Hanrahan would have found it difficult to cope in modern day Canberra.

The mythical outback creation of bush poet John O'Brien, Hanrahan immortalised the hardship and stoicism of rural Australia with his famous line: "We'll all be rooned".

In recent years, however, there's been a chronic outbreak of optimism emanating from the national capital, underpinned almost entirely by our devotion to free trade.

Ever since the Coalition was elected in late 2013, free trade has been trumpeted as our primary pathway to prosperity as though we hadn't been engaged in it until now.

Trade ministers Andrew Robb and Steve Ciobo have been furiously signing agreements to ensure our place in the world.

First up was Malaysia, followed by China, Japan and South Korea before the granddaddy of them all fell over late last year when Donald Trump canned the ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a regional deal with 11 Pacific nations including us.

However, tragedy turned to triumph last week when a reworked, although vastly diluted, TPP was unveiled that included everyone in the original deal other than America.

Once again, it was hailed as a deal that would fuel our future growth with promises of thousands of new jobs and access to new markets, the same story we've heard each time these deals have been announced.

But will it really fuel future growth?

The short answer is no.

For years, economists have been dismissing these deals as, at best meaningless, and at worst detrimental to the national interest.

The Productivity Commission is downright scathing of them.

About the best that can be said of TPP Lite is that, at first glance, it won't be as harmful as the original. With the US exit, 20 major clauses insisted upon by America have been excluded, apparently much to everyone's relief.

Like all the others, it has been negotiated in secret and hasn't been examined by an independent body which allows politicians to exaggerate the potential benefits while completely ignoring the costs.

According to research distributed by the Prime Minister's office last week, Australia will find itself half a per cent better off by 2030 as a result of the reworked deal.

Not 5 per cent. That's right, 0.5 per cent in around a decade and a half.

You don't need a working knowledge of statistics to realise that's pretty much known in the trade as insignificant.

But even this document spells out that, with America's exit, some of the more controversial elements of the TPP have been removed.

Donald Trump shows off an executive order to withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. ( AP: Evan Vucci )

Read that another way. Clauses that would have benefitted the US at the expense of everyone else now are gone. Apparently, that's now great news for us. Odd we weren't warned about those dangers prior to Mr Trump pulling the ripcord.

Should the US reconsider, as has been hinted in recent days, those clauses would be back on the table.

What are free trade agreements?

There are a couple of things you probably didn't realise about Free Trade Agreements.

The first is that they aren't Free Trade Agreements at all. They are preferential trade agreements. And most of the time, they have precious little to do with trade, let alone free trade. Often, they are more about defence and diplomatic tie ups.

Lastly, because they are negotiated by diplomats and bureaucrats, they're laden with red tape, and make actual trading more difficult. Not only that, each government works to do the best deal for itself and its big corporations, which often involves entrenching monopolies. That's the opposite of free trade.

Knowing that, it should come as little surprise to learn that not all Free Trade Agreements are good. In fact, some are stinkers. And you don't have to go any further than the 2005 deal the Howard government signed with America to discover just how a supposed free trade deal can leave you much worse off.

In fact, an Australian National University study found the deal cost, that's right cost, $US56 billion in lost trade in 2012 alone, with losses each year from 2005.

That was a deal that fundamentally altered Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, limited the Commonwealth's power to price medicines cheaply and contributed to the soaring costs of our health system and our deficit problems.

How we are sold a pup

Anyone who's ever studied economics has it drilled into them. The theory, backed up by endless equations, proves free trade benefits everyone.

As individuals, we practice free trade every day. We don't try to make our own clothes, grow our own food, build our own houses. We specialise, we sell our services and we buy what we need from others with a trade or skill.

It is understood the TPP deal will include: The abolition of all tariffs on seafood, wine, sheep meat, cotton wool and manufactured goods across the region

The abolition of all tariffs on seafood, wine, sheep meat, cotton wool and manufactured goods across the region New bilateral trade deals for Australia with Canada and Mexico

New bilateral trade deals for Australia with Canada and Mexico Japan speeding up the reduction of import barriers for Australian beef imports

Japan speeding up the reduction of import barriers for Australian beef imports Japan eliminating several tariffs on Australian cheese imports

Japan eliminating several tariffs on Australian cheese imports Improved conditions for Australian service exports within the region — such exports were worth more than $18 billion last financial year

The same principles apply to nations. The only thing is, for the past half century, pretty much the entire world has been working overtime to remove trade barriers via the World Trade Organisation.

Here's the thing. The benefits of free trade flow to those who remove or drop their barriers. Which is exactly what Australia has already done. Free trade means you don't produce things you're not good at making.

You buy them from elsewhere at prices far lower than you can produce them yourself.

It's why our clothing is so much cheaper than it used to be. It's why our cars cost far less than they used to. Consumers benefit enormously and have more money to spend. Efficient businesses pay less for inputs.

At least, that's the theory.

But there's a downside. We no longer have a clothing industry, or a car industry. That puts people out of work and that creates political and social upheaval.

That's why Americans are so angry. Manufacturing has shifted to China.

So when it comes to signing trade agreements, there's only limited benefits for us because we've already dropped our barriers. So our pollies ramp up the sales pitch by crowing about extra access for our export industries.

Gaining access to Japan's beef market, however, only helps us if Japanese eat more beef or if we produce and export greater quantities overall. If we simply shift our exports from some other destination, which is what usually happens with these deals, we don't win at all.

So why bother with the TPP?

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. For a start, it gives our pollies something to crow about. It looks like they're doing something important. And a compliant media usually just swallows the whole thing hook, line and sinker.

It's not just this government. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard both were pushing for the TPP and all the other trade deals.

But there's another element. Have you ever wondered why China, the world's second biggest economy, our biggest trading partner and a nation on the Pacific rim, wasn't included in the TPP?

The answer is simple. The TPP was an American foreign policy initiative to counter the influence of China around the Pacific rim. Add in a few onerous clauses that would advance the interests of American corporations, particularly the pharmaceutical giants and Silicon Valley, and it was a deal that spelled sweet success for Washington.

The fact that Mr Trump pulled the pin on a deal that favoured America tells you all you need to know about the President and his administration.

And why has it been revived at great haste, without America? Because Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and some of China's other neighbours are becoming increasingly concerned about the aggressive territorial stance by China in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Not that anyone in Canberra will concede that. No, according to well-placed government sources, we will be selling more oats to Malaysia which, in turn, will be selling more muesli bars to Japan, making everyone a winner.

Now, that's enough to put a smile even on Hanrahan's dial.