What to Anticipate from the Inflation Reduction Act 2.0

In the article titled “What to Anticipate from the Inflation Reduction Act 2.0: Not a lot, it seems,” the author provides a commentary on Anthony Albanese’s speech titled “A Future Made in Australia.” The article criticizes the lack of specifics in Albanese’s speech, describing it as “3,302 words of waffle.” The author highlights the absence of any dollar sign in the speech, indicating a lack of concrete plans for re-industrializing Australia.

The author points out that when asked about the modeling underlying the speech and the number of jobs it would create, Albanese could only offer vague statements about the opportunity to “grow enormous” jobs. This lack of modeling suggests a lack of substance and planning behind the proposed Future Made in Australia Act.

The article goes on to discuss the concept of protectionism and why it is not a good idea for Australia. The author explains the principle of comparative advantage, stating that countries should focus on what they do best. The example of a medical specialist paying someone to cut their lawn while a pensioner cuts their own lawn is used to illustrate this principle.

The author argues against raising tariff barriers in response to other countries subsidizing their producers and exporting products at a cheaper price. Instead, they suggest that countries should take advantage of the subsidized products and reinvest the surplus in something that will improve their lifestyle.

While there are exceptions to these rules, such as larger countries being able to afford trade wars better than smaller ones, the author emphasizes that Australia, as a well-developed small country, would benefit more from open trade than protectionism. The article also mentions an exception to protectionism, which is selective protectionism in cases involving China to ensure national security.

The article concludes by criticizing Mr. Albanese’s focus on altering trade policy as a means to address national security threats. The author argues that the real threats to national security lie within his own Cabinet, citing specific members and their policies. The article further criticizes the government for its outdated and ideological obsessions, suggesting that Australia has never been less secure.

Overall, the article presents a critical analysis of Albanese’s speech and raises concerns about the lack of specifics, the focus on protectionism, and the government’s approach to national security.