G.T.
I know a great deal about economics, you only know theories, you should put some of your theories into practise. From the garbage in your posts, you are the last person who should be telling anyone that they don't know economics, it's funny how the smallest amount of knowledge, makes the loudest noise.

Christopher:

The Current Account Deficit and the loss of jobs to China and India is indeed a serious problem for Australia. We need a proactive industry policy which mobilises capital around competitive manufacturing industries, with extra incentives and credits for R&D and high wage industries. Utilising superannuation funds seems a viable idea in this context. It's true that the CAD is running at some 5% of GDP - and so the lack of any robust industry policy on either side of politics is of extreme concern.

Personally I see social democracy and socialism as being part of the same movement. I don't think that state socialism is the only kind of socialism either - although by the same token I don't like the stigmatisation of the necessarily robust role that must be taken by the state if we are to achieve social justice.

Also - in the West absolute emiseration of labour is a thing of the past. That's why the revolutionary dialectic supposed by Marx just doesn't figure any more in Western societies the way it used to. And even when it did - in the Great Depression - the fascist Right (eg: the so-called 'New Guard') was stronger than the Communists at that time and reaction was more likely than revolution. Like it or not any progress to socialism in the West will be based upon the power of free will.

GT:

- some 'freedom' - the 'freedom' to be a wage slave. Freedom to 'take it or leave it' is no freedom at all when one lives in poverty. Neo-liberal 'reform' in Africa has left African states in a condition of destitution with massive debt and most former public assets privatised. So much for 'freedom'. Also - your 'devil may care' attitude to the CAD is perplexing. 'The market' does not necessarily 'self correct' with everything co-existing in a perfect equilibrium. There is an urgent need right now for government to intervene in the interests of export and import replacement industries. Yet on both sides of politics you'll see nothing like a sufficient industry policy.

Tristan

Tristan

Of course capital movement can be abolished. This is the whole point of abolishing capitalism. But note - normal economic activity – investment of money, and movement of wealth and assets will still exist, but not with the extra impost that comes through capitalism.

Plain ‘little-c’ capital existed in Roman times, under feudalism, continues under capitalism (where it does untold damage in its new guise), and will continue (as “little-c” capital) under socialism.

You only have full-blown “Capital” when investment is used to expropriate value from others. Capital is not a synonym for money, value, wealth, investment or assets. According to Marx, (and here, he is my compass) Capital is “a social relation’.

The aim is to abolish capitalism – not economics.

I support public banking, insurance, public ownership of roads, rail, ports etc. However this MUST include the principle of eliminating capitalism, or else you just end up with some strange form of State-capitalism, restarted inflation and unemployment etc and then exactly the same crisis tendencies as under private capitalism.

Wage earner funds are excellent – but only provided capitalism is impossible.

You cannot possibly describe yourself as a socialist if you just “wish to democratise the economy as much as possible”.

What contradiction is there if there is “socialism in one country”? After all we all inhabit one world. You seem to have picked up some middle class anti-socialist quip, without understanding what it means.

I do not think state ownership or nationalism are necessary for socialism. Anyway and again, this is a middle-class anti-socialist provocation you have absorbed from your comfortable environment. In fact it is not possible to conceive of “capitalism in one country”.

As with Hamilton, you cannot make the world a nice or democratic or happy place, without abolishing capitalism. To the extent the post-war West has achieved this, this has only been sustained by massive exploitation of the Third World.

Capitalism is the problem.

Christopher Warren
Chris.Canberra@gmail.com.au

G T

It's¨clear¨you¨have¨no¨idea¨what¨capitalism¨or¨freedom¨actually¨is.

Capitalism¨is¨not voluntary¨production¨and¨trade¨in¨a¨free¨market¨(ie.¨one¨which¨is¨not¨being¨controlled¨by¨any¨central¨authority).

>Monopoly,¨oligopoly¨and¨cartels¨destroy¨voluntary¨production¨and¨free¨trade¨between¨humans.

Perhaps¨you'd¨like¨to¨explain¨how?

Very simple. A monopoly tells an outlet the maximum and minimum price they can charge. If they dispute this they remove the franchise. There is no voluntary price setting under the thumb of monopoly capitalism

Another example…..
Before a monopoly a market price is $50 and serves 100 clients but profits are 10% on a revenue of $5000.

After monopoly the selling price is forced to $100 and this serves 70 clients but now profits (at 10%) have skyrocketted, and the people who wanted to freely trade are now excluded from accessing the goods and services they once were.

30 clients have lost their right to free trade.

When¨was¨the¨last¨time¨a¨monopoly,¨oligopoly,¨or¨a¨cartel¨forcefully¨intervened¨to¨stop¨the
production¨or¨trade¨between¨two¨unrelated¨individuals?

What a simple, simple task.

Peoples free use of Sydney’s roads has been curtailed by a monopolists desire to funnel traffic down its road. The curtailed road users were unrelated to the monopolist.

Similarly – many capitalist contracts have binding clauses stopping other entities from production and from trading.

How¨can¨something¨be¨MORE¨voluntary?¨Either¨something¨is¨voluntary¨or¨it¨isn't.

Don’t be stupid. If voluntary activity encompasses 1,000 people then trade will be more voluntary if voluntary activity encompasses 1,000,000. It is hardly voluntary if the only choice is to either be hit with a club, or a whip. It is not voluntary to choose between working as a wage slave and going hungry and loosing your house.

Since¨no¨coercion¨is¨used¨by¨anyone¨under¨capitalism,¨and¨people¨are¨free¨to¨create¨their¨own
wealth¨or¨live¨off¨the¨land¨without¨"owing"¨anything¨to¨anyone,¨capitalism¨can¨be¨considered¨a
"free"¨system.

By the same token, as there is so much coercion under capitalism, it cannot be termed ‘free’. We get more freedom, more suitable to the modern world, if we get rid of capitalism.

I could go on all day.

That¨depends¨what¨your¨definition¨of¨"exploitation"¨is.¨For¨all¨objective¨purposes,¨we¨cannot
say¨someone¨is¨being¨exploited¨when¨they¨voluntarily¨agree¨to¨something.

This is obviously extreme rightwing Ann Rand dogma of the worst kind.

There are others here who know about economics, or as I call it
eka-bloody-comics.

Mark Z

To Monash Liberterian.

From one who left school early in the Great Depression, and in his retirement from a farm gained a post-grad in a mixture of history, politics, sociology and economics, and now studying moral philosophy et al as a continual interest in his old age, it fills one with so much contempt to hear moral meaning terms such as liberty and freedom used in the rat racist wheeler-dealerism of modern capitalism.

The British philosopher, John Locke was the first to use freedom in relation to business, in which he meant freedom for the business man to get on for the good of the country, but it is understandable that in those days of slavery and even the paid worker was stuck in a social caste system.

To be sure, Adam Smith later improved the economic language a little when he declared that though his Laissez-faire market meant freedom for big business to get ahead without too much govenment interference, Smith also declared that because competitive need was also based on natural human greed, something had to be done about bettering the main means of production, the welfare of the worker.

Another social philosopher, John Stuart Mill said the same thing. But it is believed both Smith and Stuart Mill, and even John Locke would have been horrified to find their terms freedom and liberty used in such a loose manner as they are used in our economic language today. Such is also made much worse by even the best of our social scientists and moral economists, not even conscious of how they are allowing the English language to be abused by using liberty and freedom in very non-hallowed economic situations.

And indeed, also sending the wrong economic message to a possibly dumb, but more likely innocent public.

Tristan Ewins
>- some 'freedom' - the 'freedom' to be a wage slave. Freedom to 'take it or leave it' is no freedom at
>all when one lives in poverty.

Freedom does not mean unlimited choice, it simply means lack of coercion by others. What you're suggesting is to deprive others of freedom to increase the choice of some. This is indefensible.

>Neo-liberal 'reform' in Africa has left African states in a condition of destitution with massive debt
>and most former public assets privatised. So much for 'freedom'.

African economies are not free. For examples of freeer economies, look at Hong Kong or Dubai to name a couple.

>Also - your 'devil may care' attitude to the CAD is perplexing. 'The market' does not necessarily
>'self correct' with everything co-existing in a perfect equilibrium. There is an urgent need right now
>for government to intervene in the interests of export and import replacement industries. Yet on
>both sides of politics you'll see nothing like a sufficient industry policy.

I never mentioned the CAD, I was referring to comparative advantage. There is nothing inherently wrong with a trade deficit by the way. The only problem is when it is fuelled by too-loose monetary policy.

old¨zygote
>Very¨simple.¨A¨monopoly¨tells¨an¨outlet¨the¨maximum¨and¨minimum¨price¨they¨can¨charge.¨If¨they
>dispute¨this¨they¨remove¨the¨franchise.¨There¨is¨no¨voluntary¨price¨setting¨under¨the¨thumb¨of
>monopoly¨capitalism

>Another¨example…..
>Before¨a¨monopoly¨a¨market¨price¨is¨$50¨and¨serves¨100¨clients¨but¨profits¨are¨10%¨on¨a¨revenue
>of¨$5000.

>After¨monopoly¨the¨selling¨price¨is¨forced¨to¨$100¨and¨this¨serves¨70¨clients¨but¨now¨profits¨(at
>10%)¨have¨skyrocketted,¨and¨the¨people¨who¨wanted¨to¨freely¨trade¨are¨now¨excluded¨from
>accessing¨the¨goods¨and¨services¨they¨once¨were.

>30¨clients¨have¨lost¨their¨right¨to¨free¨trade.

You¨didn't¨explain¨HOW¨these¨"monopolies"¨came¨about¨and¨how¨they¨are¨infallible.¨A¨business
gets¨a¨"monopoly"¨because¨it¨is¨meeting¨a¨certain¨demand¨better¨than¨anyone¨else.¨How¨is¨this¨a
bad¨thing?

You're¨also¨neglecting¨the¨OWNER¨of¨these¨goods:¨the¨supposed¨"monopoly".¨Does¨an¨owner
not¨have¨the¨right¨to¨decide¨what¨he¨does¨with¨these¨goods?¨Free¨trade,¨and¨freedom,¨is¨not
entitlement.¨When¨will¨leftists¨understand¨this?¨Entitlement¨is¨unethical.

>What¨a¨simple,¨simple¨task.

>Peoples¨free¨use¨of¨Sydney’s¨roads¨has¨been¨curtailed¨by¨a¨monopolists¨desire¨to¨funnel¨traffic
>down¨its¨road.¨The¨curtailed¨road¨users¨were¨unrelated¨to¨the¨monopolist.

LOL¨how¨ironic¨that¨you'd¨mention¨a¨deal¨that¨was¨struck¨by¨the¨PUBLIC¨sector¨-¨NOT¨two
private¨organisations.¨It¨was¨the¨NSW¨government¨(ie.¨intervention,¨which¨socialists¨advocate)
that¨created¨this¨deal.¨If¨it¨was¨a¨private¨organisation,¨not¨the¨NSW¨government,¨that¨struck¨the
deal¨with¨the¨tunnel¨company,¨they¨would¨NOT¨have¨agreed¨to¨shut¨down¨their¨own¨roads,
because¨doing¨so¨would¨deprive¨them¨of¨income¨and¨be¨against¨their¨best¨interest.

Not¨to¨mention¨of¨course¨that¨this¨has¨nothing¨to¨do¨with¨preventing¨trade¨or¨production.

>It¨is¨hardly¨voluntary¨if¨the¨only¨choice¨is¨to¨either¨be¨hit¨with¨a¨club,¨or¨a¨whip.¨It¨is¨not¨voluntary
>to¨choose¨between¨working¨as¨a¨wage¨slave¨and¨going¨hungry¨and¨loosing¨your¨house.

It's¨also¨not¨voluntary¨to¨have¨your¨earnings¨taken¨from¨you,¨or¨to¨be¨regulated¨in¨who¨you¨may
employ¨and¨how,¨for¨example.¨The¨difference¨between¨this¨and¨someone¨being¨"forced"¨to¨work
or¨starve¨is¨that¨intervention¨involves¨one¨human¨coercing¨another,¨whereas¨starving¨is¨one's
own¨responsibility.¨Which¨is¨the¨lesser¨of¨the¨two¨evils?¨You're¨effectively¨saying¨that¨people
coercing¨each¨other¨is¨better¨than¨not.

What¨would¨you¨do¨if¨you¨were¨the¨last¨person¨in¨the¨world?¨According¨to¨you,¨you¨wouldn't¨be
"free"¨because¨you'd¨need¨to¨feed¨yourself,¨but¨how¨could¨you¨not¨be¨free¨if¨there¨was¨nobody
else¨in¨the¨world¨to¨restrict¨your¨freedom?