3 ms·

>Wait, but unions are not necessarily protectionist. Please define what you mean by "protectionist". In what sense are unions not protectionist? Their sole fu

>Wait, but unions are not necessarily protectionist. Please define what you mean by "protectionist". In what sense are unions not protectionist? Their sole function is to protect the labour market. I'd view unions in Australia as really protectionist: they've managed to secure very high minimum wages, as well as highly restrictive immigration policies that Trump praised to high heaven.[0] >Also the protectionist government you are referring to the cabinet which was active until 1903 Their immigration policy[1] lasted for decades, before being replaced by the current immigration policy. The Protectionist Party[2] hung around until 1909, when they merged into the Commonwealth Liberal Party. This party was a predecessor of the current Liberal Party: Protectionist + Anti-Socialist -> Commonwealth Liberal Commonwealth Liberal + National Labor -> Nationalist Nationalist + dissident Labor + Australian -> United Australian -> Liberal So there is still protectionism hanging around in both major political parties today. >the productivity growth in the 1990s was followed by Labour winning majority in the parliament. What am I missing? It's spelled Labor, because modern spelling.[3] And Labor was in power from 1983 to 1996 (Hawke[4], then Keating[5]), so that productivity growth in the 1990s... probably Labor's fault? Lol. I think the proliferation of personal computers may have had more to do with it. [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/donald-trump-tweets-support-for-australias-immigration-policy/11251800 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/donald-trump-tweets-s..., https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/01/donald-trump-hails-australias-merit-based-immigration-system https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/01/donald-trump... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionist_Party [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hawke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hawke [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating

jevgeni 7y ago
Protectionism in economic sense are measures that inhibit international trade. Tariffs, selective subsidies and too restrictive immigration policies are good examples. Maybe in Australia they use the word differently, but in Europe this is what is meant by “protectionism”. The function of unions is decidedly NOT to “protect the labour market”, but to provide organised market power to a group of labourers. A union fulfils its function even if it secures jobs for its members at the cost of say workers of another trade or those who are not unionised. Hence a union can satisfy its members but reduce the overall employment. Also, I don’t understand. At first you claim that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Now you claim that it’s because of personal computers. Which one is it then?
- morningseagulls 7y ago
  >Protectionism in economic sense are measures that inhibit international trade. Tariffs, selective subsidies and too restrictive immigration policies are good examples. Maybe in Australia they use the word differently I'm not sure which part of the Australian politics I've described doesn't fit your definition of what protectionism is. I've certainly gone into great length about restrictive immigration policies: in fact, one of the first pieces of legislation of the Barton government was the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act,[0] the passage of which was a condition of Labor's guarantee of confidence and supply for the minority Protectionist government. The 1901 election itself[1] was straight from the textbooks: Protectionist vs. Free Trade vs. Labor. Protectionism (Protectionists and Labor) won that election, both in terms of seats and popular vote. You couldn't get a more literal election than that. As for tariffs and selective subsidies, Australia has that too.[2][3][4] >The function of unions is decidedly NOT to “protect the labour market”, but to provide organised market power to a group of labourers. A union fulfils its function even if it secures jobs for its members at the cost of say workers of another trade or those who are not unionised. Hence a union can satisfy its members but reduce the overall employment. You're presuming a fragmented union ecosystem, which isn't quite the reality in Australia. The Labor party was founded as the political arm of the unions; this shows a high enough degree of co-ordination amongst the unions at the very least. And once you have a party in parliament, you get the power to influence policy-making in such a way as to protect the labour market. A single union may only be able to protect its own members, but a well-coordinated group of unions is well-positioned to protect the entire labour market itself. Labor did that in spades in the early days of federation, and still does to this day. >At first you claim that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Now you claim that it’s because of personal computers. Which one is it then? I did not. You wrote: >>yet the productivity growth in the 1990s was followed by Labour winning majority in the parliament. What am I missing? I pointed out that you missed the fact that Labor was in power from 1983 to 1996. I then made the facetious statement that perhaps it was Labor's fault that the 90s boom happened: this was a joke because, clearly, nobody blames a party for a good economy. I then went on to suggest that the productivity growth may perhaps be more reasonably attributed to the proliferation of PCs, and the attendant automation. There are other plausible factors for the boom: the economic rise of China must surely have been one. In any case, it's simply not true that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Labor during the Hawke-Keating years was uncharacteristically enthusiastic about reforms, and I think the success of their policies may have inspired the Third Way of Blairite Labour. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Restriction_Act_1901 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Restriction_Act_19... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_Australian_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_Australian_federal_electi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_Australi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import#Australia [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Tax

jevgeni 7y ago

Protectionism in economic sense are measures that inhibit international trade. Tariffs, selective subsidies and too restrictive immigration policies are good examples. Maybe in Australia they use the word differently, but in Europe this is what is meant by “protectionism”. The function of unions is decidedly NOT to “protect the labour market”, but to provide organised market power to a group of labourers. A union fulfils its function even if it secures jobs for its members at the cost of say workers of another trade or those who are not unionised. Hence a union can satisfy its members but reduce the overall employment. Also, I don’t understand. At first you claim that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Now you claim that it’s because of personal computers. Which one is it then?

morningseagulls 7y ago
>Protectionism in economic sense are measures that inhibit international trade. Tariffs, selective subsidies and too restrictive immigration policies are good examples. Maybe in Australia they use the word differently I'm not sure which part of the Australian politics I've described doesn't fit your definition of what protectionism is. I've certainly gone into great length about restrictive immigration policies: in fact, one of the first pieces of legislation of the Barton government was the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act,[0] the passage of which was a condition of Labor's guarantee of confidence and supply for the minority Protectionist government. The 1901 election itself[1] was straight from the textbooks: Protectionist vs. Free Trade vs. Labor. Protectionism (Protectionists and Labor) won that election, both in terms of seats and popular vote. You couldn't get a more literal election than that. As for tariffs and selective subsidies, Australia has that too.[2][3][4] >The function of unions is decidedly NOT to “protect the labour market”, but to provide organised market power to a group of labourers. A union fulfils its function even if it secures jobs for its members at the cost of say workers of another trade or those who are not unionised. Hence a union can satisfy its members but reduce the overall employment. You're presuming a fragmented union ecosystem, which isn't quite the reality in Australia. The Labor party was founded as the political arm of the unions; this shows a high enough degree of co-ordination amongst the unions at the very least. And once you have a party in parliament, you get the power to influence policy-making in such a way as to protect the labour market. A single union may only be able to protect its own members, but a well-coordinated group of unions is well-positioned to protect the entire labour market itself. Labor did that in spades in the early days of federation, and still does to this day. >At first you claim that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Now you claim that it’s because of personal computers. Which one is it then? I did not. You wrote: >>yet the productivity growth in the 1990s was followed by Labour winning majority in the parliament. What am I missing? I pointed out that you missed the fact that Labor was in power from 1983 to 1996. I then made the facetious statement that perhaps it was Labor's fault that the 90s boom happened: this was a joke because, clearly, nobody blames a party for a good economy. I then went on to suggest that the productivity growth may perhaps be more reasonably attributed to the proliferation of PCs, and the attendant automation. There are other plausible factors for the boom: the economic rise of China must surely have been one. In any case, it's simply not true that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Labor during the Hawke-Keating years was uncharacteristically enthusiastic about reforms, and I think the success of their policies may have inspired the Third Way of Blairite Labour. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Restriction_Act_1901 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Restriction_Act_19... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_Australian_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_Australian_federal_electi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_Australi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import#Australia [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Tax