Christopher Pearson, Tony Abbott and the art of the protectionist paradox ...

(Above: more xkcd here, and more on the Liar paradox here).

It being Saturday, the always reliable Christopher Pearson is on hand to show his love for Tony Abbott, and it turns out that, like his hero, he too can straddle both sides of the fence.

This isn't some kind of mawkish, sentimental man love, of a populist kind, but rather tough love which sees the noble Abbott in a state of existential agony which makes him way more Labor than the Labor party, a veritable Bob Hawke for these troubled times.

The whole column - spoiler alert, because we know you wouldn't want the climax spoiled, not when you want to bite into the final succulent bit of the saga by yourself - builds to an image of a humble, anguished man at one with the workers, as you can see in Industry debate more nuanced than it seems in print:

I recall anguished conversations with him (Abbott) at the time about his reservations over suddenly abolishing the no-disadvantage test without bringing in a comparable mechanism.

He learned from that hubristic mistake and has no desire to repeat it. Nor will he be falling into what he sees as the Gillard government's besetting sin: "telling business what's good for it and abusing people who dare to disagree".

Uh huh. And what's good for business? Why protectionism of course.

But first there are enemies to smote, dragons who dare to abuse, people who dare to disagree with Abbott.

Get thee gone Paul Kelly, who dared to suggest that, in his speech on the economic challenges facing Australia, Abbott played both sides of the fence, pandering to protectionism and displaying "stunning economic populism".

Get thee gone - prepare to be smited and smoted mightily from a great height, Lenore Taylor, Fairfax troll - as she also proposed that Abbott was attempting to be all things to all people ...

Naturally it falls to young Christopher to decipher the runes, interpret the intentions of the delphic oracle, and it turns out that all Abbott was calling for was a forum in which to discuss protectionism, if there was a respectable case, and that's all, nothing more, and where's the harm in that?

And naturally, unlike Kelly and Taylor, Abbott's deeply concerned about Australian manufacturing, and unlike that pair of reprobates, he's convinced something must be done, or else it might be lost entirely, and then where would we be? Swamped by two dollar stores! And would the pair of Calvinist economists care? Not at all:

If you start with that view, the temptation to read Monday's arguments simply as code for retro-populism and channelling Bob Santamaria is probably irresistible.

Uh huh. And what are the grounds for protectionism? Well it turns out that national security is vital:

The most important of these is national security. Admittedly, in the age of hi-tech weaponry this argument carries less force now than it did 40 years ago, but that doesn't mean it carries no force at all. Retaining such capacity is one factor in maintaining a degree of self-reliance and ability to respond independently to a range of events, including events well short of an actual outbreak of hostilities. Raising this issue is not being an economic populist; it is taking the responsibilities of the alternative prime minister seriously. It is also being frank with the electorate about an important issue in a way that helps to clarify the debate, by pinning down more clearly the reasons that might warrant greater concerns about the loss of some parts of manufacturing than of others.

Indeed. And what better example of industry preparedness at a modest cost to taxpayers can be found in the trials and tribulations of the Collins-class submarines.

Buy them off the shelf? Not when you can spend a decade farting about with the noise signature, engine problems and a number of other issues (Problems during construction and trials). Talk about a splendid make work plan for all ...

But what has national security got to do with the problems faced by Bluescope Steel in Wollongong and the recent loss of workers? Not much.

Would a make-work defence contract save the jobs of these thousand workers? Not really, not likely at all, but hey, when you want a good lathering of foam, you can always call on Pearson.

Would a defence contract for socks and undies and sneakers have stopped Pacific Brands telling its 2,000 workers to go jump, while it headed offshore?

Not really, though the splendid management team did manage to generate a $166 million loss for the financial year (Pacific Brands faces sales slump in $166m loss), helped along by Kmart deciding to dump the Bonds brand, and a number of other brands in the Pacific Brands range.

Come to think of it, where were all the protectionists when BHP decided to close the steelworks at Newcastle way back in 1999 (BHP announces profit amid farewells before closure). Did Newcastle survive? Last time I checked it was still there, and in something of a turnaround thanks to the business of digging up coal and shipping it abroad (while Pig Iron Bob smiles benignly down from above ...)

Never mind, defence and national security and nameless fears, including events well short of an actual outbreak of hostilities, is always the first refuge of the scoundrel, and economic protectionists, and now Christopher Pearson channelling Tony Abbott ...

Then there's the spectre of volatility, and the transitional costs associated with closing businesses that might decide to start up again, and so - without much of anything by way of actual economic policy, specific examples, or robust arguments, we reach the triumphant conclusion:

To my mind Monday's speech was the antithesis of populism.

That's when the jaffas started to roll down the aisle yet again while reading Pearson.

You have to admire an infinite capacity for jest, and for turning white into black (except when its vice versa), and seeing Tony Abbott practising populism as the antithesis of populism.

Not that there's anything wrong with Abbott selling snake oil. That's what any leader of the opposition does, and right at the moment, with the unions and in particular Paul Howes blathering on about the need for a little protection, why wouldn't he try to work both sides of the street?

But do we need Pearson assuring us it isn't really snake oil? Or that, when in power, the Liberals will not attempt to introduce a little more flexibility into the labour market?

No, no, no, wash out your mouth with good old-fashioned imported Pears soap:

It was a nuanced assessment of the issues facing this country and their public policy implications, set within a sturdy defence of free trade and free markets.

Yep, it's protectionism within free markets and free trade, and anyway, it's only being discussed at a forum, and so it's just a nuanced assessment by way of fear-mongering about national security, and of course the way the lucky country's standard of living is shortly to be reduced to the level of an Asian villager working in a sweat shop for Nike or Apple:

Dismissing the nuances out of hand -- even before addressing related concerns such as the reports of a lack of adequate compliance with World Trade Organisation obligations on the part of other nations -- doesn't assist the debate. Nor does it help lessen the dangerous divide between political insiders and outsiders about which Kelly has written so persuasively.

Uh huh. Well the funniest thing of all is to trot off to Menzies House and see them yammering on about Paul (Protectionism) Howes, when in fact they should be yammering on about Christopher (Protectionism) Pearson, hard on the heels of Tony (Protectionism) Abbott ...

So far, so silly, because whenever there's a three ring circus in town, you always need a clown or two, but at this particular point, Pearson goes into total prat-fall mode, or perhaps that should be uxorious worship of Abbott:

One of Abbott's skills is to wear his Rhodes scholarship and his learning lightly. Bob Hawke was the only other contender for the highest office to match him in that regard.

Uh huh. But it turns out that Abbott picked up a Masters in Politics and Philosophy at Oxford, which has bugger all to do with economics, with his degree in that area and in law coming from Sydney University. So it's just as well he wears his Rhodes scholarship lightly, or next thing you know we'd be in a philosophical discussion of paradoxes, and the way you can have your protectionism and your free markets, and eat your cake while keeping it for later ...

Sadly, in the area of economics, Abbott has always been considered a bit of a dill (head back to 2010 and you can read Laurie Oakes getting agitated in Coalition weak on economics, or to Bernard Keane in Abbott and the economy: best of enemies). He always had a taste for spending (witness his time as Health Minister) and he's inclined to interventionist strategies ...

Abbott is also a populist - or at least a wannabe populist - and so the recent surge of populist protests demanding an election now, and his recent speeches have included a healthy dose of populist economics, and other artful trawling to the populace. Well he is a politician ...

So how does Pearson deal with this? Well yes, it seems Tony Abbott is now the new Bob Hawke, and so an artful compromiser or dodger, and ready to govern in the interests of all:

Both understand that policy forums and summits where stakeholders can hammer out acceptable compromise positions are very useful because they're the best way to ensure that leaders take enough of the people with them.

Yep, he could become as popular as the populist Bob Hawke. Truly, an artful compromiser, one who can be all things to all people ...

Hang on, hang on, how did Lenore Taylor get back into the picture? Get thee gone Fairfax dissembler ...

And so to the triumphant conclusion, which we've already ruined by way of spoiler, wherein Abbott deplores telling business what's good for it, while offering a hefty dose of government support and a hint of hearty protectionism, because that's what's good for it ...

By this point, the pond was plumb tuckered out by the tortured contradictions, paradoxes and slavish pandering on view in Pearson's piece that we thought the only way to wrap up this piece about a protectionist who isn't a protectionist was with a few more paradoxes:

Barbershop paradox: The supposition that if one of two simultaneous assumptions leads to a contradiction, the other assumption is also disproved leads to paradoxical consequences.

What the Tortoise Said to Achilles "Whatever Logic is good enough to tell me is worth writing down...," also known as Carroll's paradox, not to be confused with the physical paradox of the same name.

Crocodile Dilemma: If a crocodile steals a child and promises its return if the father can correctly guess what the crocodile will do, how should the crocodile respond in the case that the father guesses that the child will not be returned?

Catch-22 (logic): In need of something which can only be had by not being in need of it.

Drinker paradox: In any pub there is a customer such that, if he or she drinks, everybody in the pub drinks.

Paradox of entailment: Inconsistent premises always make an argument valid.

And there are plenty more here at the Wiki's List of paradoxes, with links to the paradoxical details.

Now you've cut your teeth on Pearson, the game's afoot, and you can spend the weekend paradoxing away ... and as a bonus, it'll get you ready to understand Tony Abbott's Australia ...

(Below: go down the stairs, and I'll meet you on the way up).