Could Similar Tariffs to Trump's Plan Fix an Australian Unemployment Problem?

As global trade dynamics shift, the dinner table conversation around tariffs has resurfaced.

What if Australia decided to implement tariffs on imported goods?

Manufacturing jobs have been hollowed out by successive governments, with many regional areas suffering the brunt of the Coalition's policies for advocating free trade. Over the past few decades, many aspects of our society have suffered some devolution with a large number of high paying jobs being shifted to low income countries.

Australia does not manufacture anything meaningful anymore. The jobs created would need to involve more than just assembling of products. Tesla is widely touted as being a car assembler, not a car manufacturer.

One of the side effects of tariffs could include a decrease in income taxes.

What types of jobs do you believe could be re-shored back into Australia? Would you consider working in those industries if they adhered to developed nation safety standards? This is crucial, as many industries are often reported in the media as being undesirable due to lax standards in lower-income countries. Surely, Australia could manufacture lithium batteries better than most countries they are currently being produced in.

Overall safety is improved as a net result. A net benefit to the global economy is created by utilising tariffs. Adam Smith's theories of a benefit to society only seem relevant if you suspend disbelief and do not price in the effect to workers, environment and other external costs. Globalisation has not worked. It has created a culture where people are Ice Cold to others, demeaning them in bad employment situations where they are exploited for a few dollars.

By bringing back jobs to Australia, it goes a long way to remediating this issue. Interest groups focus on sustainable this and sustainable that, but how about starting with locally produced goods?

Can Australia keep affording to run trade deficits with so many countries? Where are the good jobs? Sure, there are service jobs here and there but they are low paying jobs that cannot arguably sustain a family starting from nothing, in that you cannot actually afford a house with a backyard.

Comments

      • -1

        I think it is important to note that Australian manufacturing is much more down the road then the US.

  • -4

    Full employment is a government policy. It's not dictated by tariffs or free trade.

    Also, lost me at 'Coalition policies for advocating free trade' as successive ALP governments have been responsible for floating of currency, fundamental changes to Australian economy and share market, removal of tariffs (22% in the 80s, removed by Keating, down to 7%? By Howard) and it was the ALP in 2008 that joined the TPP discussions.

    This pro ALP posting by fresh accounts in a caretaker period really is on the nose tbh

    • +4

      The Liberals are up to their neck in questionable dealings.

      Example: https://www.smh.com.au/national/liberal-andrew-robb-took-880…

      Quite convenient for the ex LNP trade minister to take a $880k job with China after negotiating the free trade agreement.

      Look at all the money the Liberal party siphoned away during COVID.

      Liberal party mismanagement has put us close to a trillion of debt.

      • +1

        Im not arguing that. Both crap.

        But Im sick of pro party posts by shill accounts posing as some kind of discussion stimulus

      • +2

        The other chicken that's home to roost?
        Darwin port — Landbridge.
        Suddenly it's a problem for Dutton?

        Coalition scrapped the debt ceiling too, after raising it to $600bn in 2017.

        They got AUKUS wrong. Might as well get energy mix wrong too!

  • +40

    Do we have an unemployment problem? A quick google suggests unemployment is currently at or around the equal lowest it as been over the last 50 years.

    There could be a discussion around underemployment or the types of employment (eg. gig economy), but those are distinct from unemployment.

    • +17

      Unemployment is too low
      Households are struggling, basically require 2x incomes to service a mortgage these days, hence record high female participation rate - see increase over last 10 years
      People staying in work longer as they can't afford to retire

      Low unemployment means living standards are going backwards, it reflects economic pressure, not prosperity — people are working more because they can’t afford not to

      • +18

        Hard to imagine how additional manufacturing jobs competing against countries like China, Vietnam, India with low wages could result in higher living standards.

        • +9

          well we should look to the sort of manufacturing done in germany, france, canada; high-tech, innovative industries like automotive and aerospace
          however would take a massive realignment of the economy and national priorities to do so. Much easier just to buy and sell shelter and dirt….

          • +3

            @Gdsamp: This is where Australia has fallen behind, we should be the value add leaders of the world. We have the education facilities, the capital and the attractive lifestyle to smart people that we could have invested big in that. We didn't though.

            We're too busy whinging that we want the richest lifestyle possible, a multi-million dollar retirement and a gold plated aged care system without doing anything of real merit.

            • +10

              @[Deactivated]: Albo is literally pushing this as hard as he can futuremadeinaustralia.gov.au

              There's grants for modern advanced equipment and tooling, government contracts prioritising Australian business for contracts (yes i have received one).

              Albo even nationalised an important defense manufacturer who is making an exporting high tech Radars to make sure they stay secure & Australian.

              https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2023-04-2…

              • +3

                @AnotherRedLight: You're right, the government is trying and it wasn't an attack on Albo in particular. I'm talking the last 50 years of Australia.

                If you look at our economic complexity we rank way, way down there. While we have a few areas we've done well (particularly military and medicine) there's a lot left to be desired.

          • -1

            @Gdsamp: And coffee and smashed avos..

          • +1

            @Gdsamp: Do the workers in those factories have a high standard of living?

          • +7

            @Gdsamp: Exactly what Albo is pushing for. But it's not something that happens overnight. It's one of those things that requires execution of a medium to long term plan until then, Liberal will come along and change the plans. Not favouring one or the other, we just need consistency. It's like saying, "I purchased a property a held it for 10 year and I am now just about positively geared. Then plans change (political party) and you sell it". You worked hard and suffered all the losses to start reaping the benefits but your direction changes now.

            I am working on a transport infrastructure program now where the plan is to support 50%+ locally manufactured trains rather than purchase commercial off the shelf from S Korea, Spain or France. The first batch of production is expected to be in 2030 and we will soon be building a production facility to do this. But if the political agenda changes, most of this will go to waste and the facility will only be used to "assemble and stable" trains.

      • Penalise those people owning more than one house.

        • -1

          So how would people find rentals?

          • +1

            @Mythreesons: More shelters will be available for renters to actually purchase.

            According to Census 2021 data:

            Greater Sydney

            People 5,231,147
            Families 1,380,176
            All private dwellings 2,076,284
            Average number of people per household 2.7

            https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/20…

            Meaning 1,937,000 households give or take and slightly more than 2,000,000 private dwellings (excl. govt owned dwellings).

            It doesn't look like we have dire shortage of places to live in Sydney, so it's all about availability.

      • +2

        Heard a left wing journalist say a few weeks ago 'women joining the workforce has increased household income, but the cost of housing has outpaced income growth'. So maybe they will push for children to enter the workforce soon.

        The causes are complex, you have to also consider the move to fiat currency which enabled leverage and financialisation of the entire economy, driving up wealth inequality to levels beyond those that saw previous societies collapse.

        Inflating house prices makes people feel rich, it also increases the cost of living. Eventually these homeowners will retire and they won't be able to afford to keep the house, they will downsize. Some downsize by moving to a rural city, some to a caravan, some into renting.

        The assets will be transferred to a smaller pool of wealther people and the middle class will disappear

        • +2

          women joining the workforce has increased household income, but the cost of housing has outpaced income growth

          While number of billionaires is growing like yeast. From 34 billionaires in 2015 to 170 in 2025 (according to 'The List – Australia's Richest 250'). With collective wealth went from $591 billions in 2024 to $689 billion dollars (that's 16.6% growth in just one year, from 2024 to 2025).

          I wonder who lost all these money so they would re-appear up there?

          • @corvusman: Noone lost dollars, that's what makes it hard to identify. However as money is simply a medium of exchange not a store of value, what matters is the realtive amount of money everyone has.

            As the wealthiest people now have a lot more of it than you do, you have become poorer even though your home and wage has increased in value on paper.

            People are becoming poorer and cheering as their home increases in price - the fact that house prices are rapidly increasing when wages are not tells us that the wealthy are buying the homes that belong to the working class. Meanwhile the working class continues to believe rubbish like 'money printing' and government payments for the NDIS or jobseeker are making them poorer

      • Fair point but the better stat is participation rate which is at an all time high. People once they retire or take care of kids or anything that is not looking for work quickly drop out as being classified as unemployed.

    • +6

      The gig economy completely distorts the unemployment rate.

      You only need to work one hour to not count.

      Many of these jobs (Uber etc) are said to end up paying less than the minimum wage after expenses are taken into account. Hardly a prosperous result for society.

      • +1

        Yeah, agreed. There is a lot more unemployment than what is shown in the data.

      • Scary thing is how many people coming from Overseas study here get a degree and can't get a job and them doing Uber Driving delivery etc…

  • +16

    Member Since
    55 min ago

    • +4

      I hope this is a homework question, or someone from Trumpet of Patriots studying voter opinions.

    • -1

      Showing 1hr 1min for me…

    • +6

      ADANMHS

      • +3

        Approved

  • +6

    lol… no. It would have the opposite affect.

  • +4

    We have low unemployment already. Most people who want to have a job can have one. Sure, it won't be their dream job, but how many of us have that?

    If we raise tariffs then guess what happens? Our trading partners raise theirs to us. There are many products we buy every day that are just impractical to make here.

    People advocating for tariffs should think of it this way: it's your own government implementing huge new taxes on many things you buy every day. Now, how many people like large new taxes? Anyone? I thought so.

    • +3

      We have low unemployment already. Most people who want to have a job can have one

      We even have people who want one job but have 2nd or 3rd job to make ends meet.

      • Yeah. Here Here.

        You can't survive on one job anymore, which is why I originally posted it.

        Australia does have an unemployment problem, and maybe I should be more precise and technical about defining the problem. It's mix of an underemployment issue and not being able to physically work enough hours to afford a house with a backyard. It has gotten to the point where if you don't have the bank of mum and dad, there is an incentive not to participate in society.

        A large amount of unemployment is also hidden in the participation rate, but I don't think people here understand the complex statistical calculation that goes into that…

        In parts of regional Australia where these manufacturing jobs are traditionally located, there definitely has been a large unemployment void left; but sadly most people will ignore that. The Coalition basically destroyed regional Australia.

        I still don't know if Trump's policies will fail as China keeps devaluing the Yuan and now a consortium of countries are selling treasuries causing yields to rise and effectively blocking any efforts by the Fed to reduce rates… Rumours are that Japan is now upset and selling treasuries…

  • +11

    damn straight br0
    fully supporting ya
    im going to start a new car company
    ozbargaincars

    shouldnt be too hard to build a plant here right? they sell manufacturing plants on temu right? dropshipped and operational in 3 months right?
    ive got 10 bucks in my bank accoutn that should cover it right?
    we have plenty of talented people to work on the plant in, sydney land prices are cheap right?
    we make all the parts for the car locall right?
    with high unemployement labour should be cheap right?
    people ok with the car costing 1m right?

    • +4

      car costing 1m

      lol Americans about to find out the hard way it’s the rest of the world that’s been subsidising their goods, industries and lifestyles

      • +3

        They will soon understand why Europeans drive tiny cars and have no air conditioning. What's the point of buying an air conditioner if you can't afford to turn it on

        • -1

          Wow, that's a good point. I never thought about it like that.

          I have been on some holidays in France and Italy, and always wondered why the Ubers never turned on the air conditioning! By the time you ask them to turn it on, usually it doesn't get cold enough, and you are already at your destination by then… That is if you are not tired enough to ask them to turn it on…

  • +2

    Tesla is widely touted as being a car assembler, not a car manufacturer.

    Source on this? They are more well known for the opposite, that is they do more in house than almost any other car manufacturer.

    That’s why their software/interface is miles ahead - because others need to integrate software from dozens of other companies. Tesla writes their own.

    • +2

      software/interface is miles ahead

      Oh the irony !!!
      We have been using the metric system for many decades now…

    • It's something that one of Trump's lackeys said recently on Fox. He's just mindlessly repeating it.

  • +7

    I'm can't really participate in this conversation as the economy is a complex thing. Neither can the OP, it seems

    • economy is a complex thing.

      Read up on how tariffs work. They aren't that complex and nearly always bad for a country…

      • It is basically taxes to keep workers who are not good at what they are doing on the world stage and should find another job.

        • +1

          and it is the workers themselves paying the taxes…

          The result is inefficient industries that will struggle to compete with the same industries overseas…

    • I am not sure where I stand on a lot of these complex topics, but there a lot of differing opinions on here. I had slowly read through it and then give some thought to which comments I should reply to.

      I deliberately skipped over some comments, so if some people didn't get a reply, it's because I believe replying will lead to being trapped in a conversational loop.

      It was slightly overwhelming when I first woke up today to look at the number of posts, but I realised I should actually reply to some comments.

      Also I tried to upvote some posts which I thought were insightful, but if I replied to might lead to some controversial argument going back and forth…

  • +1

    No can do.

    For example, Workers in Shein factories on average earn between 6,000 and 10,000 Chinese yuan per month, or about $831 to $1,385 (I assume USD). They work 75 hour weeks.

    No Australian would be prepared to work those hours for that pay, even if you double the pay.

    Even if you increase tariffs on clothing to say 1000%, many Australians will probably eventually have to go naked before anyone takes up one of these types of jobs.

    Source: https://www.fashiondive.com/news/shein-public-eye-factory-wo…

    • -5

      They work 75 hour weeks.
      No Australian would be prepared to work those hours for that pay, even if you double the pay.

      Australians do for double that pay, it's called FIFO

      • -2

        FIFO workers earn 200 times the income ihbh quoted.

        • +1

          FIFO workers do not earn $200,000 USD per month.

      • I don't think producing clothing is a lucrative as mining though?

        • We produced clothing in Australia up to the 90s. Free trade agreements killed it, so tarrifs do work.

          The vast majority of workers were recent immigrants, a lot from Vietnam. Australians wouldn't work for minimum wage hunched over a machine for 8 hours a day, with a bell to tell you when you could take a 30 min break, and a foreman closely watching your output as you needed to keep pace with the production line.

          The factory would be paid around $15 for 1 piece of finished clothing such as a womens suit jacket, the brand owner would supply the material so that could be considered the profit, minus the cost of rent, the machinery and wages. It was always going to be a minimum wage job for the workers.

          These items of clothing would sell for hundreds of dollars, the retailer who did nothing more than display it on a rack made multiple times more profit than the manufacturer. Nevertheless, making 1000% profit wasn't enough, production moved offshore because they could supply it much cheaper than $15.

          Now the women in Vietnam make our clothes and we should believe the Vietnamese immigrants that used to do these jobs in Australia have moved to high skilled work. Most likely they are doing cleaning jobs now.

          Bringing back manufacturing isn't a solution, the only workers that made good money were in the heavily unionised car industry, and that is never coming back.

          • @greatlamp: And we couldn't keep the car industry alive even with massive government support payments for a couple decades

    • +1

      Nor should they.

      If Australia's resources went to the population instead of a small proportion of billion dollar companies and executives, there would be a lot more money for all.

      https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/norway-shows-how-aust…

      https://michaelwest.com.au/a-tale-of-two-fossil-superpowers-…

      • -3

        Wrong. It goes to shareholders who own the business. You can be one. Your super fund is probably one.

        • Do you realise that the minerals dug out of the ground belong to you, as an Australian citizen, not the shareholders? The corporation only has a licence to extract those minerals because it is granted by the government, mineral rights are not included in a land title.

          The mining corporations are essentially providing a service, but instead of being paid upfront they earn a profit, invent as many expenses as possible, and if anything is left over they provide some tax revenue back.

          • @greatlamp: Why don't you set up your own company and outbid the incumbents if it's so lucrative?

            • @ihbh: Is this topic too difficult for you to understand?

              • @greatlamp: It seems like it for you.

                Here's how business works.

                Companies can bid for mining licenses through competitive tenders. E.g. A bids $90, but B bids $100. If you think they are too profitable, then don't you form a company and bid say $101 and capture the profits?

                • @ihbh: No it's seems like you are frustrated so you have decided to derail the conversation by proposing something ridiculous. If we are going to derail the conversation then I am going to ridicule you just as you do to me

                  • @greatlamp: One more time for the dummies - I was trying to simplify for you. Leave out the bit where you form a company and tender. In a competitive tender, there are many companies tendering. If A is going to make mega profits, B will bid up the price where profits reflect expected returns for risk, etc.

                    • @ihbh: What does the mechanics of a tender process have to with how the profits from mining are distributed to citizens?

                      Do you naively assume that a competitive tender process means there is no room for profiteering?

                      Explain to us 'dummies' how anything you are talking about is relevant to the conversation at all. Are you trying to show me how easy it is for an individual to secure a multi billion dollar mining contract?

                      • @greatlamp: Do you have any idea how many resource companies go bust, including very large ones. There are also some large and small ones that are profitable. That's how business goes - good management/luck is rewarded with some profits.

                        Imagine if you want to take most of the profits from the profitable ones and distribute to citizens. There would be no more resource companies - who would want to start a resource companies - heads (when things go south) you go bankrupt, tails (when things go good) you make bugger all profit.

                        for an individual to secure a multi billion dollar mining contract

                        Many very large resource companies were started by one or two individuals. Not by keyboard idiots of course.

                        Nevertheless, if it were so easy to make mega bucks as you suggest, idiots from everywhere will throw in what ever money they have for some entrepreneur to raise the required capital to start competing on smaller contracts and then grow to be able to compete on the larger contracts.

                        Very large resources companies didn't start as very large resource companies, they all started small (except for state sponsored ones).

                        • @ihbh: What does this have to with how the profits from mining are distributed to citizens?

                          • @greatlamp: They get distributed to citizens that are shareholders, including the superfunds, managed funds of citizens.

                            • @ihbh:

                              Do you have any idea how many resource companies go bust, including very large ones. There are also some large and small ones that are profitable. That's how business goes - good management/luck is rewarded with some profits.

                              Resource companies don't go bust. Individual exploratory peojects do. Mining profits include these losses.

                              Mining corporations are more profitable than the NBN or Snowy Hydro, there was never a decision to privatise mining in this country based on risk/reward. This is just something you've assumed, while calling people who understand the topic more than you 'dummies' and 'keyboard idiots'.

                              50%-75% of Australian resource shares are owned by foreigners. The profits are not being distributed to Australians.

                              But please, condescendingly explain how a generic tender process works, that will convince us you have any idea what you are talking about

                              • @greatlamp: Thank goodness governments aren't advised by people like yourself. No offense, but please look at the data… yeah, yeah, past returns do not guarantee future returns.

                                See chart below of All Ords (total Aus stock market) vs All Industrials vs All Resources performance for ~50 years from 79 to 21. Thank God large % of resources shares owned by foreigner suckers (actually a reflection of MSCI and domicile of companies, etc.).

                                https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/22732/120928/pt-fig3-a…

                                Source: https://www.firstlinks.com.au/data-doesnt-lie-resources-vs-i…

                                Sorry, I only have AI to provide details: "how are mining licences tendered" in Google, but if it was so lucrative, chart above would be the other way round (All Resources swapped with All Industrials), but unfortunately it isn't.

                                • @ihbh: Why not compare mining shares to the price of bitcoin too? That's just as relevant as what you posted

                        • @ihbh:

                          Imagine if you want to take most of the profits from the profitable ones and distribute to citizens. There would be no more resource companies

                          Saudi Aramco doesn't exist?
                          Gazprom doesn't exist?
                          Norway's oil and gas industry has completely shut down?

                          • @tenpercent: Please don't quote crap you don't understand.

                            Aramco is nationalised, that is the government owns it (very easy to extract in Saudi Arabia, so makes sense for the Government to scoop it up). Gazprom was been privatised, and partly nationalised. Norway's oil is partly nationalised/privatised.

                            That is the government are shareholders - they have to put capital in and get the profits/losses, large profits or small profits.

                            ^ were talking about oil here


                            But say there Aus Govt were to nationalise resource companies. They could do it for the ones that extract minerals in Aus or buy their shares as shareholders. But they would participate in whatever profit/loss or large profits or small profits (commensurate with the capital they put in). But they don't because there is better use of the money.

                • @ihbh: That's literally not how it works.

                  Companies can bid for mining licenses through competitive tenders. E.g. A bids $90, but B bids $100. If you think they are too profitable, then don't you form a company and bid say $101 and capture the profits?

  • +1

    If Australians earned more in manufacturing, then house prices would just grow even more, putting housing completely out of reach of anyone still in lower paid service industries.

    We have a supply problem in Australia as well as too many people wanting to live in just six cities.

    • +3

      Basically the whole country work for the banks. Paying interest, then income tax which the government recycles into public sector jobs which everyone pays the banks interest on their property.

      It is interesting that the ASX index ETF performance vs world index you can see the gap in performance of Australia vs rest of the world is about what the productivity gap per annum should be.

    • -1

      We have a supply problem in Australia as well as too many people wanting to live in just six cities.

      While that may be technically correct, 'supply problem' and 'too many people in cities' are talking points used by journalists and politicians with no intention of fixing the issue.

      You can't fix a 'supply problem' without building dogbox apartments in the hundreds of thousands, which is exactly the policy they prefer, keeps property developers and the real estate industry happy.

      Won't improve quality of life, it will continue to get worse. Look at the average 45sqm Japanese apartment, and now imagine lower building standards. Birth rates will plummet, immigration will be increased further and many Australians will be living in slums.

      This is what framing the issue around a 'supply problem' leads.

    • Housing issue is largely because of taxation… CGT incentives for owners, negative gearing, upfront taxation for building and development.

      Of course there's a lot of very rich people that don't want this changed. In fact the government told us we should suck up all the houses as our own personal private piggy bank decades ago. They just didn't really think about where it was going in the end.

      Someone will fix these laws, then the problem will end. But not until then.

    • -1

      Um, but if we have those manufacturing jobs out in regional Australia. Isn't that problem slightly solved?

      Those jobs in regional Australia could allow the population to spread out more, but I'm not so sure it will work anymore given how many people are stating tariffs won't work.

  • +1

    Good question but the answer is somewhere else.

    The vicious cycle of property prices causing escalation in cost of rent (for factories) and cost of labour have done it to manufacturing.

    There is even talk of high mortgage payments (thanks to everyone taking all they can borrow to leverage up) is stopping family formation (people not having kids) and also business formation.

  • +3

    Paul Keating ended manufacturing in Australia, arguing that the benefits weren't worth the higher prices. We should globalise and privatise.

    The same Labor Party is now spending our taxes trying to bring manufacturing back.
    https://alp.org.au/building-a-future-made-in-australia/

    You expect opposite policies from the two big parties. But when the same party does one thing and says it was to our economic benefit, then later does the exact opposite saying that is to our economic benefit, they must be wrong. Either Keating or Albanese must be wrong.

    Now we make nothing of value. We just dig up stuff - coal and gas - and ship it to China, and hope the communist leaders of that country ignore us provoking them and can do capitalism better than us or America, or we're in serious trouble. I suspect our children will be poorer than us as a result.

    (I get tired of people saying Keating was the best Treasurer we ever had. I think he is the worst. His time in that job was when Australia's economy and the standard of living of Australians turned around from going steadily forward to going inexorably backwards. What Keating is is the best foreign minister we NEVER had.)

    • -1

      I suspect our children will be poorer than us as a result.

      Not the ones that win lotto…

    • +6

      Now we make nothing of value.

      The car manufacturing industry was propped up by so many government hand-outs. Makes sense that companies would make stuff off-shore. There comes a point where tax dollars are better spent elsewhere than propping up overseas companies

      • Watch some videos on Holden. It is pretty clear there was mismanagement. This is what I find frustrating. I agree with the basic argument we need to be internationally competitive and not just propping up industries.

        But like Holden, we have an American company beg for handouts to the point we can't give them anymore while they MIS manage and make terrible decisions and run it into the ground. Then we point at that and say well it is obviously just Australias fault, you can't make Australian manufacturing work.

        There is a lot we can do to improve conditions for manufacturing. Tarrifs aren't the answer. I'm sick of the rhetoric that a few American company's ran operations here into the ground as good examples that it could never work here. Certainly conditions aren't good at the moment, but that can change.

        • Certainly conditions aren't good at the moment, but that can change.

          Based on what, hopes and dreams?

        • +1

          Is seems to be 'common knowledge' that Australian car manufacturing failed because there wasn't enough economies of scale.

          Australian built cars were intentionally blocked from import into the USA. The US firm implemented very low limits on the number of Australian built cars sold in the USA based on an agreement with the US auto unions. None of this was ever published by the Australian media and people still believe manufacturing for export can't be done in Australia. Wages in South Korea aren't that different to Australia.

          https://markquitterracing.com/gtoproduction/
          " The current deal to import the GTO is limited to 18,000 cars per year for 3 years (MY 2004-2006)."

      • +1

        What stuffed manufacturing in this country was the decision to float the dollar. It proceeded to then swing wildly between just over USc50 and US$1. That was the mistake Keating made. Letting its value be determined by speculators.

        What a company investing billions in a plant need is stability. They need to know that by the time they build the plant and get it into production their product won't be undercut by an imported product. They couldn't do that with a floating dollar in a country with a small economy where it was speculation on it that was the biggest factor in how high it was today. That's how China got to where it is now. Because they fixed their currency.

        Tariffs being put on and taken off from US President to President will have the same effect. No-one will dare make the long term investments that are needed.

        • Yes a moving peg would be a significant improvement. That is the system Switzerland uses.

      • The tax dollars given to the car manufacturers was handing them back the tax they would otherwise have paid.

        Now we have no handouts and no industry. There is no gain here

    • +10

      Could it be true that we don't need onshore manufacturing of, for example, Garfield keyrings, but we do need to retain manufacturing capability of, for example, IV fluids?

      So it could actually be very true that some manufacturing is worth supporting, and some isn't, and the world isn't always yes or no?

      Are you really arguing manufacturing Garfield keyrings would have brought us greater prosperity than buying them from a factory off shore?
      30 years ago I had friends who worked the night shift at a plastic injection line making coat hangers. It seems crazy we would prop up that business to pay current minimum wages today.
      And I have another friend who was more recently a foreman for a glass factory making highly specialised glass with complex curvatures, like a fighter plane cockpit. Their business did well from precision, high tolerance work, and the hourly wages of their highly skilled staff were not the big factor in costs they would be churning out plastic clothes hangers.

    • A singular party can have opposing policies be the right decision for the country when they're 30 years apart. As technology, priorities, and society changes, so too can the most beneficial thing for a country to do at any given point in time

      It's like arguing that the RBA lowering interest rates and then later raising them (or vice versa) means lowering (or raising) them must have been the wrong decision, when often the interest rate is used as a method to influence the inflation rate or investment

      • No it's not like arguing about interest rates. We aren't talking about a short term decision that can be reversed with an announcement.

  • +8

    Might be best to take a macroeconomics class, along with Trump to understand the basics.
    Individuals, businesses or countries should focus on supplying the product or service where they can produce it at a lower opportunity cost than another producer.
    Labour, education, technology & natural resources are the key factors that drive this.
    Applying the above approach leads to the most efficent outcome & the best use of finite recources worldwide

    • +2

      Yes, on average. It completely ignores how that wealth is distributed. What happens when most Australians don't have good incomes because there is no skilled work available?

      You can see for yourself, looks at the youth crime statistics, drug use and unemployment in regional towns. It just hasn't reached the cities yet. Oversimplified economic thinking brought us to where we are today, it's time to read the rest of the textbook

      Tarrifs might not be the best solution, but these talking points completely ignore there is even a problem

      • +2

        I was born in in to a lower income family in Melbourne, with parents who were smart enough to live within their means.
        I learnt from that upbringing that if you want to a good life you need to get an education, work hard and use the brain you have to make informed decisions to take control of your life.
        Darwin's theory of evolution is no different to modern day human life.

        • -3

          Yes, but now "Darwin's theory of evolution for modern day human life" has been distorted by indiscriminate leftist governmens' welfare that instead of being a safety net has become a way of life for lazy people that don't want to work hard and fail to provide for themselves and their family. Centrelink does that instead.

          • +1

            @Mad Max: Centerlink provides $300 per week to the unemployed. Your rhetoric does not fit in with reality

            • -2

              @greatlamp: $300 per week, or $15,600 per year, net income (tax free) for doing nothing. Fair enough if it is a safety net for temporary loss of job or hard times. But now for many it is a permanent way of life.

        • -1

          Darwin's theory of evolution is no different to modern day human life.

          No. Our environment is under our control, we aren't animals. If we engineer an economy where only the top 20% can afford a comfortable standard of living, everyone will be poorer, including the big brained such as yourself. You and your children will have to work harder to achieve the same standard of living as today.

          • @greatlamp: Not sure why you think we aren't animals….we did descend from primates.
            I'm no big brain, trust me on that one.
            What I was saying is you need to stop blaming other people for your position in life and start looking at yourself.
            Life is not fair, never has been, never will be, the sooner you come to understand that the better.

            • @Lemond1977: Sure, however individual circumstances are completely irrelevant when talking about systemic issues.

              Not sure why you think we aren't animals…

              I've already explained that. Don't read half a sentence. If you aren't going to read what I am writing why bother with a response. It's bound to be out of context

Login or Join to leave a comment