Public ideas
On globalization
Globalization is going out of fashion, but that doesn’t mean we are reverting to old patterns of industry protection.
Melbourne Container Terminal
In times past Australian government ministers travelled the world trying to sell Australian stuff. Now we have observed our prime minister travelling the world trying to buy stuff.
That’s not just an Australian story, it’s a world story, and it’s not just about liquid fuels; it’s about countries trying to secure supply chains of semiconductors, plastics, fertilizers, and pharmaceuticals.
Martyn Goddard, in his Policy Post, writes about The retreat from globalism, giving a short history of trade and investment flows, and associated government policies.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which essentially called for the demolition of all trade barriers, was hammered out in 1947, following the 1944 Bretton Woods agreements, but it took time for countries to respond with supportive policies. World trade didn’t really take off until the 1960 to 1980 period, and the growth hasn’t stopped. Australia didn’t really open up until 1983, when the Hawke government was elected. Incidents like the global financial crisis and the pandemic appear only as minor blips on Goddard’s graph of world trade.
So what is the “retreat” to which his title alludes? It’s about governments no longer following policies of unconditional openness to trade and investment, and a return in many countries, including Australia, to industry policy – such as our Future Made in Australia.
Industry policies of our era are different from the policies of earlier days that relied on tariffs and quantitative import quotas. Countries now are more likely to use direct subsidies to industry, and other forms of non-tariff barriers, and even restrictions on exports. That’s because the current overarching policy framework is more about self-reliance and security in a world subject to trade disruption, rather than using tariffs as a means of developing industries. In that context our industry policy is about exploiting low-cost renewable energy resources, and reducing our dependence on commodity trade.
In any event, Goddard points out, even if tariffs were to be effective in protecting local industries, they would not protect jobs: it’s automation, not globalisation, that has swept away manufacturing employment – something the US President still doesn’t quite get.
On Orbán's defeat, Christian nationalism, and what Trump Is really planning
An insight into the workings of the global far-right movements.
That’s the title of a podcast in which historian Timothy Snyder is interviewed by journalist Katie Couric about the relevance of historical cases to current political developments.
Although the interview covers many topics, its unifying theme is an exposure of the workings of far-right political movements, and therefore some suggestions about how to combat them.
The first part (up to 28 minutes) is about the successful tactics Péter Magyar’s opposition used to defeat Orbán’s right-wing authoritarian government. When voters are concerned about the cost of living, it’s hard to get them to focus on corruption and the dismantling of democratic institutions. Magyar’s skill lay in helping people to understand that the costs of corruption fall on ordinary people, and that democratic institutions are essential in ensuring that economic benefits are distributed fairly.
Snyder also emphasises the responsibility of the media to focus on a search for the truth, rather than sentencing itself to the idea that every story has two sides – the postmodern “on the one hand, on the other hand” style that journalists adopt, and that the ABC formalizes during election campaigns.
The second part (up to 35 minutes) is about the financial resources Orbán gathered to finance the Danube Institute and the Conservative Political Action Conference, dedicated to promote Orbán’s model of “illiberal democracy” (AKA “authoritarian populism”).
Orbán has been able to fund these bodies through criminal misallocation of EU budget support allocated to Hungary. The Kremlin has also been active in supporting these bodies.
This is not just a Hungarian issue. CPAC is a worldwide movement, with a presence in most “developed” countries, including Australia. Tony Abbott, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Ted O’Brien and other Coalition luminaries have been prominent participants in CPAC conferences, as have some mining oligarchs. Snyder believes that Orbán’s defeat will hurt CPAC badly. (Perhaps Putin, enjoying the benefits of higher oil prices, will kick in to support our right-wing movements dedicated to blocking energy renewal.)
The third part (up to 44 minutes) is about the resurgence of what is known as “Christian nationalism” – a movement whose ideology shouldn’t be confused with the moral teaching of the Christian New Testament. Snyder and Couric cannot help noticing how in times past emperors, towards the end of their own time on the throne, and in the dying days of their empires, turned to self-deification as a means to grant themselves the legitimacy of governing with a mandate from God. (But Nero never had the technology to portray himself as Jesus in full colour.)
And the final 20 minutes is about US politics, emphasizing what the Democrats and others should do if they want to see America remain a republic rather than morph into some authoritarian theocracy. One is to emphasize the criminality of Trump and those in his inner circle: in ducking this issue they are showing a disrespect for the law. The other is to anticipate MAGA’s moves and to warn the public in advance. In Hungary, for example, Magyar warned that the Orbán government was likely to mount some false flag operation as a means of emphasizing their concern for the nation’s security. When they did come good with a story about Ukrainians plotting to blow up a pipeline, no one believed them.