Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Economics and political expediency

By John Turner - posted Monday, 13 September 2010


When Australia imports goods or services from a country where slave-like working conditions prevail, aren’t Australian consumers in effect employing slaves? Do some Australians expect their fellow Australians to compete with slave labour? I would have to re-read my Adam Smith but I am reasonably sure his case for free trade was based on having productive people in each separate economy being paid a comparable living wage. His case was based on genuine comparative advantages such as more suitable climate for particular crops or better raw materials or technology for the production of manufactured goods.

John Ralston Saul has argued that the capitalist case against returns as high as feasible to the workforce fails on its own criteria. If the manufacturing part of our mixed economy screws down the wages of the workforce, or distorts the income stream in favour of the well-off, what happens to the market for the manufacturers’ products? It collapses. Overpaid executives and professionals cannot spend their high incomes on manufactured goods and essential services and the lower paid will not have the income to do so. Henry Ford realised this as early as the T model.

Too often our politicians and economic advisors overvalue brains and cunning and undervalue physical effort both from an ethical viewpoint and an economic one. I once tried this argument on a steel executive. My question was based on comparing two situations. In one, the steelworkers rode to work on pushbikes while professionals and executives drove Mercs. Alternatively the workers had small cars and the others Commodores or Falcons. Which would produce the better outcome for the steel industry? My idea was termed Communist; so much for my enlightenment effort. I am not arguing against adopting sustainable living practices; I am arguing against disparate distribution of incomes.

Advertisement

Why do intelligent and competent people, especially those who have easy opportunity through the media, not try to educate the citizenry about the disadvantages of some propositions and the advantages of others?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John Turner has an applied science degree on top of a diploma in metallurgy.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John Turner

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy