Sam
"One can easily imagine adopting that methodology and directing it to a social purpose other than merely enhancing bottom lines."

This is just the same old socialist sh!t sandwich all over again.

You completely failed to come to terms with the critiques of socialism. You show no signs of understanding them, let alone refuting them.

To dispose of your argument in one sentence, as Ludwig von Mises said, as soon as the socialists start trying to imitate the action of the markets, they've lost the argument.

You need to actually *think*, Sam. Now. What is the economic difference between private businesses and government?

Answer the question.

While ever you show a complete ignorance of economics, and of the nature of government, you are in no position to make any comment on matters of political economy.

At no stage have you shown that socialism of any kind would produce better results, IN YOUR OWN TERMS, than capitalism, and in this you copy exactly the defects of Marx who never thought it through either. You can't just assume it. You need to prove it. But how can you do that if you don't even understand the labour theory of value, the theory of marginal utility, the critique of Marx's exploitation theory, or the economic calculation problem? You literally don’t understand what you’re talking about. Your arguments, or rather assumptions, have been demolished decades ago, and you’re not even aware of the discussion.

In any event, if what you are suggesting is true, and worker self-managed corporations fare better in the market than others, then there'll be no need for any government action, will there, and you are advocating a more radical free market laissez-faire than Reagan or Thatcher.

But if they require government action, then you're not comparing apples with apples you fool.

Also, it is a non sequitur to argue that WSM enterprises, by being superior market forms of production, justify high or any rates of taxation, so your whole article doesn’t make logical sense. You’re operating at a primary school level.

(cont.)

You also contradict yourself so far as WSM enterprises would increase the welfare of the workers, because in doing so they would be guilty of the dreaded “growth”, and thus increase their consumption of material resources, and increase the poverty, inequality, misery and environmental degradation that you blame on capitalism for the same reason.

The only way to avoid this conclusion is if the growth is to come out of profits. But then you are back to the dreary old socialist nostrum that profit is a measure of waste and misallocation and exploitation: in short, the labour theory of value. LEARN about it, you dunce. You also need to account for the production foregone. Show your workings. Honestly, it’s like talking to a chemist still spruiking the theory of phlogiston, or a physicist spruiking the ether. LEARN you fool.

It shouldn't be so easy to checkmate you in one move from three different angles at once. This means your theory is flatly incorrect. Okay? Got that?

Your idea that everyone should vote equally on the disposition of others' property and property, is why socialism turned into totalitarian dictatorships presiding over the starvation of millions you compleat fool. You’ve learnt nothing from the last 100 years.

I'm not asking you to agree with the critics of socialism. But the problem is you can’t even
a) understand
b) correctly represent, or
c) refute
the arguments. You literally don’t know what they are.

AFTER you have refuted the theories herein, you will be in a position to re-write your article. But by that stage you’ll be laughing at your own ignorance. Oh and did I mention conceitedness and faux moral superiority? That too.

“Man, Economy and State” by Murray Rothbard
http://mises.org/Books/mespm.PDF

“Human Action” by Ludwig von Mises
http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf
Read particularly about syndicalism.

Sam, all you’ve got is herd-bleat and slogan-squark. You have in no way advanced the argument any further than Lenin had. You have neither established your critique of capitalism, nor any reason to think that socialism of any non-voluntary kind would be any better.

Fail.

One of the consistent lies we hear from the regressives is that if we give more money to Government (or have it stolen) then we will have better education and solve Indigeneous affairs. The last 50 years has proven this to be a fallacy. Despite massive increases in funding, wages etc we have a dumber more corrupt generation and more dysfunction than ever in Indigenoues matters. The only ones who have really benefited are those on the gravy tain.

JKJ, you're simply arguing around in circles, as is your usual wont.

runner, WWJD?

Thinking inside a limited circle of ideas, limits the questions and so also, the answers! And confirmed by the reality of the wages price spiral!

The only value of "manmade" inflation is to transfer more from the have nots to the haves!

Even so, there is an argument for taxation reform that limits or completely eliminates tax avoidance! Which is what you get when taxes are just too high and squander the enterprise and endevour of the lifters and doers!

Make no mistake, tax avoiders are the very worst leaners, who expect others to lift and carry their load! And the reason we must have genuine reform that stops this; rather than additional complexity that in reality, all that makes it possible!

Payroll tax was imposed as a means to force automation and the productivity gains it supports!?

Even as the power it needs and uses was priced out of the paradigm! Accelerating the industrial exodus!

Up to 40% of our international guest corporations pay no company tax to anyone and actual tax collected as company tax from others, reportedly varies between 1-4%?

All while astonishingly asinine tax compliance laws rip around 7% from the average bottom line? The cost of tax minimization/avoidance?

We've few choices moderated by harsh reality and the vagaries of the new global economy!

A flat 15% tax with no exceptions or escape clauses that every boy and his dog pay? With the less well off compensated by a beefed up (doubled) social wage? And given that model will allow the current compliance costs (7%) to be rendered null and void, an effective tax rate of just (15-7=8) 8%!

Look, 50-60% of something is always going to be better than the 100% of nothing many leaners contribute now!

Moreover the tax rate, if coupled to the world's least expensive electricity!? THORIUM! Bound to have high tech manufacture queuing to join us and add their profit streams/flow ons and tax contributions to a then turbocharged economy!

We can ensure competition forces the best outcomes/minimises inflation/price gouging, by ensuring cooperative entrepreneurial enterprise always gets first dibs!
Alan B.

Craig Minns

Prove it.