How can you claim to be more realistic when you can't bring yourself to propose any actual policy, and can't explain why it's more realistic to call on politicians to give you handouts? Have you noticed both sides are agreed not to do it, and that's precisely what you're complaining about?

So you don't care that it's untrue, you don't care that it's unethical, you don't care that it's not what you actually believe in - you just want a handout. Paid for by destroying someone else's liberty and livelihood, and stealing his property, and creating more of the problems you're complaining about. Thanks - you're making my case for me.

Even the communists are giving away the protectionism and state coddling that is their defining characteristic, the world has learnt to identify the socialist sh!t sandwich for what it is, and you guys are trailing behind complaining about the progress of freedom against totalitarianism.

A better exposition of Keynesianism we couldn't have wanted.

"We want titty! We want titty!"

Jardine, I presume your last remark is addressed to all of us. It is not as simple as totally free market or handouts. It is more complicated than that.
Trying to free up everything unconditionally without some protections in place would mean all agriculturalists would be slaughtered. They almost are anyway. The opposite is not necessarily handouts.
It is also not true that there are no policies offered.
I have called for relaxation of imposts such as environmental imposts without compensation. Society needs to put a value on conservation not just expect farmers to foot the bill.
I have also called for stronger competition laws (more like the US and fully resourced) which I called "anti-trust" which is a bit of a 19th century term and I gave an example which you rejected. In fact I had more than one example and one went unanswered.
I am also calling on politicians to be mindful of the effects of their actions on agriculture so that we do not come up with decisions like the total live export ban which Barnaby Joyce called the worst decision ever made. That is true. It is just the most obvious in a long line of anti-agriculture policy settings.
A new offering is that I want the exclusions from prosecution for environmental organisations that exist under the secondary boycott and third line forcing provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act removed so that they cannot destroy whole industries as they have the Tasmanian timber industry.
Government handouts are what many environmental organisations get and they repay us by destroying agriculture. These grants should stop.
There needs to be general recognition of "price taking" and the market failures it can cause.
A free market also relies on perfect information and it is usually processors, large grain handlers ect. who have the information.

Campaigner
We all agree that farm profitability is adversely affected by environmental imposts, and government-granted immunities and privileges for environmental organisations.

However these are arguments against government interventions not free market economics; and they have nothing to do with Say’s Law versus Engel’s law (except disproving Keynes's assumptions in favour of government interventionism).

I assume you are not a member of the bartb school of economics and its “I don’t care whether theory is true or untrue” doctrine.

If not, you still need to prove your case against market decision-making and in favour of government’s alleged remedies.

The issue is whether you can define alleged market failures so as to exclude other economic activity that is universally regarded as necessary and beneficial (which you can't); but even if you can, whether you can justify the assumption that government can do any better. I deny both.

“A free market also relies on perfect information…”

No it doesn’t, and you have made no attempt to justify this claim. Ironically this notion comes from neo-classical theory, so you’re relying on neo-classical assumptions to claim that neo-classical theory is wrong.

Just think about it for a sec. Think of all those hundreds of millions of Chinese whose lives have been lifted out of poverty by the market reforms of recent decades. According to your theory, the fact that perfect information, perfect knowledge, etc. didn’t exist, means that governmental decision-making would have been better, to correct for the “market failures” based on imperfection. So they would have been economically better off with full communism. Why is your theory not absurd?

If you are going to claim that market failures justify government interventions, please define market failure, and *relative to what* normal or ideal state?

And then, why doesn’t the same criterion of failure apply to governmental action? If monopoly is bad, why doesn’t that prove that governmental action is bad? If imperfect knowledge proves market action illegitimate, then why doesn’t the same imperfect knowledge in government prove government action illegitimate? Aren’t you assuming that government is perfection personified, and if not why not?

The original economic problem, giving rise to all economic activity and all economic theory, is that there is a need to decide how to allocate scarce resources to satisfying the most highly valued ends. You can’t just *assume* that government knows how to do that, because the error underlying full communism, is that if only we could vest this decision-making power in government, then what a paradise we would have. What about full communism do you disagree with? Why don’t these same reasons apply to your argument in favour of government’s alleged ability to rectify alleged market failures, i.e. to know the difference in all cases between where resources are allocated by the market and where they *should be* allocated, to satisfy the most highly valued ends?

Also, you’re not taking account of the upstream actions of government in causing the alleged market failures in the first place. For example, we should be able to ring up a local butcher, and get him to come and get a few cows. This would help farm profitability, as well as help the local consumer, and local trade. We can’t, because of course everything is illegal. Guess-who strangles to death just about every small businesses and small process? Then when the government has killed off the possibility of any but big companies entering the market as buyers, we get this unthinking complaint that the problem is a “market failure” caused by “duopoly” "corrupting" the market.

Examples could be multiplied a hundred-fold. You can’t just *assume* that these regulations, e.g. tax, superannuation, workers comp., OHS, consumer protection, environment, etc. etc. etc. are automatically beneficial for “society” just because the government has made them, because then you’re back to the assumption that government presumptively knows best how to allocate scarce resources to their most valued ends. If that assumption is true, then why not make all decisions by government?

So please define market failures without including necessary and beneficial activities, and justify your assumption that government can do better without using a double standard?

Jardine you are black and white and have a closed mind.
It is not as simple as free market or handouts. You are the almost the only person in the country who does not think that Coles and Woolworths are not a duopoly and that many agricultural producers sell into a monopsony.
The large players can manipulate a market at almost any time and you seem to think that is OK.
You are objecting to minimum wages, superannuation and worker’s compensation.
Heck , why don’t we just introduce slavery, feed people a bowl of cornmeal a day and not offer any assistance when they are sick or injured? That is the end point of no regulation.
Why not dig holes in the ground for mining, allow companies to use, divert and pollute water courses to the detriment of all other water users to the extent that if you fell in the river you would die which is what I was told about a river in South America.
Then we would be competitive.
If you want an opinion on Say”s Law v Engel I think Say’s Law is a heap of wally. If you keep on producing at some point what you have is a glut and a fire sale at below cost of production. In Mill’s interpretation it also relies on increasing the money supply which is another interference.
Engel’s law is borne out by real world observation.