The Labor government does not have to increase taxes. It just has to stop cutting them. Both land tax and payroll tax grow year by year.

Labor has already decided what it is going to do in education, including with curriculum. It is in the Skills and Knowledge chapter of the platform at:
http://www.viclabor.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Victorian-Labor-Platform-2014.pdf.

Chris; And there's some good stuff there; But not much detail on Civics and Citizenship; And arguably we could have emphasis on political literacy and active citizenship. And we could have compulsory humanities/social sciences along with English as the means of delivering on those priorities.

"Arguably no state government in the country has secured the revenue necessary to sustain government provision of public infrastructure in everything from transport to public housing and education over the long term."

What a dumb thing to say. Obviously the State could snaffle the entire product of society up its snout, and it still wouldn't have enough money to "sustain government provision of public infrastructure" because
a) if the price of something is zero, the supply with never be enough to meet demand,
b) Tristan has no rational criterion for distinguishing how much social product should be, as he delicately puts it, "secured" [translation: at gunpoint]. Since a hundred percent would not be enough, obviously a lesser amount could be in no better position.

What the economic illiteracy of the statists keeps failing to understand, is that the scarcity of resources cannot be just magically conjured away by forcibly taking from A and giving to B.

The blandishments of Tristan's open-ended belief in the State only ever make sense if you disregard the fact that for every benefit the State provides, the resources are not created out of thin air. That is mere superstition. The resources to pay for any State action had to be withdrawn from some alternative employment which also went to satisfy human wants, human needs, human welfare, human wants in medical care, education, the environment, and so on.

"The money you get from Canberra, is the money you sent to Canberra, minus freight both ways." For example, 50 percent of the welfare budget is "churn" - robbing Peter to pay Peter.

At no stage does Tristan ever come to terms with what is in issue. The State is not a magical super-economising superbeing, and the belief that it is, has no basis in reason or reality, let alone ethics.

Infrastructure needs to be paid for one way or another. There is no 'magic pudding'; But if you don't pay for it publicly then you will have a bottleneck, or you will get some form of 'user pays'. The state sector generally enjoys a better credit rating. It also doesn't need to worry about dividends as first priority. Hence public provision of infrastructure is fairer on low and middle income groups; and also can deliver efficiencies that flow through to the broader economy. Jardine assumes that demand can only manifest via a market relationship. That is ridiculous. For generations natural monopolies were provided in energy, water, transport, communications - without any worry about markets in the sense Jardine is suggesting. There is more than one way of ascertaining demand, and providing for that demand.

Another of Tristan's messages from a parallel universe where money grows on trees and trade unions are benevolent.

Here's a prediction: the Andrews government will be true type and an economic and social disaster, just like those of Kirner, Rudd and Gillard.

Welcome back Tristan.

The GST. It is true that low income groups are hit hard by GST increases, but GST is a progressive tax. The wealthy will pay a higher proportion. Low incomes can be compensated through the tax/welfare system.

Medibank Private. Medibank has one of the highest margins of all the health funds. Despite its market leadership, it did nothing to lower general premiums. Some health funds,like HCF, are non profit and use all of the premiums for the benefit of members.

Education. Education spending has been consistently well above inflation for a number of years but many schools still have poor literacy and numeracy scores. Although subjects like civics are important, it is absolutely essential that all children leave school with acceptable numeracy and literacy.

Tristan
Repeating false beliefs doesn't make them true.

"There is more than one way of ascertaining demand, and providing for that demand."

So perhaps you can show us by what rational criterion you ascertain whether government is providing
a) too much
b) too little, or
c) just the right amount
of anything it is providing, in terms of the satisfaction of the other human wants that had to be sacrificed in order to provide the resources for the governmental action, in units of a lowest common denominator?

I say that all you've got, and all any statist has got, is assertions of arbitrary opinion. Of course anyone can do that, and I could equally do it in reply. But I'm not doing what you're doing.

The challenge is not to just postulate any arbitrary amount of treasure to be spent on any arbitrarily-chosen service to any arbitrarily-chosen standard. The challenge is to make the connection, in whatever terms you want to define the ultimate human welfare criterion, with what human satisfactions had to be foregone, for the sake of governmental action.

You don't do that in your article, and you have never done it any of your articles or posts, ever. All you do is ASSUME that government is better, and knows better, and does better. At no stage do you justify this assumption in terms of reasons, economics, ethics, or any theory of the state. It's just a big magical fantasy-land in which you dream of a big teat to suck on indefinitely, and that's all it is. In reality, someone has to pay for it, so you are stuck with the question of social value whether you like it or not.

A simple admission that you haven't got and cannot provide any such rational criterion will suffice, but please, whatever you do, have the intellectual awareness to recognise a circular argument before you put it forward, and spare me having to humiliate you by pointing out the obvious.

Go ahead. Prove it or concede it.

Well here we go again; and Labor's victory can be trashed by a hostile Abbott lead coalition.

Should the GST be increased?
No!
It should be done away with along with state governments who need it, and who cost the taxpayer an additional 70 billions per year, just so we can have them around as a middle man profit taker.

And that forgone 70 billions would pay for enormous infrastructure outlays!
East cost rapid rail; an inland shipping canal, that allows most shipping to simply by pass the GBR altogether, thus saving time and fuel, and therefore, mucho plenty money!

Our super fund now approaches two trillion and needs something like self terminating thirty year bonds, to allow them to preferentially invest here and in income earning infrastructure!

We need genuine tax reform, to one, eliminate all the loopholes and the endless and costly duplication.

And here's the main point. If tiny Tassie can limit itself to just twenty five pollies, then so can all the other states.
I mean we only need ministers to head depts. All the rest are just expensive time wasters/window dressing or road blocks in the path of genuine progress!

Clearly, we need genuine tax reform to end the avoidance; (neg gearing/family trusts/ extremely expensive foreign service providers etc) and in so doing, relieve much of the load on too few taxpayers.

Why, if we all keep getting older or unemployed, JKJ may be the only one left paying any tax?
And you know he would just love that!?

My preference would be to throw out all the garbage and the inherent complexity, and replace all that with a single, stand alone, unavoidable expenditure tax.
Which could start at around 18-20%; and given the inherent savings, an adjusted real rate of just 11-13%, or put another way, the lowest real tax rate in the developed world!

As avoiders are welcomed back into the fold, reduced to just 5%?
Or 2% less than is presently being shelled out as currently unavoidable compliance costs!
It's the economy stupid!
Rhrosty.

Tristan,

It doesn’t go into a lot of detail but it does mention the importance of civics and citizenship in the curriculum:
‘become active, well-balanced, knowledgeable citizens, able to participate fully in a democratic society….

‘understand our democratic multicultural society, recognising what should be conserved, changed or improved …

‘understand and engage in our economy, our democracy and legal system…’

Wattle,

Yes, ‘Education spending has been consistently well above inflation for a number of years but many schools still have poor literacy and numeracy scores’, but if you think that proves the increase should not have happened, you are ignoring economic and population growth.

A study by Andrew Leigh and Chris Ryan claims a total increase in real expenditure per student of 333 per cent between 1964 and 2003. If that increase really was unjustified, let’s reverse it. We can do so by cutting teacher salaries by 77 per cent (i.e., to around $19,900 for the top level in Victoria), by increasing the maximum class size by 333 per cent (i.e., to 108 students in a secondary school), by increasing teaching loads by 333 per cent (i.e., to 97 hours a week in a primary school) or by some diabolical combination of al three steps.

How many able people would become and remain teachers if the pay and conditions were as bad as the critics’ advice would make them?

Increases in expenditure have to be assessed against improvements in the overall living standards of the country and in the additional load that schools have taken on.

Quick shut the gate, the fairies are getting out again.

Tristan, have you actually noticed our huge, & growing deficit?

You would never concede of course, that deficit is from a couple of ratbag governments following your ideas of spending our kids future earnings on reoccurring welfare payments to the bludger class.

I can see your idea in education too. If you downgrade our hard education, math & physics, even further, the peasants will take longer to wake up to lefty incompetence, as they won't be able to add 2+2.

One really good thing about this election nationally, if Labor run true to form in Victoria, their economic incompetence will again be highlighted before the national election.

Jardine,
"The blandishments of Tristan's open-ended belief in the State only ever make sense if you disregard the fact that for every benefit the State provides, the resources are not created out of thin air. That is mere superstition. The resources to pay for any State action had to be withdrawn from some alternative employment which also went to satisfy human wants, human needs, human welfare, human wants in medical care, education, the environment, and so on."

What about the resources freed up by the productivity increase the infrastructure brings? Don't they count for anything?

If Abbott gets defeated at the party ballot there will have to be a federal election.

579,

"If Abbott gets defeated at the party ballot there will have to be a federal election."

Says who?
And why?

If we persist in having a constantly growing population then there will never be enough money to cover the costs of all the necessary infrastructure.

JKJ: Doesn't it make sense to suppose that if governments have provided infrastructure in the past on the basis of the research and advice of the public service that the same might apply for today? In a similar way, perhaps, that businesses engage in in depth market research - rather than just interpreting signals based on the scale of consumption? Before privatisation and so called 'Public Private Partnerships' it had always been this way. You ask me to prove it. Decades of prior history illustrate the case.

579; Of course constitutionally the Libs wouldn't need to go to an election should Abbott be deposed. Though its interesting to note the Liberals own approach to that question in their constant agitation for a new election throughout the entire of Gillard's term. That was on the basis of Labor's mistruths on the carbon tax. Dare I say Abbott's lie was more serious. Gillard had the mitigating circumstance of not being prepared in advance for a hung parliament.

Aidan
"What about the resources freed up by the productivity increase the infrastructure brings? Don't they count for anything?"

Yes they do. The question remains, how to count them. How do we know whether government is providing too much, too little, or just the right amount? Ultimately, how do we rationally account for the human satisfactions foregone?

If the assumption was available that governmental provision of capital goods produces a net benefit compared to what would otherwise have obtained, then if we vested *all* productive capital in government, we'd end up with the most physically productive society.

No? Not prepared to defend that proposition? Then the question becomes, by what rational criterion to distinguish between the governmental provision that provides a net benefit, from the governmental provision that doesn't, which is where you entered the discussion.

Nothing you or Tristan has said has advanced the discussion beyond that point. You're just assuming what's in issue = circularity.

Tristan
"Doesn't it make sense to suppose that if governments have provided infrastructure in the past on the basis of the research and advice of the public service that the same might apply for today?"

1. Notice how you didn't provide the rational criterion in question?
2. Notice how you just *repeated* your *assumption*, just like I predicted?

So your argument is only "Government provides optimum allocation of resources because government provides optimum allocation of resources." = gibberish.

All I'd have to do is repeat the argument back at you substituting private for public = irrational, and by your own standard you must concede the argument.

"In a similar way, perhaps, that businesses engage in in depth market research - rather than just interpreting signals based on the scale of consumption?"

Businesses do it on the basis of profit and loss, which is what you're opposed to, remember? If it could be done on that basis, there'd be no need for governmental provision, would there?

Let me see if I can explain it another way.

Suppose the government builds a railway out into the middle of the Great Sandy Desert.

Is that infrastructure? Yes.

But is it putting society’s scarce resources to the use of satisfying the most urgent and important social wants? No.

We can figure this out just by common sense, i.e. intuition.

But we can also figure it out by a rational method. We can do the thought experiment of what would happen if you put your money into a private concern, and they did it. They’d make losses, wouldn’t they? The *ratio* of losses to profit would be greater. From this we know two things
a) you wouldn’t do it because you’d lose money, and
b) you’d lose money because society in general is telling you, through the price mechanism “Don’t use society’s scarce resources to build a railway out into the middle of the Great Sandy Desert, because we have more urgent and important wants to be satisfied with the same resources, and you’re wasting them.”

Okay, now to the problem at hand. If the only reason for getting government to do something, is so that the decision-making won’t be made on the basis of profit, then it’ll be made on the basis of losses, and we’re back to the Great Sandy Desert example.

But if it’s okay to do it on the basis of losses, then
a) the supply will never be able to satisfy the demand,
b) the demand for more and more and more of society’s scarce resources to be taken by government will be open-ended and unsatisfiable
c) you will be, and are, unable to distinguish government takings that are beneficial, from those that are unjust, wasteful, destructive and stupid,
d) I want government to pay for the “infrastructure” of artificial surf breaks, and the “essential services” of bare-breasted dancing girls. Since you have no rational criterion for what services merit governmental provision, there’s no reason why I , or anyone else should have one either. Socialism is just selfish destructionism parading as the public good.

JKJ: Public finance is more efficient as a consequence of superior credit ratings.

Public provision has the benefit of not needing to account for dividends to private shareholders. That means the savings can be passed on to the economy as a whole.

You say I'm opposed to profit etc. Let's be clear. I support a role for market signals in the current economy. I believe there are some things market players currently do better. I believe there is a role for competition - which can help drive quality and innovation.

But oligopoly, collusion, built in obsolescence etc are factors as well.

Chinese state owned corporations operate quite effectively in the global market for instance. Its the market context rather than the private context which is the progressive driving force...

Though in order to work there needs to be relatively free trade.

That's not to say the private transnationals disappear from the scale. Their innovations are too important to take a course of autarky - and cut ourselves off from the world economy...

That would probably go without saying... But you are trying to portray me as some kind of 'absolute statist'.

That's simply not true - as my emphasis on consumers and producers co-operatives also shows...

Jardine, it's interesting to see you're now using SPHERICAL arguments (assuming that I'm just assuming what's in issue). In reality of course your assumption was false - all I did was use a double semirhetorical question to get you to think about what you'd just said. Of course I haven't advanced the discussion beyond that point yet; I was waiting for you to catch up!

In future it would be more productive if, instead of accusing me of circularity, you asked why I've assumed x? But before you do, please check to make sure I actually have assumed x.

As for your main point, it's good to see you're thinking clearly at last!

I recognise the need for comparison against alternative options including the option of doing nothing. Indeed there are road schemes in four states that I'm currently opposed to, and for three of those (including the one the new Victorian premier has pledged to cancel) I'd support a cheaper version. I used to be of the view that the best solution was a cost:benefit ratio analysis, but since then I've seen how they often get perverse results based on dodgy assumptions (such as the one that used a ridiculously high (8%) discount rate to justify the use of FTTN on the NBN).

I now think the most appropriate measure would be the ratio of internal rate of return to regionally appropriate interest rate. By regionally appropriate I mean the interest rate should be adjusted to take account of resource scarcity/abundance (which usually means labour scarcity/abundance as most other things can be moved fairly cheaply). For instance it may be appropriate to use a rate of 3.5% in Sydney (where the economy is going comparatively well) but only 0.5% in Adelaide (where the unemployment rate is higher).

So much for Abbott trying to turn Victoria's election into a referendum on a tunnel in melbourne.
Victoria covers the whole state, it does not stop on the outskirts of Melbourne.
Turnbull is the man they need, the door is wide open.

Aidan
"By regionally appropriate I mean the interest rate should be adjusted to take account of resource scarcity/abundance (which usually means labour scarcity/abundance as most other things can be moved fairly cheaply). For instance it may be appropriate to use a rate of 3.5% in Sydney (where the economy is going comparatively well) but only 0.5% in Adelaide (where the unemployment rate is higher)."

What if someone else doesn't agree with your opinions about what the price of credit should be? Or your definition of "region"? How to stop this being merely a contest of arbitrary opinions with no objective basis?

Got that rational criterion there yet? How do you know that the governmental use of resources isn't going to withdraw them from uses that, in society's evaluation, satisfies more urgent and important wants and allocate them to satisfying less urgent or important wants, as decided by society?

Since the question is WHETHER government knows its use of resources is just right, too little, or too much, and if so how; and since your answer assumes THAT it does or can, therefore thank you for proving that it's not a spherical argument on my part, it's a circular one on yours.

Tristan
It's not me painting you as an absolutist statist, it's you.

We have just established that you do not recognise any principle by which the power of government could or should be limited because at ever stage, your argument would be available that government can finance things cheaper, and its actions are not infected with the profit motive. You may *think* that you support some small little sphere of individual liberty and property, not liable to be overridden by mere and irrational governmental power.

But unless you can establish what rational principle delimits the legitimate sphere of governmental action, the fact that you believe you are not an absolutist statist, doesn't prove that you're not. It proves you're contradicting yourself.

Aidan and Tristan
I said "rational criterion", not "circular yabble-yarp".

Jardine,

"What if someone else doesn't agree with your opinions about what the price of credit should be?"
The best solution would be for the RBA to model its inflationary impact to determine the price of credit.

"Or your definition of 'region'? How to stop this being merely a contest of arbitrary opinions with no objective basis?"
The Federal and State governments should make a collective decision on a definition. I suggest it be based on commuting time, but I'm happy to go with whatever they agree on. Practically anything would be an improvement on the status quo, which is itself better than nothing.

"Got that rational criterion there yet? How do you know that the governmental use of resources isn't going to withdraw them from uses that, in society's evaluation, satisfies more urgent and important wants and allocate them to satisfying less urgent or important wants, as decided by society?"
Firstly, what you regard as "society's evaluation" is really no such thing, as it's capitalism's evaluation: skewed to the desires of the rich.
Secondly, many resources aren't scarce, so the impact of withdrawing them from those other uses is often trivial.

Thirdly, I think you misunderstand the process, as your question contains a false assumption.
Unless the resources are currently idle, governmental use of resources WILL withdraw them from uses that, in capitalism's evaluation, satisfy more urgent and important wants and allocate them to satisfying less urgent or important wants IN THE SHORT TERM. But in the long term the effect will be the opposite: it will free up more resources to allocate to satisfying other wants.

The relative importance of short and long term wants is something that should be evaluated, and governments generally do evaluate it. There are various methods available to do so. including calculation of net present value, benefit:cost ratio, and internal rate of return. As I said, I now regard the best method to be the ratio of internal rate of return to regionally appropriate interest rate, as (unlike the others) it takes into account the local scarcity or abundance of resources.

(TBC)

(continued)

"Since the question is WHETHER government knows its use of resources is just right, too little, or too much, and if so how; and since your answer assumes THAT it does or can, therefore thank you for proving that it's not a spherical argument on my part, it's a circular one on yours"
Nice try, but this only goes to prove my point about your spherical arguments. Firstly you're redefining the question in an attempt to make my argument look circular. But your ACTUAL question was...
"How do we know whether government is providing too much, too little, or just the right amount? Ultimately, how do we rationally account for the human satisfactions foregone?"
...and secondly, EXPLAINING HOW something does or can is not just ASSUMING that it can!

So your arguments are all balls.

JKJ thinks the mixed economy is 'absolute statism'. I guess that makes Menzies an 'absolute statist' - because the public sector under Menzies was more robust than after Hawke and Keating were finished with it.

Tristan
Stop trying to snivel your way out of it.

Aidan
You have gone in circles so much you've disappeared up you own fundament. Your argument is nothing but "Government knows better because government knows better". That's it. Kindergarten level stuff. Complete failure to deal with the issues. Slogans as substitution for actual thought.

Since you guys obviously don't know or care what an intellectually honest discussion would look like, it would look like this:
JKJ: "By what rational criterion do you distinguish governmental action that creates a net benefit for society as a whole, from that which does not, and wastes scarce resources?"
A; T "We don't."
JKJ: "So you don't have one?"
A; T "No."

There! That didn't hurt, did it?

That's just saying you've got no substantial response to the point I made, JKJ.

Jardine,
The only circle I've gone in is repeating myself in more detail because I could see from your response that you failed to understand it before.

Your accusation that I'm claiming "Government knows better because government knows better" is utterly ridiculous because I did not claim that government knows better!

I claimed that government has the ability to do economic modelling to compare available options (including the Do Nothing option) and that it uses that ability. Are you claiming it doesn't?

Now if you want to know by what rational criterion I distinguish governmental action that creates a net benefit for society as a whole, from that which does not, and wastes scarce resources, you should've just asked. I really thought things like that were too trivial to have to explain, but since it isn't, it involves calculating user and non user benefits (including non financial benefits) and comparing them with the ongoing costs. If they are less than those costs, there's no point continuing. But if the benefits exceed the costs then calculations are done to determine whether the net benefits justify the upfront (construction) cost. And I'm not going to describe that process a third time!

You may want to read what Wikipedia has to say about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost–benefit_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return

Since you obviously don't know or care what an intellectually honest discussion would look like, it would look like this:
A or T: "By what rational criterion do you define absolute statist?"
JKJ: "I don't, I just use slogans as a substitute for actual thought..."

If you can't see the circularity of your argument, then you're too stupid to continue, and it's as simple as that. At no point have you explained how government does it, all you've done, at every single stage, is just keep assuming that they can, and end by an appeal to absent authority. Even if you could make out your argument, which you can't because value is subjective, all you would have done is establish that government could equal market decision-making, not better it.

I define absolutist statist as one who supports unlimited government power and is unable when asked to identify any rational criterion or consistent (i.e. non-contradictory) principle for limiting it. Neither of you have got one. All you've got is an assumption that government is superior at economising, without any rational criterion for when the premises would not apply.

If you can't tell the difference between an argument that's actually circular and one that becomes circular when you make incorrect assumptions, then YOU'RE too stupid to continue.

And now you're complaining I haven't explained how government "does it". And of course you don't say what you actually mean by "it", because you want me to guess wrongly so that after I've explained you can tell me that I haven't and therefore that I'm telling you that "the sky is free because the sky is green" even though I've never actually claimed the sky to be green.

I appealed not to absent authority but to absent thought: specifically yours. I believe you to be capable of considering these things yourself instead of proudly proclaiming my argument to be circular because I haven't spoonfed you every last detail!

"Even if you could make out your argument, which you can't because value is subjective, all you would have done is establish that government could equal market decision-making, not better it."
While there's some subjectivity in determining the value of non financial considerations, that doesn't make them arbitrary. As long as there's a common basis for determining the value of time, safety and environmental considerations, it doesn't invalidate or even weaken the argument.

And your assumption that "government could equal market decision-making, not better it" is illogical. Market decision making is, as I've said, skewed towards the interests of those who are already rich. How could it possibly be the limit?

"I define absolutist statist as one who supports unlimited government power and is unable when asked to identify any rational criterion or consistent (i.e. non-contradictory) principle for limiting it. Neither of you have got one."
Human rights is one.
If you find that too vague, the constitution's another.

I doubt you'll find any absolute statists on this thread.

"All you've got is an assumption that government is superior at economising,"
That assumption's existence seems to be an assumption of yours!

However I do assume that people with the ability to economise don't magically lose that ability when they're working for the government.

Obviously if government is presumptively superior at economising, then there's no such thing as human rights, which presupposes inalienable values of liberty and property that are completely absent from your political ideology. But if they're not, then you're self-contradicting.

Got that rational criterion there yet fellah? Just answer the question.

The very fact that you refer to cost-benefit analysis only proves that government cannot hope to make out a justification of the rationality of its actions without trying to mimic the actions of the market. But value is subjective. You can't claim the validity of cost-benefit analysis by government IMPUTING to people what government says their values should be.

For example:
"As long as there's a common basis for determining the value of time, safety and environmental considerations, it doesn't invalidate or even weaken the argument."

So what's this alleged "common basis" for determining the value of time? My aged father-in-law's days are numbered. A child evaluates time differently. Everyone does. Same with "environmental considerations". A hungry person evaluates them differently from a well-fed person.

So go ahead. Prove what you're merely assuming. Prove the rational criterion by which you determine this alleged "common basis" for determining the value of time, the environment, or anything for that matter.

Just answer the question. If government can access finance more cheaply, and profit is presumptively an immoral waste, then
a) why should not all production be vested in government, and
b) if not, by what rational criterion do you decide what should and should not be?

Do you think it's not obvious that you're floundering around in self-contradictory circular incoherence

"However I do assume that people with the ability to economise don't magically lose that ability when they're working for the government."

What if you're wrong? Have you even considered the possibility? If you are wrong, then you're assuming what is in issue, aren't you? Assuming that government has the ability to economise when the ASSUMPTION was never justified in the first place.

As we have just seen, when called upon to justify the assumption, you can't do it.

If you had thought about it, you would see straight away that there are two *categorical* differences:
1. market actors obtain their revenue by consensual means, government by coercion; thus self-evidently refuting your naked assumption that payment reflects any kind of equivalent demand for any government service, rather than what the payer would have preferred to spend the money on, if it wasn't confiscated;
2. market actors are able to economise by reference to profit and loss, but the whole purpose of having governmental decision-making is so that the relevant decisions will *not* be made on the basis of profit and loss, otherwise there'd be no need for government intervention, would there?

Both of these categorically affect values and valuation, and invalidate your assumption.

If I am right, this has explaining power:
1. it explains how you are incapable of coming up with any rational criterion to distinguish wasteful governmental behaviour from that which confers a net benefit on society
2. it explains how when you try to come up with one, you have to try do it by reference to market methods
3. it explains how and why government can never reconcile those market methods with its own purposes of economising because it has to start, as you did, with rejecting market-driven valuations as the basis for decision-making
4. it explains that, short of recourse to such market methodologies, the only methodologies available to government involve comparison of mere physical quantities for all different production possibilities = economic incoherence.

But if you are right, how come you can't come up with any rational criterion to justify your assumption?

Jardine,

"Obviously if government is presumptively superior at economising, then there's no such thing as human rights"
That's like saying "Obviously if roads are presumptively made of concrete, then there's no such thing as elephants"!

"The very fact that you refer to cost-benefit analysis only proves that government cannot hope to make out a justification of the rationality of its actions without trying to mimic the actions of the market. But value is subjective. You can't claim the validity of cost-benefit analysis by government IMPUTING to people what government says their values should be."
It's not perfect, but it's much better than assuming it to be zero.

"Just answer the question. If government can access finance more cheaply, and profit is presumptively an immoral waste, then"
I do not presume profit to be immoral.

"a) why should not all production be vested in government,"
Because although government can sometimes be more efficient than the private sector, it often isn't. At the moment I'd go so far as to say it usually isn't, but that does vary according to what the requirements are, and just presuming either sector to be more efficient is itself a recipe for inefficiency. There's an old saying among engineers:
YOU GET WHAT YOU INSPECT, NOT WHAT YOU EXPECT!

"b) if not, by what rational criterion do you decide what should and should not be?"
For goods: full market competition. And it wouldn't normally be worth governments getting involved unless there's an obvious market failure.
For services: if the infrastructure cost is a high proportion of the total cost, if cross subsidisation enables a better overall outcome or if the environmental and social benefits make up a significant proportion of the total benefits, it's usually worth having at least some government involvement. But this doesn't mean the private sector should be frozen out; opportunities for contracting out work should at least be investigated.

There are many exceptions, but generally the private sector is quicker to implement innovations but bad at managing the subcontracting of projects to achieve good value for money.

"What if you're wrong? Have you even considered the possibility?"
If I'm wrong it would be utterly extraordinary, as it would contravene a huge amount of recent historical evidence; also there's no credible mechanism for people to magically lose their ability to economise when they're employed by the government.

"If you had thought about it, you would see straight away that there are two *categorical* differences:
1. market actors obtain their revenue by consensual means, government by coercion; thus self-evidently refuting your naked assumption that payment reflects any kind of equivalent demand for any government service, rather than what the payer would have preferred to spend the money on, if it wasn't confiscated;"
Firstly, government ownership of an organisation doesn't prevent it obtaining revenue by commercial means. Secondly, people's spending decisions are dominated by how much money each one has, and more heavily biased towards the short term than most government decisions. Thirdly, governments are better placed to gain economies of scale.

"2. market actors are able to economise by reference to profit and loss, but the whole purpose of having governmental decision-making is so that the relevant decisions will *not* be made on the basis of profit and loss, otherwise there'd be no need for government intervention, would there?"
Governments have then advantage that they gain revenue when the operating profit is passed on to customers. But there's still a need to cover costs, except sometimes where the objective is to reduce external costs. Either way, there's a lot to be gained from efficiency improvements.

"also there's no credible mechanism for people to magically lose their ability to economise when they're employed by the government."

We have already established the circularity and stupidity of this assumption, and all you do thereafter is repeat it.

It's not that people "magically lose" their ability to economise when employed by government, it's that your ASSUMPTION that the ability applies to the categorically different activities of government, has no basis in reality or reason. So you're being DELIBERATELY stupid in repeating this assumption after it's was refuted and you have no answer but going round in circles again.

At no stage have you established that government is better at economising anything, while you agree that it is not in most things, and I have proved that it's not in all things and you have no answer but just more arbitrary moralising.

So we have now established that
1. You believe in using aggressive violence and physically attacking people to force them to submit to and obey your political opinions. You are reduced to arguing that state enforcement of law and policy cuts out at some imaginary stage, which is wrong, and you know it's wrong, which you prove by denying that compliance becomes voluntary. So it's complete nonsense and you know it is.
2. The policies you support are irrational without exception and you have at no stage advanced any reason to believe otherwise, but only gone round and round and round and round in circles, endlessly *assuming* rubbish and nonsense and bullsh!t, even after proved untrue.
3. You know that what you are saying is untrue, and you keep saying it anyway.

You are only demonstrating that your complete economic illiteracy makes you ignorant of the ethical wrongs of the socialism you advocate.