Sorry… I am tired of pouring actual information into the black hole of mouldwarp. You go further at your own risk.

Do you maintain that the infamous hockeystick…”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-newtake-on-an- old-millennium/#more-253
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=199

Do you dispute the figure for the insignificance of the anthropogenic contribution to total CO2 levels?

Maybe you should ponder the SIGNIFICANCE of the contribution in terms of the flow of heat and the flow of heat on the thermal balance of the planet. It doesn’t take a lot of change to make a difference. Nor is 55 megatons a day insignificant if it continues year on year, the effect is cumulative.

How much is OUR doing?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the- recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/

Volcanoes *a common red herring, about 0.15 Gt/yr carbon vs anthropogenic emissions o about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) .

Do you dispute that CO2 itself is just a very tiny contributor to the natural (and essential) greenhouse effect?

As pointed out earlier, it doesn’t HAVE to be large if it is continuous. This is entirely irrelevant.

Climate change from a glacial to an interglacial is the wrong place to look for an understanding of how things work DURING an interglacial. We all know and understand that the climate has changed significantly before we started mucking about with it. The question at hand is how our mucking about changes the way the climate changes. Since the transition is usually several THOUSAND years, the CO2 being released at the start of the transition (the first 800 years) is CO2 that is released as a result of warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores  /

You see we all KNOW that the climate is subject to many different forcing functions… CO2 is only one of them. One of the others, quite possibly solar, starts the process of transition from Ice-Age to interglacial. There’s several questions surrounding that process (like where DOES the CO2 come from when things warm up, the ocean IS one theory). The problem is that CO2 level we’ve been mucking about with is the one that was the “already warm” state of the normal balance, and we’ve pushed it past any level seen in 650 K-years.

Do you deny that additional CO2 causes more heat to be trapped?

Medieval Warm Period:
The MWP was not apparently as global an event as the LIA, though it certainly appears to have affected Northern Europe. Whatever can this mean, and what caused the subsequent “Little Ice Age” both of which are relatively meaningless in terms of the climate changes we are arguing about, but I want to leave no rock in your head unbroken (told you I’m out of patience with your nonsense).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#myth2
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Solar Forcing - What lock step are you describing? :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit- record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Veizer’s Cosmic Rays :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/on-veizers-celes tial-climate-driver/

The point of all this is not to deny that there is a Solar Contribution to climate. Even if it was ALL Solar, or maybe little green men are bombarding us with heat rays from the other side of Jupiter, the only ANSWER we can bring to the party is to reduce CO2 and help the planet dissipate more heat back into space. Oh… you didn’t think of that… did you.

Global Cooling in 1940:

Not particularly significant for predicting climate -
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/mason.1976.html

Oh.. and what were we having before that? The great depression wasn’t it. Do we recall AS I HAVE SAID IT HERE BEFORE, that the temperature result of CO2 forcing is on a 30 year lag from the actual CO2?

So maybe I DO have a case. Maybe it is YOUR case that is a sophisticated negative PR campaign. You should apply for a grant from XOM. I am sure they’d LOVE to fund you properly.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=14 532354&CFTOKEN=77307821

Far from the scientists I worked with having some bizarre agenda of creating a world government, they all reached the similar conclusions as they studied the data they gathered.

The good folks at XOM however, have a very very normal agenda for a publicly owned company. They want our money.

I do understand why libertarians bristle at the idea that there may actually be yet another reason that government should actually exist and implement our collective desire with respect to climate change. It triggers a spinal reflex to resist any such expansion. This usually takes the form of denying that the science, accepted by the VAST majority of actual scientists in the field. McIntyre is a statistician, not a researcher BTW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Add Easterbrook to that from my previous post.

Now… as for my PERSONAL bias, I have MANY reasons for moving to NZ, and predicted climate was only one of them.

It is important, but it is not essential to my remaining here.

Your posts fill a much needed void. You can quit trolling any time but probably won’t. I may quit responding at any time however… I have work to do.

BJ

> “Maybe you’d rather trust “free marketâ€? principles than the work of scientists.”

The two are not contradictory. If CO2 is a problem then market principles would be the obvious way of tackling it, via a carbon tax for example. The question is whether CO2 is actually a problem or not.

> “you’ll seek out the contrarians to justify your views.”

The obvious retort is that believers such as yourself seek out sources in turn which confirm your own opinions.
The defence you present simply consists of dismissing the sceptical case as being nothing but a negative PR campaign - a defence which, in the absence of anything more substantial on your part, is no better than that which you accuse others of.

With *any* scientific theory it is the *contrary* evidence which is most important. If you don’t *know* what the contrary evidence is in this case, and you haven’t been able to discount it for sound scientific reasons, then you are just another cheerleader running a PR campaign of your own.

Do you, for example, maintain that the infamous “hockeystick” chart is an accurate depiction of recent climate change? Have you examined the contrary evidence at climateaudit.org? What would be the significance for your position if the chart is shown to be significantly flawed? (and how!)

Do you dispute the figure for the insignificance of the anthropogenic contribution to total CO2 levels? Do you dispute that CO2 itself is just a very tiny contributor to the natural (and essential) greenhouse effect?

Do you disagree that there will be benefits and problems associated with any climate change (natural or otherwise)?

Do you dispute that the long-term historical supposed correlation of CO2 and climate actually demonstrates that climate change *preceded* changes in levels of atmospheric CO2 (due to the fact that warmer oceans don’t hold so much CO2)?

Given very recent events like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, what is different or alarming about the recent climate?

Why aren’t the three decades of cooling after 1940 - at a time of unprecedented industrialisation and rapidly increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions - evidence *against* your theory? Why isn’t this total lack of correlation of concern to you? Why isn’t the almost lock-step correlation between recent climate variation and solar activity of interest to you?

Unless you can answer these, and other, questions fully you have no case - just what you might call a sophisticated negative PR campaign.

it looks like your worldview finds any negotiated international agreements and policies to deal with greenhouse gas emissions a problem. Who knows why Maybe you’d rather trust “free market” principles than the work of scientists. It appears this has coloured your thinking and attitude towards the problem, including the scientific aspects - so you’ll seek out the contrarians to justify your views. Fine - that’s your prerogative in our free world. It doesn’t mean that other people can’t hold opposing views without being attacked personally (just re-read some of your earlier posts if you think I’m being harsh).

There is an ongoing organised PR campaign to dispute climate change science using very sophisticated tactics, in the US, and which has now spilled over into other countries including Canada (seen as a soft touch) and now NZ.

Much of the contrarians have now conceded the science cannot be challenged so the next phase of their campaign is to raise politically, philosophically and economically motivated concerns. While not necessarily a bad thing it influences the types of arguments used and thus diverts attention away from the core science and ideas for mitigation/adaption.

Thus the contrarians raise the “it’ll be bad for business” type arguments, while ignoring savings to be made from efficiency gains and the warnings of economic loss from the reinsurance industry. And the world wastes valuable time that could be used to implement cost effective solutions - now.

> “if I need pants. It saves me exactly the cost of those pants. Your calculation of “opportunityâ€? cost presumes that there is something better than my wife might do…If my wife sews me a pair of pants and I reward her in some way, that stays inside the family.”

And if your computer programmer son stays at home and makes you some pants, that also “stays inside the family”: Which just leaves the question of the several hundred dollars he *could* have brought into the family if he’d traded his skills.
You see, we’re talking about an economic principle here, not the merits of any particular example that you have in mind.

The market mechanism reveals where workers and resources can be most profitably used, not some central planner with a “real short list” of what he thinks is most appropriate. If making pants is the most profitable, you can be sure that that’s where the resources will flow.

> “If I buy a pair of pants from Mrs Lee down the street instead of Mr Lee in Hong Kong, the money stays inside the country.”

Buy your trousers wherever you like, but don’t imagine that having the money “stay inside the country” is a net benefit.
If you get better value from Hong Kong then buy from there: you get cheap pants and Hong Kong gets NZ$50. But what are *they* going to do with that money if not spend it back in NZ? Maybe Mrs Lee won’t get that particular NZ$50 when it is spent here, but another Kiwi will (one who, just because he or she doesn’t have a name in this fable, is no less important than Mrs Lee).
And the money you saved by buying from Hong Kong? Where are you going to spend that bonus?

> “I do see your mistake. You are tacitly presuming that every worker in our modestly productive “Westernâ€? economy has the same abiliities, the same skills and can get the same training.”

There is no such assumption. A “western” economy is highly productive compared to a third-world one. There are a number of reasons for this, but there is absolutely no suggestion that “every worker…has the same abilities” etc. All it means is that output of much higher value is being created by a much larger proportion of the workforce. Even unskilled workers are relatively productive in such an economy, due, for example, to the fact that their workplaces can have a lot of capital invested in equipment.

> “I wonder what goods and/or services you really think we CAN produce at a profit, given the distance and the market size…Make your own list and then ask yourself what percentage of the population is able to compete on a global level in any of them.”

In fact, a vast range of things *could* be produced and exported at a profit; even pants. The *real* question is what salary could be afforded to the workers such that a worthwhile profit could still be returned.
After all, countries with low productivity are still able to export to the highly productive ones, it’s just that their very low output levels only allow a pittance of a salary to be paid (note that it’s their productivity level that makes them dirt poor, not the fact that they’re engaging in mutually profitable trade).

NZ’s remoteness - clearly something of concern to you - has the same impact on trade as a tariff: it is simply a cost that has to be factored in when deciding on the profitability of any particular transaction.

As for the global warming thing, I have been to realclimate many times; but I have also been to sites which provide important contrary evidence and which put recent climate change into much needed context.
Realclimate are cheerleaders for the whole global warming story. More than that, their own scientific analyses have been exposed as fatally flawed in a number of ways. Sadly, their response has been one of continual evasion and defensiveness.

Clearly you have an enormous emotional commitment to the whole global warming alarm; after all, it brought you half way around the world. But if you genuinely have an objective interest in the facts you really should examine climateaudit.org.
They mostly examine statistical studies and have demonstrated a large number of glaring errors in the original hockeystick and many other studies. You can judge the quality of their work for yourself. It is very robust. But they are currently quoting the following paragraphs about Al Gore’s little movie:-

‘Gore repeatedly labels carbon dioxide as “global warming pollution” when, in reality, it is no more pollution than is oxygen. CO2 is plant food, an ingredient essential for photosynthesis without which Earth would be a lifeless, frozen ice ball. The hypothesis that human release of CO2 is a major contributor to global warming is just that — an unproven hypothesis, against which evidence is increasingly mounting.

In fact, the correlation between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales. U of O climate researcher Professor Jan Veizer demonstrated that, over geologic time, the two are not linked at all. Over the intermediate time scales Gore focuses on, the ice cores show that CO2 increases don’t precede, and therefore don’t cause, warming. Rather, they follow temperature rise — by as much as 800 years. Even in the past century, the correlation is poor; the planet actually cooled between 1940 and 1980, when human emissions of CO2 were rising at the fastest rate in our history.

Similarly, the fact that water vapour constitutes 95% of greenhouse gases by volume is conveniently ignored by Gore. While humanity’s three billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net contribution to the atmosphere’s CO2 load appears large on a human scale, it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere’s total CO2 content (750-830 GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth’s oceans and land. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the uncertainty in the measurement of atmospheric CO2 content is 80 GT — making three GT seem hardly worth mentioning.
:
:
Scientists who actually work in these fields [of atmospheric physics] flatly contradict Gore. Take his allegations that extreme weather (EW) events will increase in frequency and severity as the world warms and that this is already happening. Former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg Dr. Tim Ball notes, “The theories that Gore supports indicate the greatest warming will be in polar regions. Therefore, the temperature contrast with warmer regions — the driver of extreme weather — will lessen and, with it, storm potential will lessen.”‘

I heard Gregg Easterbrook interviewed on National Radio last night.

http://radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ngts/global_warming.

Interesting. But I’m sure our fungal-friend would have some problem with that too.

You won’t listen to me. I have no idea why you continue to labour at this blog when you don’t want to understand what we’re talking about.

Do you really know how reverse-osmosis desalinization works. Have any idea of the pressures involved? How expensive the membranes the plumbing and the plant are, and how MUCH membrane is involved to make a meaningful dent in the water usage of a single farm? TechnologyReview is a forward looking mag, and I respect them, but half the stuff in there never gets past the scaling problems.

I posted a link to that SA solar panel myself, not 3 months ago. I remember it well enough.

Malthus didn’t reckon the timing well, but it is clearly, to me, happening. Right now it is slow motion desertification in the American midwest and the Australian wheat belt. I see fisheries overfished to the point that the stocks can’t replenish themselves even with a decade of “rest”. I see forest fires, and the pine beetle and the acidification of the ocean and the destruction of the rain forest and I know EXACTLY what technology can and can’t do.

The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

“The real cost of *anything* is what *could* have been done with the same time and resources.

As a hobby making your own clothes is fine, but as an economic proposition it is worthless.”

Hardly worthless if I need pants. It saves me exactly the cost of those pants. Your calculation of “opportunity” cost presumes that there is something better than my wife might do, or that someone over in Cannon’s Creek who would really like a paying job but has damned few skills, can do. Be REALLY clear MW, I am not talking about moving skilled people from skilled to unskilled work. I am talking about moving unskilled people from no work to unskilled work. There are a lot of people hanging about this place who could use a steady job.

I do see your mistake. You are tacitly presuming that every worker in our modestly productive “Western” economy has the same abiliities, the same skills and can get the same training.

You know better than that if I put it this way, but you may not realize that your statement

For the same reason, it makes no sense for any other worker in a highly productive “western� economy like New Zealand’s to spend time making pants

….does carry that implication. I wonder what goods and/or services you really think we CAN produce at a profit, given the distance and the market size. That’s a serious question. I have a real short list. Software, Movies, niche-market tech. some agricultural produce that doesn’t spoil when it is shipped (as prices rise around the world). Make your own list and then ask yourself what percentage of the population is able to compete on a global level in any of them.

Finally you didn’t quite get why I took it down to the household level. My FAMILY is an economic unit. My COUNTRY is an economic unit. If my wife sews me a pair of pants and I reward her in some way, that stays inside the family.

If I buy a pair of pants from Mrs Lee down the street instead of Mr Lee in Hong Kong, the money stays inside the country.

I was comparing the two economic units, I was not mixing them together. I should’ve said that.

I would really REALLY appreciate it if you would go to realclimate and READ. It’ll take you a week to get through the site, and some of the information is pretty dense, but it might help you to know how the debate is actually shaping up out there.

Thanks
BJ

> “there is ALREADY more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been in the past 6 interglacial periods”

Which is actually evidence *against* your warming theory, since this increase in CO2 does not correlate with climate change; therefore demonstrating the *irrelevance* of CO2 as a primary forcing agent. On the other hand, recent climate variation *does* correlate very strongly with changes in solar activity. See the graph and accompanying text on the following page:

http://www.dobmagazine.nickles.com/columns/pulse.asp?article=magazine% 2Fcolumns%2F060612%2FMAG_COL2006_UC0000.html

> “You have 6 billion people who are barely feeding themselves today.”

Well, maybe half that number actually. But not because they have bumped up against any natural limit, but because they live in countries which are economic basket cases.
Rather like the case of Communist China’s tens of millions of starvation deaths, or the recent famine in North Korea; the causes are purely political.

> “Agriculture is running out of fresh water and pollution is claiming more than just the water. ”

Water rights are obviously important, as is a proper pricing regime so that the resource is not squandered. But really you are just rehearsing the whole flawed Malthusian argument which does not allow for any technological progress. This makes you plain wrong. For example:-

“Cheap Drinking Water from the Ocean. Carbon nanotube-based membranes will dramatically cut the cost of desalination.”
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=nanotech&sc=&id=1 6977&pg=1

” South Africa Develops Revolutionary Solar Power Technology”
http://www.isarticle.com/Article/42526.html

These are just two of hundreds and thousands of constant advances in technology which totally invalidate your predictions.

> “I pointed out that if trade is not balanced it will eventually cause collapse of our economy… ”

This is a very profound misunderstanding, and one which seems to colour your whole outlook on trade. What exactly is the mechanism you have in mind? Note that debt is really a separate issue. If you want to talk about debt then say so, but it is certainly not implied in any discussion about mutually-beneficial international free trade.

> “Which means we have to sell THEM something of equal value or do without whatever it is they are flogging to us. Me, I want the heat pumps and A/C units and single board computers. I’ll have my wife sew me a pair of pants and save my foreign exchange for something I CAN’T get that way. Does THAT make it any clearer?”

Yes. It’s very clear now where the error lies. Your mistake is that you are overlooking the opportunity cost involved in making those pants.
The real cost of *anything* is what *could* have been done with the same time and resources.
As a hobby making your own clothes is fine, but as an economic proposition it is worthless.
For the same amount of time, if spent doing something you are trained and equipped for, you could earn enough money to at least buy pants *plus* a couple of shirts.

For the same reason, it makes no sense for any other worker in a highly productive “western” economy like New Zealand’s to spend time making pants when, for the same amount of time and effort, they can produce output of *much higher value* which can then be be traded.

And when it comes to the trade, you have to exchange something of equal value whether you’re buying stuff from a NZ national or a foreigner: The only difference is in your mind. The New Zealand dollar and the Chinese Renminbi are both foreign exchange as far as your household is concerned.

You accuse me of rambling and now you drag in hockey sticks?

I have pointed you at realclimate several times now. The infamous hockey-stick has nothing to do with the FACT that there is ALREADY more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been in the past 6 interglacial periods. The hockey stick argument remains “alive” and the final word seems to be a long time in coming. I will refer you, ONCE AGAIN, to some relevant discussion of this issue.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-ro und-27/

You seem to think that the current climate is magically balanced at some optimum point and that any movement away from it *must* be negative; indeed, disastrous. This is an entirely fanciful notion on your part.

You have 6 billion people who are barely feeding themselves today. Lots of them are starving. Agriculture is running out of fresh water and pollution is claiming more than just the water. Change the rainfall patterns and global food production goes totally off the rails for a while. I am not assuming something “benign” about how it is, now, only that there is a hell of a lot of inertia in the system. Six billion people have inertia. How naive of me.

“Warmer” changes WHERE the rain falls. The little ice age and the medieval warm period… they destroyed farmland and killed people THEN. What happens if something like that occurs NOW? YES it changes. Never before, to our scientific knowledge, the way it is changing now. Go to realclimate and educate yourself.

With respect to China you seem to want to claim that only capitalism is to be credited with their accession to the economic power that they wield today. I disagree with your assessment. I don’t think it is strange at all. Sorry but I don’t think free market capitalism is the right answer to every question.

I said NOTHING about the “shock of an international crisis” and arguing with me by putting words in my mouth is liable to make me rather less polite with you. I pointed out that if trade is not balanced it will eventually cause collapse of our economy… or do you somehow think you can continue to get something for nothing forever? If it is not balanced we are buying on credit, and passing debt and trouble on to our kids. I won’t agree to that.

It is very difficult to debate ANY proposition with you, since you insist on changing words and meanings to suit your prejudices.

If you accept that increasing trade is entirely compatible with full employment (which it obviously is)
… But I don’t accept that JUST ANY increase in trade is compatible with full employment, I have stipulated SEVERAL times that it must be balanced and I have pointed out SEVERAL times that there are a great many things we cannot build here economically. I have repeated this in different ways and you still base your argument on this assumption.

You’re not expounding a moral principle here, you’re appealing to what you perceive to be my naked self-interest.

NO! I was responding to your assertion that nationalism or patriotism is the same as racism. That looking out for my fellow countrymen and countrywomen is the same as racism. I pointed out that your assertion is not correct. It still isn’t.

You imagine - wrongly - that trade is a zero sum game.
I do? Gee, I never knew I imagined THAT… I wonder why I didn’t know I imagined it? Maybe, just maybe, it is because I DIDN”T! I know very well that trade can benefit both parties… but I count the cost of the distance far dearer than you do, and I insist that trade be balanced… that is TRADE, not us buying everything we need from someone else on credit just cause they can make it cheaper than we can and nobody counts the shipping properly.

you flee to NZ and try and pull up the drawbridge behind you so that you’re alright and screw everyone else.

I have children. I feel sorry for them and the world that they will inherit. I feel sorry for EVERY child and every parent on the planet. I also have a hell of a time with lifeboat ethics, cause I feel sorry for them. That doesn’t mean that I am going to sell out MY children’s future. The idea that anything that I or NZ can do will alter the fate of the 3+ billion people I believe to be at risk, is not realistic. Trade? Sure we can, but not on credit.

Which means we have to sell THEM something of equal value or do without whatever it is they are flogging to us. Me, I want the heat pumps and A/C units and single board computers. I’ll have my wife sew me a pair of pants and save my foreign exchange for something I CAN’T get that way. Does THAT make it any clearer?

Right… Take it down to the family budget. We want a new computer and a pair of pants and food and heat and a wind turbine for electricity etc… etc…

I can raise food in the backyard, I can gather wood for heat, my wife can make me some pants… I HAVE to buy the turbine and the computer… they are beyond my manufacturing base. So should I spend my money buying pants and gas for my heater and peaches from California and grapes from Chile?

That’s what you seem to be saying… and you are real insistent about it too. I don’t agree.

BJ

> “If you considered for a while you might realise that fastbike is not only intelligent and well informed, he is skilled in making his points clearly with minimal offence”

e.g. “Ah Yes … now I’d trust anything they said anyday - but - only with my tinfoil hat on…ROTFLOL” ?

I’m afraid it’s lost on me.

bjchip,

Good grief man. Pick the bones out of that or what. It’s just not possible to respond fully to such a rambling post.

Re global warming, have a look at http://www.climateaudit.org where the data and processing behind the infamous “hockeystick” chart from realclimate have been laboriously examined (in the face of stubborn resistance from the original authors). The result is nothing short of a scandal. Just one example: they found that the program that Mann wrote to process the data is biased such that it actually trawls for hockeystick shapes. Nine times out of ten the program will produce a hockeystick-shaped chart when fed *random* data. How could you not be interested? That’s the poster-child of the global warming scare and it’s scientifically worthless.

> “Desertification, cat 5 typhoons, rising sealevels and lack of fresh water are headed our way. Globally.”

You seem to think that the current climate is magically balanced at some optimum point and that any movement away from it *must* be negative; indeed, disastrous. This is an entirely fanciful notion on your part. The climate is always changing, sometimes dramatically and rapidly. There is nothing special about today’s climate, and absolutely no reason to believe that a warmer climate would, on balance, be any worse for humankind than today’s. Warmer, for example, implies more evaporation which implies more rainfall, not less.
None of which is to say that it is at all possible to discern an anthropogenic signal in any recent climate change. So far it’s just doing what it always does: change. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period occurred long before the internal combustion engine came along.

>”There is actually no way for either of us to PROVE that the Communist regime did well or poorly in its efforts to lift them out of poverty, or that it was Capitalism alone that did the job.”

What a strange statement. You mean the Communists did okay if we ignore the tens of millions of avoidable deaths? A curious way of looking at things, to be sure.

On the subject of trade, I said: “You seem to be saying that a high level of trade is compatible with full local employment, but that the shock of an international crisis could create unemployment in participating economies.”
To which you replied: “If you say so then I guess it must seem so to you, but it is nothing like what I have said”
In fact it’s *exactly* what you said:- “Increased foreign trade DOES give full employment if it is in balance. If it is NOT balanced it creates the conditions of market failure and economic collapse. Which THEN creates unemployment.”

It is very difficult to debate a proposition if you are going to flatly contradict yourself like that.

If you accept that increasing trade is entirely compatible with full employment (which it obviously is) then your objection about not wanting to “export New Zealand jobs and create unemployment in my country” is clearly worthless, so you can stop repeating it (and just what is a “New Zealand job” anyway?).

> “Race does not bring with it a social or civil organization. It does not bind people to a set of laws or subject them to taxes, or force them to live together, or suffer the same fate as a race…”

You’re not expounding a moral principle here, you’re appealing to what you perceive to be my naked self-interest. You imagine - wrongly - that trade is a zero sum game. You believe that for me to prosper others must live in poverty. This is nonsense, for the simple reason that wealth is created.
And I have to say it is an extremely unedifying picture you paint where, having convinced yourself that the world is coming to an end, you flee to NZ and try and pull up the drawbridge behind you so that you’re alright and screw everyone else. Charming.