Jardine K Jardine, I have read quite a lot of Austrian economics, including Rothbard. They just assume what has to be proven, that we need the profit motive.

They have nothing new to add on the subject. And their calculation argument rest on that assumption despite their claims to the contrary.

Their main contribution is to sheet home the importance of the profit motive in a market economy, something I wholeheartedly agree with.

I refer readers to may paper of a few years back:

http://werdiscussion.worldeconomicsassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/McMullen-SocialismNH.pdf

The following sections are particularly relevant:

2. Dissecting the economic calculation argument, starting on page 2.

3. The motivation problem, starting on page 6.

David
Everything that you have argued on economic theory has already been totally demolished here:
http://werdiscussion.worldeconomicsassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/McMullen-SocialismNH.pdf

"They [Austrian economists] just assume what has to be proven, that we need the profit motive."

No they don't. Prove it.

byork
You're just confused over names.

According to your theory, any product of social co-operation should be under political control.

So either you support unlimited government power over everything and the elimination of human freedom, or you don't understand what you're talking about.

Which is it?

It's no use telling me I'm confused or ignorant - I'm using your definitions and your theory!

Don't tell me you believe in freedom. How can you possibly reconcile that claim with your own statement that any product of social co-operation should be under political control. What freedom would not be caught by such a provision?

To BYork.

Your argument appears to be, (correct me if I am wrong) that the left wing no longer exists because both Labor and Liberals are right wing parties. Therefore, everything bad that happens in Australia can be blamed on the Right?

Well, that is a novel interpretation of reality.

Regardless of whether the Labor Party still believes in Socialist economic theory, it is still a left wing party. It looks after the interests of those working class people still "working" in government controlled industries and resists privatisation of those inefficient, featherbedded, and rort riddled industries. It will look after the interests of unionised workers even in private industry, and can never stop thinking up new ways to buy the working class vote by making the employers pay for it. (17.5 % loading on holiday pay, retrospective legislation compensating workers who lose their jobs, MERT, compulsory employer funded superannuation, four weeks annual leave, and the 35 hour week).

It is also a left wing party because it looks after the interests of the ever growing class of non productive and counter productive members of Australian society (dole bludgers, pensioners, criminals, terrorists, "refugees" and "aborigines." The Labor Party is a left wing party because it conforms to the classic left wing principle within democratic societies of buying the vote of the unproductive by taxing the hell out of the productive and pretending that you are Robin Hood. It is also left wing because it conforms to the classic socialist principle, that everybody is equal, amd everybody should be equal. And if it can't make everybody equally rich, it can sure as hell make everybody equally poor. It loves spending taxpayer money to the point of insolvency, but perversely, it despises the very business class that pays most of the tax.

Like every left wing party in the western world, it is actively involved in staying in power by increasing the numbers of unproductive through immigration, soft "refugee" policies, and any policy that will encourage birth rate differentials between the non productive and the productive to increase.

Get it in your head, LEGO, pensioners past and present are the people who built the Australia you live in today.

Either you new 'trendy' lot in this country pay lump sum cash or pay bit by bit fortnightly to use existing services paid for or maintained by pensioners, or go live in the desert where there is no services or benefits at all.

As for media/press and Aborigines, go talk to the deceitful ABC and other media editorial and have them report truth, about how it was decided years ago to collect coloured aboriginal children from full blood families, because the half-blood children were not getting due or equal care from the fullblood dad's they did not belong to.

Then add the true and very significant alcohol addiction problem to the aboriginal story. Stop blaming past government for trying to do the best thing under the circumstances at the time.

Media failure to tell the truth about the alcohol problem is linked to fact that grog sales pay money for media advertising, and many politicians are big drinkers.

Failure of media to tell the truth is linked to ongoing alcohol related death of aboriginal people, negligence with intent comes to mind, possibly involving genocide.

There is need for middle of the road politics and honest reporting by media.

LEGO you have a damn hide putting pensioners and Aborigines in the same category with dole bludgers, terrorists and criminals.

Byork,

The definition I gave of socialism is from the encyclopedia Britannica and is echoed in every other place I have looked. I would recommend you read it as it describes the government CONTROL of production not just INVOLVEMENT.

What conservatives are looking for is small government, i.e. government that capitalism occurs in a fair and competitive legal environment, that infrastructure is provided where and when needed, that consumers and the environment are protected, and that public goods that benefit society as a whole such as public health, a safety net, schooling etc that would not be provided otherwise are provided.

The difference is that socialists want governments to run major businesses such as airlines, power generation, health funds, etc that can be run far more efficiently by private industry.

Communists and Marxists are the extreme version that want governments to run all businesses. This has been shown to be an abject failure.