Tristan

I am engaging with the arguments. It's you who's not.

You don't understand the first thing about economics, and neither does Passy. Your referring me to economic texts assumes you understand anything about economics, but you're showing from your article that you don't. You're contradicting yourself over and over and over and over and over again. Only a complete fool like you
a) wouldn't notice it, and
b) doesn't care when it's brought to your attention!

I've already explained why, and yet you don't understand, and don't care.

What you are advocating is unequal, discriminatory and oppressive. So even according to your own standard, you are wrong and making things worse.

Only *after* you have understood the economic calculation argument will you understand what you're talking about.

You don't understand it, do you? Just admit it. If you say you do understand it, what is it?

Since you are not interested in having a discussion, why do you keep writing these stupid articles? You contradict yourself, and when it's pointed out, you don't care that what you're saying doesn't make sense. You just keep repeating your yarble-yarp, as if you, of all people, knew better than everyone else in the world what their values should be. What a joke

Passy, you have no interest in the truth, all you want to do is give the ruling class more power, and your ideology is just a mask for class interests.

JKJ it's common for neo-liberals to suppose they have a monopoly of economic wisdom, and then wrap up their assumptions as 'science'. But the kind of arguments I'm making were common during the post-war period. (ie: ideas of market failure, and the need for an interventionist state and mixed economy to redress that) What's changed is academic fashion, and the (false) sense that the Left's traditional project was finished with the collapse of the USSR.

Also since the 1970 there was a move to restore profits ofter the Oil Shocks. The United States' drift leftward shows that is not true, though, that this leaves us with no choice but neo-liberalism. And the Scandinavians show that (even though their Social Democratic model is in slow retreat) it nonetheless remains workable. The problem is where right-wing economists try and wrap their prejudices up as science - when political economy is about VALUES and PRIORITIES as well.

I assume what you mean when you say I 'contradict myself' is that I reserve a place both for the market and for intervention and the public sector. But in fact market and state ARE complementary if organised properly.

There's no need to go to one extreme (command economy) or the other (neo-liberal, laissez faire). Natural public monopolies mean more efficient cost structures - including for capitalist enterprise. A fairer distribution of wealth means a more steady base of consumption. Government business enterprises can actually enhance competition given the right charter. And markets - while very useful, and promoting innovation in many fields - don't provide for ALL needs.

Finally this (OLO) is a pluralist forum and that's the way it should be. The problem with today's Conservatives is that (mostly) they don't really believe in pluralism; They tend to work to shut down debate and silence rivals. Abbott and co are authoritarians pure and simple.

Housing supply would increase if negative gearing were exclusively limited to brand new housing, for limited terms.

Which could be rendered free of the cascading GST or stamp duties, which the GST was supposed to eliminate!

State governments could help by freeing up privately held urban land supply, which should only remain rezoned for around 12 months to ensure it was developed rather than sat on as some sort of, the world owes us a living money for nothing land bank!

The overdue roll out of rapid rail would also assist, particularly if some of the resumed and then rezoned land was resold on the open market to in effect pay for the roll out!

Thus creating new satellite cities at appropriate station stops where passengers could embark or disembark thus creating a ready made market for the service.

These new cities should nonetheless be mostly self sufficient with their own CBD's and industrial estates. Which would prevent them becoming just dormitory suburbs onlyand thus adding to the current gridlock?

From where I sit the socialist objective/set in concrete mindsett, seems very much like the british disease and the subsequent pricing ourselves out of the market followed by the exodus of our manufacturing base!

If your lot understood economics as JKJ alleges none of this would have occurred nor the privatisation of our power stations which was all that made it economic to manufacture in this country once the tariff barriers tumbled down?

The resisted co-ops were the only free market private enterprise model that largely survived the Great Depression largely intact!

And only because they just can't grow too big to fail and remain the most efficient means of manufacture or processing.

Think Golden circle only remained viable until it ceased being a co-op!
Rhrosty.

re: Co-ops - they can be more viable also because they don't need to worry about big payments to executives ; and depending on what kind of co-op and also make do paying lower dividends. But the real problem for Co-ops is when they start competing with transnationals in the biggest and most hotly contested markets. That's when co-ops need State Aid. To assist to in upgrading their operation to enjoy economies of scale where they can remain competitive with the big transnationals. Meanwhile rapid rail and regional consolidation are good ideas which require government action.

M.O: Interesting arguments re: speculation and F.D.R/the New Deal ; I've also argued (after Lyons and McAuley) that a more even distribution of wealth can help mitigate this ; as small investors can tend to be more conservative and avoid risky speculation. Even if a degree of risk-taking is necessary sometimes. I would also support "mass infrastructure" schemes on the scale of Snowy Hydro ;

Though re: the housing market I stick to my argument that a big investment in public housing would fix supply and bring prices down. Though it has to be combined with investment in infrastructure as well. Some people think this is unfair on because it effectively provides a subsidy for the poor. (who the Right think are 'underserving') But I adhere to Marx at least in the sense of his famous maxim 'from each according to ability, to each according to need' ; let alone questions of decency and compassion ; and the fact the benefits would flow on to hundreds of thousands of others..... (and btw I don't see how this approach is 'monetarist')

re: Fabianism ; yes I'm a member - and I see the Fabians as a crucial driver of ideas in the Labor Party. Though radical social democracy is the most significant influence on me. I identify with the legacy of the radical social democrats from the Second International...

Tristan, wow. That's a lot of words to avoid the fundamental issue of domination by private banks and their global debt regime. Then again, I suppose Engels himself was just another arrogant lazy speculating parasite too, so it figures that you'd observe a taboo on such a delicate subject.

But for those interested, the World now groans under a debt regime of off-the-books derivatives exposure totaling around USD 2 Quadrillion worth - all many multiples greater than World GDP, and all unpayable. This debt regime ensures that the private banks exist like far-gone Ice junkies - they can never get enough, and they push property bubbles, limitless privatization, money-laundering, organ-trafficking, wombs-for-hire surrogacy, whatever it takes to give the impression that the Corpse still breathes.

Meanwhile, the Fabians (like the Real Estate Institute) say it's just about 'Supply and Demand'!