Sam
"One can easily imagine adopting that methodology and directing it to a social purpose other than merely enhancing bottom lines."

This is just the same old socialist sh!t sandwich all over again.

You completely failed to come to terms with the critiques of socialism. You show no signs of understanding them, let alone refuting them.

To dispose of your argument in one sentence, as Ludwig von Mises said, as soon as the socialists start trying to imitate the action of the markets, they've lost the argument.

You need to actually *think*, Sam. Now. What is the economic difference between private businesses and government?

Answer the question.

While ever you show a complete ignorance of economics, and of the nature of government, you are in no position to make any comment on matters of political economy.

At no stage have you shown that socialism of any kind would produce better results, IN YOUR OWN TERMS, than capitalism, and in this you copy exactly the defects of Marx who never thought it through either. You can't just assume it. You need to prove it. But how can you do that if you don't even understand the labour theory of value, the theory of marginal utility, the critique of Marx's exploitation theory, or the economic calculation problem? You literally don’t understand what you’re talking about. Your arguments, or rather assumptions, have been demolished decades ago, and you’re not even aware of the discussion.

In any event, if what you are suggesting is true, and worker self-managed corporations fare better in the market than others, then there'll be no need for any government action, will there, and you are advocating a more radical free market laissez-faire than Reagan or Thatcher.

But if they require government action, then you're not comparing apples with apples you fool.

Also, it is a non sequitur to argue that WSM enterprises, by being superior market forms of production, justify high or any rates of taxation, so your whole article doesn’t make logical sense. You’re operating at a primary school level.

(cont.)

You also contradict yourself so far as WSM enterprises would increase the welfare of the workers, because in doing so they would be guilty of the dreaded “growth”, and thus increase their consumption of material resources, and increase the poverty, inequality, misery and environmental degradation that you blame on capitalism for the same reason.

The only way to avoid this conclusion is if the growth is to come out of profits. But then you are back to the dreary old socialist nostrum that profit is a measure of waste and misallocation and exploitation: in short, the labour theory of value. LEARN about it, you dunce. You also need to account for the production foregone. Show your workings. Honestly, it’s like talking to a chemist still spruiking the theory of phlogiston, or a physicist spruiking the ether. LEARN you fool.

It shouldn't be so easy to checkmate you in one move from three different angles at once. This means your theory is flatly incorrect. Okay? Got that?

Your idea that everyone should vote equally on the disposition of others' property and property, is why socialism turned into totalitarian dictatorships presiding over the starvation of millions you compleat fool. You’ve learnt nothing from the last 100 years.

I'm not asking you to agree with the critics of socialism. But the problem is you can’t even
a) understand
b) correctly represent, or
c) refute
the arguments. You literally don’t know what they are.

AFTER you have refuted the theories herein, you will be in a position to re-write your article. But by that stage you’ll be laughing at your own ignorance. Oh and did I mention conceitedness and faux moral superiority? That too.

“Man, Economy and State” by Murray Rothbard
http://mises.org/Books/mespm.PDF

“Human Action” by Ludwig von Mises
http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf
Read particularly about syndicalism.

Sam, all you’ve got is herd-bleat and slogan-squark. You have in no way advanced the argument any further than Lenin had. You have neither established your critique of capitalism, nor any reason to think that socialism of any non-voluntary kind would be any better.

Fail.

One of the consistent lies we hear from the regressives is that if we give more money to Government (or have it stolen) then we will have better education and solve Indigeneous affairs. The last 50 years has proven this to be a fallacy. Despite massive increases in funding, wages etc we have a dumber more corrupt generation and more dysfunction than ever in Indigenoues matters. The only ones who have really benefited are those on the gravy tain.

JKJ, you're simply arguing around in circles, as is your usual wont.

runner, WWJD?

Thinking inside a limited circle of ideas, limits the questions and so also, the answers! And confirmed by the reality of the wages price spiral!

The only value of "manmade" inflation is to transfer more from the have nots to the haves!

Even so, there is an argument for taxation reform that limits or completely eliminates tax avoidance! Which is what you get when taxes are just too high and squander the enterprise and endevour of the lifters and doers!

Make no mistake, tax avoiders are the very worst leaners, who expect others to lift and carry their load! And the reason we must have genuine reform that stops this; rather than additional complexity that in reality, all that makes it possible!

Payroll tax was imposed as a means to force automation and the productivity gains it supports!?

Even as the power it needs and uses was priced out of the paradigm! Accelerating the industrial exodus!

Up to 40% of our international guest corporations pay no company tax to anyone and actual tax collected as company tax from others, reportedly varies between 1-4%?

All while astonishingly asinine tax compliance laws rip around 7% from the average bottom line? The cost of tax minimization/avoidance?

We've few choices moderated by harsh reality and the vagaries of the new global economy!

A flat 15% tax with no exceptions or escape clauses that every boy and his dog pay? With the less well off compensated by a beefed up (doubled) social wage? And given that model will allow the current compliance costs (7%) to be rendered null and void, an effective tax rate of just (15-7=8) 8%!

Look, 50-60% of something is always going to be better than the 100% of nothing many leaners contribute now!

Moreover the tax rate, if coupled to the world's least expensive electricity!? THORIUM! Bound to have high tech manufacture queuing to join us and add their profit streams/flow ons and tax contributions to a then turbocharged economy!

We can ensure competition forces the best outcomes/minimises inflation/price gouging, by ensuring cooperative entrepreneurial enterprise always gets first dibs!
Alan B.

Craig Minns

Prove it.

No JKJ, the onus is on you.

Your argument entails the premises.

I don't think any politician in the history of the world has truthfully claimed there is no alternative.

However, not all alternatives are worthy of serious consideration.

Hi Jardine K. Jardine,
I've got this nagging question about whether a mix of socialism and capitalism would be better than capitalism alone.
Well, truthfully we actually already have a mixture of both;
Capitalist Healthcare (Private Hospitals) with a Socialist Healthcare (Public Hospitals) base-level.
Capitalist Education (Private Schools) with a Socialist Education (Public Schools) base-level.

But what I want to know is if 'Jobs' could be added to that recipe:
As in: Capitalist Jobs with a Socialist Jobs base-level.

We pay people $250 a week to do nothing plus the cost of managing them; when we actually need 5% unemployment to prevent wage inflation.

Why not pay a couple of hundred bucks more and get a full time worker instead of a full-time jobseeker?
Capitalism means 2 people go for the 1 job and although it's success is in the way the better qualified applicant is chosen it's failure is that 1 person misses out on a job entirely.

A productive person is forced to sit on their hands when they WANT to work.
And there's huge follow on benefits as well.

My idea for welfare reform is to:
Remove the "I can't find a job" excuse entirely by giving ALL jobseekers the OPTION of earning double their normal welfare payment doing something that saves the government money, therefore moving from a loss to a breakeven.
It will create a culture of employment WITHIN the ranks of the unemployed.

They would still be considered unemployed, but have the option to work whilst 'unemployed'.
Wages paid daily, to promote people who have run out of money have an option (and incentive) to get some by working.
They will earn training credits they can spend on improving their skill levels.

We're at a point where we're cannibalising the system; raise GST or lose Medicare.
But we need to refine it.

I'm not sure it would work, but this is my grand idea.
I'm thinking about submitting it.

Hi AC,
I think you're onto something important.

There are some experiments around the world with universal basic incomes that are unaffected by workforce participation. I think we're going to have to move to something similar and probably sooner rather than later. The current welfare models both discourage the acquisition of work and punish the failure to seek it. It's a schizophrenic mix that has lead to serious dysfunction.

There have been some efforts to redress that with the introduction of "working credit", which allows those on unemployment benefits to earn a certain amount without affecting their dole. I think there's also a recognition within the industry that for many, the reality is that they have a skills base which is not in demand and that the supply of labour outstrips demand by a considerable margin.

We've been turning our economy into one based on part-time work for several decades, ostensibly to "get women into the workforce", which became a priority in the early 70s when it was realised the baby boom demographic bulge would lead to a sudden reduction in the workforce within 50 years. Employers wanted to ensure their supply of labour was maintained and revelled in the long period of wages stagnation caused by the sudden influx of a workforce willing to work fewer hours for less money. The new model fitted perfectly into industries that were rapidly automating and management practises that focussed on process.

Rather than the participation of women leading to more prosperity for all, it has lead to the concentration of wealth within professional two-income households and a "precariat" in which work is part-time or casual for both men and women and families are fragmented.

This is a case of purest ideology being used to justify what has been a stripping of wealth and hope from those at the bottom.

This is now going to spread to the professional classes, with the rise of AI technologies. Perhaps we'll finally start to see some serious concern.

AC

"I've got this nagging question about whether a mix of socialism and capitalism would be better than capitalism alone."

So have I. It's just that I've never been able to find anyone to give any reason why, let alone prove it, that doesn't just assume the conclusion in its premise, as Sam, you, and Craig Minns have just done.

BTW who's this "we" you're talking about?

Craig
Is that you're idea of proving that my argument is circular, is it?

All
I assume it's common ground that if the tax rate were 100% and government had the ownership and control of all production, the result would be very much worse than whatever is the problem now that we're supposed to be solving by more governmental action. If you don't agree or don't agree with that assumption, please say so.

Therefore the problem is to know how much, if any, governmental intervention is appropriate for any specific purpose.

None of you has established your case against capitalism or for socialism. It's not good enough to merely allege "poverty, misery, and destitution" against capitalism and so on, as the author has done. You've got to show why it necessarily follows from capitalism, you've got to distinguish any extent to which the problem is caused by the socialist aspect of the mixed economy, you've got to show why the problem would necessarily be better under socialism, and you've got to count the costs, and account for the values sacrificed in doing so.

But you haven't, and nobody ever does, or has done that.

If you can, go ahead.

If you can't, say so.

For example, unemployment may be caused by both governmental and market forces. It's not valid to lay the blame to "capitalism" if you are not bothering to distinguish the extent to which it's being caused by governmental interventions, and don't even know or understand or care what they are. It's just an intellectually incoherent, with nothing to offer instead but more dysfunctional heading towards the 100% socialism that we all agree is worse not better.

JKJ, I have no obligation to even engage with your argument, let alone take the trouble to improve it for you. The onus is entirely on you, my friend.

Oh and nobody has tried to make a case here against capitalism or socialism or any other "ism". All that the author, AC and myself done is to point out that there are some ways in which the modern socio-economic model is creating outcomes that we see as undesirable. If you find that to be an attack on your quasi-religious devotion to the simplistic irrationality of a Misean approach to human interactions then I'm afraid that's your problem too.

The answer to failed communism (sometimes deliberately confused with both socialism and or Buddhist philosophy) and dysfunctional extreme exploitive capitalism, lies in cooperative capitalism comrades!

Take a Butchers at U tube and and an article on Co-ops as established in Maleny Queensland! An excellent template to emulate, but only if you actually believe in free enterprise and free markets! And actually owning the fruits of your own enterprise and endeavor!

The touted alternative is the tax dodging and ultra exploitive trump model which harms all it touches, including hundreds of mum and dad family firms/investors!

Take a butchers, I dare you!

And rest assured, regardless of the Ideology you're currently welded to!?

Junking it in favor of cooperative enterprise, comes with endless improvement!

Co-ops were almost alone as private, capitalist, free market reliant, free enterprise, as surviving the Great depression virtually intact!

And come with more local economy growing, flow on factors, than anything else! Government or private enterprise!

Take a butchers, it won't hurt much, I promise! Unless of course if you're a foreign investor looking for a shoe in, or one of the spit lickle Quislings, who serve them!?

And then understand how failed enterprises like Queensland Nickel i.e., could be resuscitated as community building, environmentally conscious, "PRIVATE ENTERPRISE"!

Or why state based banking ought to be rolled out exclusively as PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, profit motivated, credit unions!
Alan B.

Adian: Neither are the, add nothing of any value or worth, usually counterproductive or barely veiled negative musings of what if, or I don't think, specialists!

Some Double Dumb socialists in Europe have proposed a wealth tax on those who've likely paid tax all their lives by virtue of their own productive enterprise and endevour!

Thereby ensuring many of the self funded better off retirees seem to be seeking sanctuary in abominations like Russia!

Simply put, smaller personal tax obligations, (small and costing more to avoid than pay) sometimes equates to a "larger pool" of collectable revenue!

Always providing the (more equates to less) experts don't get involved and screw it up! And no, I'm no fan of failed and disgraced trickle down economics!

An expert? Well an x is an unknown quantity, and a spurt is merely a very large drip under extreme pressure!
Alan B.

I see the final line says "Bruce Haigh is a political commentator and retired diplomat, who served in Sri Lanka."

This is indeed the sort of trip Bruce would vomit up, but I think Sam deserves the opprobrium since he wrote it.

This article proves we need to keep the academics, & particularly the of philosophers down the end of the garden path, where their particular brand of fairy dust induced daydreams can do least harm.

We must never let these people out into the real world, not only for their own safety, but so they do no more damage to the wellbeing of real people. It is this very type of off world dreaming that saw South Australia as dark & lightless as North Korea just last week.

Down there with the fairies, Democrats & Greens, they can mix with the very few who don't realise what garbage they talk.

Craig Minns

“Oh and nobody has tried to make a case here against capitalism or socialism or any other "ism".

Yes they have. The author is arguing that there is an alternative to the more free market policies of Thatcher and Reagan, namely the more socialist policies of earlier decades. He’s arguing that it’s wrong that high tax rates destroy growth (which he despises), and wrong that corporations owned and controlled by private capitalists are better than worker self-managed corporations. And he’s arguing that capitalism causes “poverty, misery, and destitution”; that it “despoils the environment and robs man of a human environment fit to live in”, and is “insane”.

Read the article, my friend.

And to the extent that you have also advocated government interventions to lead to a supposedly better result, you have adopted the same indefensible defects as the author.

“All that the author, AC and myself done is to point out...”

No he has not. He’s arguing that there is a better alternative, namely, more socialism. The “alternative” he’s arguing for is not a more free market solution, is it?

“…that there are some ways in which the modern socio-economic model is creating outcomes that we see as undesirable”

What modern socio-economic model? Society and economy don’t come about because of a “model”. If they do, post a copy of this model and let’s all have a look.

Any criticism of the configuration of business, society, employment and government, which the article and your post seem to be, is incompetent unless you distinguish what parts of the problem are because of the market, and what parts are because of government. You haven’t done that.

For example, there’s no point advocating government interventions to remedy unemployment, if the unemployment is being caused by earlier government interventions in the first place, such as criminalising employment at the market rate, on the basis of the socialist idea that employment for profit is intrinsically exploitative. That’s what the minimum wage laws are and do, and that’s what the author is defending, correct me if I’m wrong Sam. Sam? Hello-o?

(cont.)

The goods and services that the market provides, don't get to you by religion. There is no need to have recourse to any religious belief in markets to observe or believe that they do; and nothing simplistic or irrational about that belief.

But the same cannot be said of socialism, because it is rationally indefensible because of the economic calculation problem. If you don’t know what that is, FIND OUT.

If you want to assert that socialism of any kind is as capable of doing as well, let alone better, in terms of any human welfare criterion you care to specify, without using a double standard, or without reposing open-ended irrational faith in the State as a moral and pragmatic magical superbeing on a double standard, then you need to prove it.

And you will find, if ever you turn your mind to it for the first time instead of just baldly assuming it from the outset, that you can't do it, just like you can't prove that my argument is circular.

There is no requirement on anyone to accept from your mere assumption either that the Invisible Magic Teapot exists, nor that that any particular government intervention is justified, unless you can prove it. All you're doing is projecting your irrational religious methodology onto me.

So go ahead. If you can, do it. Make sure you identify and avoid any equivocation or circularity from the outset, use units of a lowest common denominator, refute the economic calculation argument, and show your workings.

If you can't, don’t wriggle and backbite - just admit it.

It’s important to understand that the socialists have got nothing. That’s why it’s never worked, and can’t work.

Sam
Do you know what is the economic difference between private business and government, or not?

If so, what is it? If not, say so.

Hey Craig Minns,
There's a bit more information about the governments current approach to welfare reform at the following link.
http://www.dss.gov.au/review-of-australias-welfare-system/welfare-reform

Hi Jardine K. Jardine,
Sorry about that use of 'we'.
I also dislike it when others use 'we' when promoting their ideas; often followed by the word 'need' as I did.
I don't want to take on the very traits I oppose.
You were right to point it out, pull me up and correct me.
Thank-you.

I wasn't actually making a case against capitalism.
An argument could be made that I'm trying to address its faults; strengthen it and make it more sustainable.
I'm just taking the pro's and con's of socialism and capitalism and trying to refine it to create a system that works better for everyone; and is fair and sustainable.
The new system I'm suggesting is optional.
I deliberately don't want a 'mutual obligation' or 'conditional' system.
I'm trying to create a foolproof system, and my tactic is to flip the script.
If you can't say 'I can't get a job' anymore, then by default, you have to 'choose to fail in life by deliberately doing nothing'.
People on unemployment benefits frequently run out of money.
All you have to do is provide them a means to earn it by paying them daily.
Supply and demand.
Then, you're inadvertently creating this culture of employment within the ranks of the unemployed.
I won't need to force anyone to do anything.

Its hard to really figure out the economic costs / benefits on such an idea, especially before you look at proposed jobs.

I said earlier that there are follow on benefits...
Like the family where the adults can't get work at all, leading to marriage breakdown, DV etc.
Or indigenous who now have job opportunities instead; and money; or the owner driver who loses a work contract and risks losing their truck; or the single mums who can't find a job with suitable hours while they have parenting responsibilities; or the high school kids who want work after school work.

[cont]
Another thing I wanted to say about my idea is that in the history of human beings, only now with the use of modern personal computers such as mobile smart phones, tablets and apps would the logistics of implementing such an idea as 'socialist base-level jobs' even be possible.
The online system might be:
- Logging on; Looking for a job and project in your locality (GPS Smartphone) with your available skills; Checking the job tasks; Confirming; And then going to the job; Paid daily after shift and Training credits earned for new skills.
Each idea creates a new problem though.
This idea needs a few hundred thousand new potential jobs that do not compete with; but instead help contribute towards- the existing jobs market.
My idea for jobs surrounds a massive new infrastructure project.

Armchair Critic...
Realistically, we need to change the existing world, to one which does not add harm to the poor.
There has been some progress, where removal of vagrancy laws has eased the pressure on prisons.
I like your observation of the inevitability of no job, leading sooner or later to no money.
It is that next step in the process of escalating poverty, which needs to be softened.
I personally hold no hope at all, any intelligent and caring changes will be implimented by Government policy, that will assist job seekers in actually finding a real job: but nice to see someone giving personal energy to solving it!

JKJ,
there are more ways to do capitalism than Misean irrationality.

http://oecdobserver.org/news/archivestory.php/aid/345/Which_model_of_capitalism_.html

AC,
I think those ideas have a lot to recommend them, the problem is to create a demand for such labour. I'm not sure how to go about that, do you have any ideas?

CM

The article distinguishes the different "kinds of capitalism" it alleges by different kinds of government intervention. You haven't understood the discusion, have you?

The irrationality of a Misesian approach consists of what exactly? You haven't specified, and when challenged, have merely repeated a circularity. The irrationality is all your own.

AM
I'm all for optional approaches.

DD
Where did you get the idea that government has any kind of presumptive competence at putting job-seekers and employers into contact?

If those who have a direct interest in it can't do it, why would a government bureaucracy, of all things, be any better?

And where do you think they're getting the money from?

Sam
Hurry up.

JKJ,
Was there a discussion going on? When?

In my last post I was merely altruistically sharing an interesting article on some different models of capitalism, since you seemed to be struggling with the concept. You've possibly heard of altruism, it's the idea that people can do something for someone else just to be nice, even if the person they're helping hasn't done anything to earn it and even if they don't expect to receive any reward.

You remain confused about the our roles in this discussion: you make assertions, I may or may not read them but if I do and if there's something in those assertions which is wrong and I can be bothered to do so I tell you, then you work out why and correct yourself, or not, it's up to you.

You see, I'm not interested in trying to convince you of anything. I understand that you are passionate about your religion and I'm happy for you.

Hey Jardine K. Jardine
Funny you mentioned Ludwig Von Mises...
He just popped up in a video I was watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQnm-RrU3k
“Government is essentially the negation of liberty."
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6923198-liberty-and-property

The Miner's anti-eulogy to Margaret Thatcher, Iron Lady -- "May she rust in peace".

Hurry-up Sam...:-)
Wad da ya mean?
Are you saying that Government has no influence over the job "climate"?

Hey Craig Minns,
"I think those ideas have a lot to recommend them, the problem is to create a demand for such labour. I'm not sure how to go about that, do you have any ideas?"

Firstly, if I'm going to create a separate job market with a different rate of pay, then this jobs market needs to be kept separate from the normal jobs market.
I don't want private companies exploiting the cheaper labour.
They have to provide normal jobs at award rates.
And I don't want to take jobs away from that marhet either.

So, the idea is to create altogether new jobs that would never have existed before. (Option 1)
How do I do that?
We'll start massive infrastructure projects of the like that could not previously be afforded without the use of cheaper labour.
My idea is this - HSR and straight route 6 lane concrete highway that connects all Australian capital cities with a huge port in Darwin; to make production more efficient in our country and exploit the Asian century and growth in China and India.
Then I want an inland route based on 'time'.
45mins travel from a city so people can live in the country, but still work in the city.
I want to bring the city to the country and vice-versa.
45mins on a 400 - 500kmh train should be about 250-300 west of the coast.
And its not just a travel / freight corridor.
I want to connect power, water, internet into this 'conduit'; maybe even oil and gas.
A national power grid, with multiple nuclear/thorium reactors for a 50 year plan to move to renewables.
Moving water where we need it, from one dam to another and connected to desalination plants.
This idea helps to create the infrastructure for more normal job opportunities.

[cont]
Well build sun farms and connect them to the grid, and we'll fix SA's problems by giving businesses a 50% discount on energy.
Well build big factories along this transport corridor that will build low cost removal homes that can transported and delivered easily at a lower cost helping the cost on new home buyers.
Well keep the steel plants open as we're going to need a lot of water pipe and rail track.
We'll get the miners to pay towards the cleanup of mine sites whilst using the sand and stone towards the necessary concrete.

Now I don't know how many jobs and training opportunities there are here, (also normal skilled jobs) but there's plenty to do, right across the country.

Option 2 btw, was not just create new jobs but use the cheaper labour to replace existing jobs that would save the government money, such as council jobs; cleaning up parks etc.

I want this socialist base level jobs to have a huge emphasis on new skills training; and I want to drastically lower the cost of that training.
Like a 'CES' for the jobs crossed with Major Driver Training with a community type focus.

I want to create an app, like the addictive games people play and use that mentality to entice people to learn the majority of the new skill through the app (costing little), then the cost of the skills is mainly just testing.

Do you kind-of see where I'm going?
Not sure it would or could work; as one small idea suddenly becomes huge...
It would be a whole lot of smaller projects feeding into this larger project.
That's about as far as I've gotten on this whole idea.
Anyway...

Recently, a proposal to introduce a universal living allowance, of about 25,000 Euros per year, was proposed, and then defeated, in Switzerland. The reason given, as I understand it, was that it would make Switzerland too attractive to undesirable immigrants.

Here, in Australia, we have around $200 Billion each year in the welfare budget, but, of course, with the government involved, a lot of that gets wasted in inefficiencies, useless red tape, and just plain graft.

Peter Costello famously said that we had to have a complex tax system because we live in a complex society. He had it completely backwards - our system is complex primarily because of the complexity of our tax laws. One can explain the ideas behind taxation to a reasonably intelligent 10-year old, but have made it so complex that we have four year university courses. We are producing lawyers instead of doctors and engineers.

There are many reasons why Australia should introduce a living allowance, of about $15000 to all adult Australians; you, me, and James Packer, coupled with a fixed tax rate of around 40%; and a closing of all tax- minimisation loopholes.

Here are just a few:-
It's vastly simpler - with no need of tax consultants, and a vastly reduced ATO.
With employees paid in "after tax" money, 90% need not fill tax returns.
It would provide safety of income - we could disband Centrelink
It would be easier to leave an abusive relationship.
With such a safety net, poorer people could start businesses.
With secure borders, I can't think of a downside.

Craig

Different kinds of government interventiin don't make different kinds of capitalism you fool. You're only displaying a failure to understand what you're talking about. Your blind religious devotion to greed based on violence doesn't make your religion any less superstitious and irrational.

Beaucoupbob
Other people are not your property. 10 percent is fine.

Hi JKJ,
It doesn't make it any more rational either...

Haha, it doesn't make it any more IRrational...

Is that the best you can do?

I dunno, but I do know that's the best you can do.