argument off the rails. I will return it to its course: poverty is not the cause of terrorism. Terrorists are most often well-to-do members of the middle class, or what passes for such, in their countries, who are hungry for power. Such members of the poorer classes who get involved in terrorism usually end up as "cannon fodder" -- and if there were no poor, then there would be the millions of disaffected middle-class youth who think the world owes them a living to reap from.

Here I was thinking it was the refusal of the US to sign the Kyoto protocol that was the reason al-Qaeda was so angry?

Yeah, I thought "Al Qaeda" meant "Save the Whales!" in Arabic.

Andrea, in Tim's world, farmers don't get subsidised, actors do! And foreign corporations don't get fat government handouts, but local tv productions do!

I oppose tariffs and subsidies for failing industries. Other people don't. Why don't they? Because they benefit from them. Some people here (matt) seem to be saying that no one benefits from tariffs, and that having them is a noble act of self-sacrifice. Weird.

matt, how can a third world country "have free trade"? It takes two to trade. Are you saying that those arrogant third world countries are refusing to purchase our subsidised exports while flooding our markets with cheap imports? How cruel of them.

Woops, that last one was from me. Sorry matt, a slip of the fingers.

I'd just like to make a comment on the "national security" aspect of protected industries. In the late 19th century American industries were protected by very high tariffs. This was especially true of the steel industry. When the US Navy started to build steel ships with modern, high-velocity guns, the steel industry in the US could not provide the specialty steel for armor and big-gun barrels since that required special manufacturing techniques and alloying processes that had no applications in civilian manufacture. The steel companies refused to set up facilities for making such steels as they were doing very nicely making what the naval officers referred to as "pot metal" for buildings and rail track. The Navy had to get a special authorization from Congress to buy armor plate from Europe, Austria-Hungary I think, before the steel companies would start making the necessary steel here. In other words, to get the necessary capabilities for safeguarding the nation at sea the Navy had to temporarily break the tariff protections of the steel companies.

The Australian Motor Industry benefits from tariffs- as horrible an act of terrorism that ever befel a nation. You think truck bombs are bad, we have to drive Mitsubishi Magnas.

Hey Clem.

"Heya Zeke."

What you not growing this year?

"Well this year is a good year not to grow corn. But I went with wheat instead."

Well Zeke, Wheat don't grow around here.

"Yeah? Well it'll make it that much easier not to grow any then won't it?"

Guess so.

...............
Farmers paid not to grow crops so prices on the world market will stay high, and the only sellers end up being the big growers sounds like a bad thing. Unless your a farmer. Geting paid not to grow beets, or squash, or oranges, or whatever is getting paid the most this year for not being grown.

Anybody who comes in here going off about 1st world tarrifs obviously doesn't understand what the majority of us Right Wing Derath Beast want. So, I shall do a quick recap - we would like smaller government, lower taxes, free trade (including no tarrifs and the right for third world nations to replace first world jobs such as call centres), resolute direct action against terrorists and non-democratic regimes. I think that about covers it without getting into the trickier religious/ moral stuff like abortions and gun ownership.

And why do we support this stuff? Because it is proven to be the best outcome for the majority of people.

So Michael, let's get this quite clear - WE DO NOT SUPPORT AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES FOR ANYONE, nor subsidies for anyone or anything else. The market is the best judge of what is best for everybody, except for Public goods such as defence, but you could contract that out too of you really wanted too.

Razor, thanks, that's a very clear and concise summary.

I think you lost it at the "because it is proven" part, though :)

And your definition of "public goods" could do with some clarification, because there will be a lot of people in rural areas bereft of services as soon as the market is given the power to determine their fate.

This thread is a perfect example of why certain people shouldnt be allowed to comment on economic issues. This was shown painfully when some journalists opined on the FTA.
The statement by Micheal encapsulates it nicely -

"if agricultural tariffs and subsidies were dropped in Australia, America and Europe there would be a lot of unemployed farmers shortly afterwards, no?"

That is true, but the point is that if the market is allowed to allocate resources, then the jobs lost in an inefficient sector will be more than replaced by expanding jobs in another sector. This has been shown consistently since the industrial revolution. Certain people critical of free trade are just modern day Luddites. They claimed that the knitting mills and other factories would be the end of the working man, as all the jobs would be taken by machines. Has this happened? Nope. Productivity per worker has increased exponentially, and the economy has continued to expand. Say it together kids - protectionism is bad.

Also I think that economic conservatism and religious conservatism are two separate things. For example, there is a strong demand for abortion services, and the market provides such services. Nonetheless, some people attempt to regulate such services.

and while i am on the topic - i think Tim's linke to the tv protection issue was very clever, as well as amusing, and i think Matts question:

"“Can you tell me a poor third world country that has open markets, free trade, strong property rights, democratic institutions and doesn’t have a government culture of corruption”?"

Will never be able to be answered by the various trolls on here

If those Arabs blowing themselves up are sugar farmers angry at US tariff walls, can we expect to see the US Embassy in Canberra being bombed by cane growers from the Al Aksa Brigade (FNQ Branch)?

Habib, please do not treat goats as sex objects (unless you are a Rugby League player).

atilla, to which I ask you the same question: how can a poor country have "free trade" by itself? It takes two to trade.

Appeasement, yes!

As a concrete example, the US is applying pressure on Australia and Taiwan to increase the length of their copyright terms in exchange for increased access to US markets. Since when was unfettered plundering of the public domain in the public good? In what way is this the invisible hand of the market bringing people benefits?

Razor, it's strange that the right wing is *so* set against agricultural subsidies, and yet they don't seem to be going away. Presumably no right wing government has ever been in power? Or perhaps once they get in power, like Bush, they soften their approach somewhat?

Michael - what sort of proof are you looking for? Living standards, GDP, life expectancy...what? They all prove it. Even in Iraq the majority of people now think they are better off and they expect to be even better off next year, depsite that fact that they are a fledgling democracy.

As for the rural areas - absofuckinglutely. If you choose to run a business and cannot make a profit then get out. In Australia, for example, there are far too many farmers who are either operating in marginal areas, bad business people, or over subsidised. They should get out and go and do something else.

My family's heritage is wharfies who used to carry wheat sacks onto squared rigged sailing ships in Fremantle harbour, and guess what - we don't do that anymore! Afuckingmazing. My Mother was a Real Estate Agent until Paul Keating gave us 18% home loans, so she changed jobs...unbelievable isn't it. I was sick of my job four years ago so I started my own business and now employ two others and make shit loads more now than in my previous job. If it wasn't for the high taxes I'd employ more people. All without welfare or subsidies.

Every individual is responsible for their own outcomes, so go and do something useful with your life instead of trolling with shit you don't even understand.

Michael

Why do ships float and rocks sink?

Michael, you sure say some dumb things.

Why would a free trade zealot like me complain about being flooded with cheap imports. The whole reason you trade is to consume imports, exporting is how you pay for them. Thicky!

Still waiting for a third world country with open markets, free trade (policies), strong property rights, democratic institutions and no culture of corruption...

What the fuck do you think all the teeth gnashing over the FTA has been about? Increased protection?

Oh, you were expecting a 100% perfect solution without any allowance for things like elections and the like. Sorry, didn't know you lived in a perfect world.

Razor, that is so true. And yet, those pesky
farmers keep voting in governments that won't
take away their handouts. What can we do?

matt, I'll try to find a poor country that engages in free trade; you try and find a conservative government that has actually reduced farm subsidies and tariffs. How about it?

Can you find my keys,Michael?

Michael - both the Bush and Howard governments are reducing farm subsidies and tarrifs with the FTA. Idyyioott

May, 2002:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Monday
signed a 10-year, $190 billion farm bill that
promises to expand subsidies to growers.

Looks like I was wrong about Australian farm subsidies, there seems to be more protection for the clothing and textile industries.

National Competition Policy saw the unwinding of rural subsidies and anti competitive marketing arrangements in most agricultural sectors - dairy, rice, sugar, grains (unfortunately the compensation was taxpayer funded but hopefully not permanent).
This occurred under Liberal and Labor state and federal governments.
Or don't you remember Pauline Hanson?

"atilla, to which I ask you the same question: how can a poor country have "free trade" by itself? It takes two to trade."

You werent asking me the same question Michael, you were ignoring my question (which was actually Matts), then asking a different question. Its how all trolls operate - say something stupid and baseless, have somebody refute it, ignore the correction, and make another stupid comment/rhetorical question.

So to do my bit in answering one of your many rhetorical questions - right wing governments have not always reduced farm subsidies because taking a full free trade position is very difficult politically. The left, in their ignorance, will not support it, and sections of the right, in their selfishness, wont support it either.
Free trade is a principled position, where some lose in the short term, and some gain, and society gains as a whole. This is anathema to the political process, where everything has to be sugar coated as being beneficial for all. Witness the outrageous suggestion of paying subsidies to sugar farmers who 'missed out' on the FTA

Phashing tariffs are still in force- TCF rates will drop to 17.5% by 2005, and I should know, I'm a Customs Broker. Countries covered by the five (yes five) FTAs we have signed will drop to eith a concessional rate of 12.5% or zero, depending on the terms- that's why Doug Cameron and his coterie of commie curmugeons had such a hissy fit. The motor sector is stayind cossetted, however; I'd rather have a Supra or a M3 beemer than a Toyota Camry, but try telling Canberra that.

Give up Michael, you are wrong about almost everything.

So basically, you agree with my statement that "Government welfare is used to ensure a high standard of living in developed nations, and I don't think people are willing to sacrifice that in the interests of a more egalitarian world."?

The ones who won't forego the welfare are the ones on it because they couldn't be buggered getting out and doing whatever it takes to get off the government payroll and the bleeding heart socialists and wet liberals. Sounds like you, you drop kick.

Shucks, you're right, the government sponsored my education, which I am now repaying with interest. If it wasn't for those dastardly socialist policies, I could have been flipping burgers at Hungry Jacks by now!

Can I have some onion rings, Michael ?

The same damn government provided public hospital care for my grandfather after he had a stroke! Since he can't afford private health cover, they should have left him to die on the street!

Luckily, they at least privatised social security. Now it's more efficient... wait, less efficient, and costs more, and forces more people into a downward spiral of poverty. But it's new range of logos and promotional leaflets look so much cooler!

What's even better, is when wingnuts froth at the mouth at the thought of the welfare mother, living off the state and popping out kids as fast as she can make 'em.

Then they laugh at Europe for its declining birthrate.

Truly, the disconnect between those two views is something to behold.

Then they laugh at Europe for its declining birthrate.

Is that one of those "You had to be there" sort of jokes?

Perhaps "they triumphantly point at the declining birthrate and prophesy its decline into irrelevance".

"Taunt" is probably the word I am looking for here.

If birthrate was really the crucial issue, the welfare mother would be a national hero.

If big government was such a bad thing, I'd be expecting a lot more hue and cry about taxpayer funding for the Grand Prix, Bathurst, the Olympics...

Thankyou for proving my point Michael - using a scattershot approach to various issues, and making decent points about none of them. I also like your continual use of 'they'. You like to claim that 'they' did something, or said something, then devastatingly destroy 'their' position.
Who on here suggested that government had no role to play in education or health care? Nobody, except yourself in mockery.
And your statements about the 'privatisation' of social security and its effects are given without any evidence, other than your hyperbole.
You are a troll, but more regretably, you arent even a very good one.
Any bets that the education that the government paid for was an arts degree?

Science/Engineering, I'm afraid. Sorry to burst your bubble.

"The market is the best judge of what is best for everybody"

Except for education, health care, communications, transportation, defence, police, sport and morality.

For "they", substitute "the habitual posters on this weblog".

Or is the "Europe is in decline 'cos they don't have enough kids" meme just *so* last week?

A common refrain (around here) is that the government has no business funding or otherwise interfering with the arts.

This apparent concern does not extend to government funding of sport, such as motor racing, for example.

Frankly, I don't care either way. But the pretence that such a position is principled and sensible and not contradictory irritates the heck out of me.

Atilla's got your number, Michael, sorry. Try shutting up more.

Michael, you're mental!

All the welfare state has done is to encourage those that shouldn't breed to do so, while those who should are too busy working to get around to it. Simple enough even for you, mikey?

And if your grand-daddy has reached an age when he's blowing gaskets and still hasn't made himself financially secure or insured for health problems, he deserves to be living in a skip. How long do you think we should pay for people, Mike?

Habib, ah, I see that you are an afficianado of Nazi eugenics programs also!

How many assumptions do you get with a kids meal,Michael ?

Oh for fucks sake... Drago... DRAGO...where the fuck is that guy when you need him.

Someone go get Drago, this Michael guy needs sorting out asap.

I used to respect Tutu. Lately, I've wondered what his problem is. Alzheimers, maybe?

Fuck Michael, thanks for alerting us to the new tactic of trolls around here, ie building a straw man of posters here and then trying to impress people with your handy demolition.

I have not seen one poster here argue that government sponsorship of sport, olympics etc was a good thing.

You just made it up to "prove" your point.

You're wrong, Quentin!

You're wrong, Quentin!

You're wrong, Quentin!

See? The strategy is to post so often that people just can't talk to you. The one with the most posts wins.

"As a concrete example, the US is applying pressure on Australia and Taiwan to increase the length of their copyright terms in exchange for increased access to US markets. Since when was unfettered plundering of the public domain in the public good? In what way is this the invisible hand of the market bringing people benefits?"

IP is the opposite of "free markets". It is a state intervention into the market motivated by supposed market failure when dealing with the production of goods that have non-rivalrous consumption properties.

I agree with it to some degree, but the usual rent-seekers tend to extend IP beyond what I, and most likely you, consider reasonable. That, however, has a whole lot to do with politics, and rather little with market forces.

As for unemployment, it is a trivial problem. What is difficult if getting people Gainful Employment, which is a rather different matter. (I could wipe out all unemployment with the stroke of a pen if given the authority to ship all job-seekers off to ditch-digging camp. That doesn't mean the camps would increase living standards very much...)

/Döbeln

-Stabil som fan!

Erm, insert "especially when dealing with goods that have non-rivalrous consumption properties". Wrote a bit too quickly there ;)

/ Döbeln

-Stabil som fan!

All right, that's it. Michael, everyone has answered you questions not once, but several times. What's more, everyone has fucking agreed with you that tariffs are bad, yet you still argue. I am afraid that the Michael Hour is now over, we are returning to our regularly scheduled program of comment threads that are not taken over by one poster. In other words, I am banning you until you either get your own life or your own blog.

You see Michael, well, take your statement:

"'The market is the best judge of what is best for everybody'

Except for education, health care, communications, transportation, defence, police, sport and morality."

That's the exception that proves the rule. See some of those simply couldn't be done in a way which the users get charged. The rest, such as sports, morality, education, healthcare, transportation, and communication, would be better off without the government paying. Just like sugar, where the people who use sugar can buy it: there's no reason for the people who don't to.

To get these large scale projects/programs done, you need a lot of pooled resources. So, the government collects a whole bunch of resources. Now it listens to whole bunch of ideas about topics/industries/markets it knows little about. Then, it allocates those resources by giving them out to people who will keep them in their job, or promote them, and who will also give them some kickbacks. It also spreads around some of those resources to misclaneous persons and programs to look respectable like. Generally, the idea is to try not to give away too much in kickbacks and "alms" so that the people who produce the resources it allocated still keep some of the benefit of their efforts and get some benefit from the various allocations so they will continue to produce more. It does this in an obscure way so that if a particular project/program doesn't produce any benefit, it shouldn't get noticed. Some projects that benefit the nice productive people, and are wanted by them, are done in a way that makes the benefits less obvious so that the ones that don't, don't look so bad.

Now, take a look at your education. You borrowed money from the government to go to school. The government paid for some your schooling before that. It probably also paid for some of the equipment and buildings that you and your fellow student used. You probably decided to go to school because you wanted to, and because you figured it would help you make more money later, and therefore pay more taxes. You see, you really just borrowed all the money for your schooling, and you'll pay it back with interest, unless you fail in life. You'll also be paying for those kickbacks and "alms" with interest. Luckily, you're a good engineer so it won't be a problem.

Now, let's say the government doesn't pay for any of your school and let's also pretend your parents didn't abandon you in the woods. Do you think they would have borrowed the money to pay for you to go to school? No, well I can't blame them. But say some other parents and some other kid. I know, your probably thinking maybe not. But, also consider that their taxes have been a lot lower so they make a lot more money and interest rates for education are almost exactly at inflation.

well, the interest rates are at inflation until jonny's grades slip anyway (don't worry too much, previous years are kept at inflation and if johnny gets his grades up, the extra points this year will come off).

Anyone else see Tutu on Chris Matthews' Hardball program? He basically said that the Pentagon was a legit target and that the people killed there were not innocent victims. Deferential Matthews let it go. Pieces of shit, both of them.

Drago is back, exclusively over at the Daily Diatribe .
As the new agent of Drago, I am open to applications to set his unusual but effective Kosovo Kleansing methods loose on deserving targets; going by his last missive, he is politically correct- Drago has shown he is wheelchair accessable.

As to eugenics, I think it is a loathsome concept.
Same as I regard state sponsored breeding programs of the feckless and stupid to garner votes.
People should be able to have as many children as their income supports.
Why should other people have to sponsor the breeding habits of anyone?

Getting in late. The only reasons for government programs in general are "market failure" type situations. That is, there is a known good but no way to price its benefit according to received value. For instance, then, national defense is a "market failure" good, provided that you want a national defense. It is good for everyone (or should be) equally, but how much protection anyone is getting or what the value of it is very hard to determine.

Thus, is Bill Gates getting a greater value from national defense than I am because he has more wealth being protected? That's actually a very hard question to answer.

Other things that can be approximately measured but in which the benefits come much later than the cost can also be seen this way. Education is one. It benefits us all to some extent to have a well-educated population, and it benefits some individuals (both those who gain employment and those who employ qualified workers) to various more-or-less calculable amounts, but the cost is ncurred up front and the benefits occur later.

Likewise, sewage systems make everyone healthier, and we can measure costs and benefits pretty closely, but the huge upfront cost makes it an attractive governrment program _at the outset_.

We also subsidize things to insure that short-term interruptions of provision ruin the whole scheme of production. Thus, agricultural subsidies.

The point is, at some point, many "market failures" no longer are. Once up and running, costs and benefits can be pretty fully measured. At that point it makes sense to consider "privatization" or pulling the subsidy.

When you try that, anyone who currently believes that their perceived current and future benefit outweights their cost under the government service or subsidy system is going to try to keep it. Democratic systems (true ones) make it difficult (not impossible) to change such systems either quickly or at all.

I.e. democracy is no cure for human selfishness.

I'm sure Michael's grandfather (or great grandfather or whatever) was perfectly happy to spend his own money as he wanted believing that when he needed health care it would be provided by the money of others. I don't blame him a bit, but that doesn't make it either right or a good ides.

Same for US farm subsidies, and I grew up on a farm and was in ag business for years.