Jardine,

I was asking you to clarify the questions rather than restate them. You haven't, so don't be surprised if the answers don't satisfy you.

The economic calculation problem is the problem of how to allocate resources to production. I don't now why you bother asking, though, as it's of very limited relevance in its original form; virtually nobody nowadays wants central planning to completely replace markets.

Interest rates are the primary criterion for judging whether the money supply is expanded too much, too little or the right amount. The unemployment rate is a secondary criterion, along with related factors such as the employment rate (as many people are not actively seeking work at the moment but would work if more work were available) and the underemployment rate (as some part time workers would prefer to have more work). And I'm deliberately not making a distinction between government and private sector expansion of the money supply, as it's the aggregate that's important, and government actions influence private sector decisions.

The RBA's inflation target of between 2 and 3% on average is usually adequate, but effects on unemployment and employment need to be taken into account. For example, if there is a supply shock, it's better to put up with a bit more inflation for a while than to have widespread unemployment. Conversely the inflation rate remains consistently below the target, adjusting the target downwards makes sense if we're near full employment in all areas, but not if we're not. And if you think that's insufficiently objective, that's your problem not mine.

AGENT OF INFLUENCE?

Probably not yet. Potential?

Further to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18497&page=0#329047

See "Agent of Influence" definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_of_influence

Aidan

Can’t you see that saying “interest rates” does not provide any objective criterion whatsoever?

That’s like saying, if I ask you by what objective criterion you know whether you are paying too much for something, like a car, you reply “prices”.

You’re begging the question.

Similarly, expressions such as “a bit” and “usually adequate” do not, of themselves, provide any objective criterion. I can’t understand how you can’t understand that.

Can’t you see that, if one’s mere arbitrary opinion suffices as qualification of an economic proposition, then everyone else is entitled to the same methodology as against you, and we will have 7 billion different opinions on what action government should or should not take, and all those opinions will be equally valid according to your methodology? You are displaying a failure to understand the very concept of economics.

Your problem is not solved by your referring off to the RBA’s “inflation target”, because that is just begging the question, which is whether government's inflation target is justified.

Therefore thank you for openly confirming that your method is illogical, and that I am justified in saying that it is, and that you do not understand what you are talking about.

Thank you also for openly admitting that you cannot correctly represent and do not understand the economic calculation problem. This means you are not qualified to express any economic opinion in favour of any kind of economic central planning.

Read back what you wrote about the economic calculation problem, and actually *think* about what you’re saying. There is a glaring logical defect in your process of reasoning about the economic calculation problem. Can you see what it is? I should not have to point it out to you.

You and Foyle have obviously learnt somewhere that “economics” just means a jumble of arbitrary assertions backed up by blind faith in the supposed ability of the State to create net economic benefits for society by manipulating the supply or price of money or anything else. When this belief is questioned, you just give us a welter of question-begging in reply.

If you have ever debated a fundamentalist Christian on their claims about God, you will notice that your intellectual method is exactly the same as theirs. You simply assume before the discussion's outset, without any explanation or definition, the existence of an all-knowing well-intentioned moral and pragmatic superbeing. Then when challenged to prove it, you simply retort the same circular basal assumption in your own favour. Endlessly. Thus you hold your circular beliefs as complete proof and immunity against any critical inquiry.

This is what you’ve done above: assume the validity of central planning of something – interest rates - and when challenged, offered a requirement that I share your assumption of the validity of the central planning in question – “the RBA’s inflation target”. AS IF this is some kind of proof!

If you can’t see, or don’t care, that that’s illogical, that’s your problem, not mine.

All I have to do to prove, according to your own standard, that you are “100% wrong”, is merely say “interest rates”. That’s it. According to your own theory, that is a 100% proof that you are wrong.

It’s superstitious because it’s obviously illogical and excessively credulous.

It’s creationist because, like the fundamentalist Christians, you believe that this process explains and prescribes the production of benefits for society. When asked to prove it in a prior thread, your argument boiled down to only, It is because it is, and It must be so because it must be so.

You simply refuse to even consider the possibility that the State does not have the power, that you assume it has in your premise and conclusion.

It is not an ad hominem argument for me to say you are proselytising a creationist superstition. It is mere description of what you are doing, based on the reasons and evidence – your own garbled double-talk – that I have just cited.

Jardine,

Sorry, I wrote something other than what I meant to sa., and as a result I did not make much sense. I meant to say that INFLATION rates are the primary criterion.

I told you what I thought the interest rate should be and under what circumstances the policy should be relaxed or changed. Now, keeping in mind that I think fiscal and monetary policy should react to events (some of which will be unexpected) and that I'm not one of the people in treasury and the RBA who are paid to determine what our nation's response will be, what more objective criteria do you think I should specify?

I'll respond to your other points when I get home.

Quote
Each area of government spending should be pared back, with welfare properly targeted to the poor and duplication between the Commonwealth and States in areas like health and education eliminated.
End quote

Funny how ideological hatred drives policy.

When I went out to work in the late 60's when I was 16 years old the corporate tax rate in Australia was 60%.

Today the corporate tax rate is 30% and falling.

In the 1970s I read a Time Magazine article on how countries invite foreign corporations into their countries because of the tax they pay.

In the 1960'70' a retired worker could live comfortably if they budgeted in a commonsense way.

Today the fast majority of multinational corporations operating in Australia pay little or no tax at all.

In the 1970s the health care system was nearly all public.
Today half the heath care system has been privatized.

In the 1970s the only private schools were for the kids of the elite.
Today most of the education system has been privatized.

Most of the national debt could be wiped out just by extending the GST to the purchase or the sale of shares. Shares are not taxed because that would mean the corporates and the rich would have to pay tax would'nt it.

Today were are inundated with messages that if it wasn't for the welfare system for nobodies there would be no national debt.

Instead of hating individuals who claim the dole why not show just as much outrage about corporate tax? Or, is the reason people dont get angry about corporate welfare is because there man on the TV hasn't told you about it and therefore you dont know about it