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.