approved, thanks swan, page-57

Buddy, I was not being critical. My comment was intended to provide the perspective that the discussion reflects exactly what is being discussed right now at G20 level - protectionism versus globalisation / free trade. These are opposing forces for which it is obviously not easy to find the right balance.

I am simply a proponent of the view that there is some regulation and government intervetion required to prevent capitalism from off the rails, but it should be kept to the minimum level possible to prevent economic meltdowns but provide incentive for innovation and competition. The old argument that the playing field isnt level will only ever serve to prevent true free trade because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only 10 years ago China wasnt even part of the WTO, today they are and they're getting more integrated into global trade than anyone would have believed 10 years ago, and probably more than the Chinese government would even prefer right now because they couldnt de-couple from the financial crisis last year. But fundamentally free trade has to be the right way to go.

I just happen to believe that government should not be in business.

There are plenty of foreign-owned businesses here employing millions of Australians, and we've long ago allowed some of our national icons like Vegemite to be sold to foreign multi-nationals, and there's no problem with any of this - we as nation enjoy one of the best standards of living in the world and currently one of the strongest economies.

At the end of the day protectionism will restrict economic growth in the long term whereas globalisation and free trade will enhance it.

As an aussie I have pride in our country and emotionally I prefer good companies like FMG not to be sold off to foreign owners, but as an investor I look purely at what provides me with the greatest potential return. The greatest potential return would be achieved if FMG develops to become a multi-national like BHP and acquires other businesses and resources both here and overseas, and the best way to achieve that is if it stays in the control of a management team and shareholders who have that kind of vision. That's the only reason why I wouldnt want the Chinese or anyone else taking control - because they are likely to treat FMG as the subsidiary it would become and therefore limit its long term investment potential. No other reason.

Anyway, they're just my personal philosophies and as I said, no criticism of your post intended - just sharing my view.

I am sure that most of us here have one thing in common by our presence on this forum - we would like to see FMG do well. Cheers, Sharks.