I'm not going to get too far into this because I will not debate the merits of market socialism here. Nonetheless, you asked. In a Schweickart-style market socialist model, which I endorse, the state has the responsibility to create jobs by financing entrepreneurial worker-self-managed cooperatives, started by worker initiative.
The initial financing is done by banks that have a good deal of independence from the state, through a system of grants. Grants are awarded on the basis of expected profitability, job-creation, environmental friendliness -- the specific formula to be set by the bank and subject to legislative approval. Bank officer's remuneration is linked to the success of their grantees in meeting these targets. Subsequent investment in the coops is determined by the coop boards -- they have to decide what percent of their post-tax profits to invest as opposed to giving as profit shares (in this system, the basis for remuneration instead of wages).
Coops go bankrupt if they are not profitable; there is a hard budget constraint. The state and the banks are essentially forbidden by law from bailing out loser enterprises. The budget constraint is provided by the operation of markets. This is a lesson from ex-Yugoslav and Hungarian market socialism, which did not embody a hard budget constraint. Failing enterprises will be forced to mend their ways, submit to market discipline, or be flushed.
The money for grants is raised by a "use tax" imposed on the enterprises -- essentially rent for use of state-owned property. The rate of the tax is determined by the legislature. Enterprises can of course lobby for lower taxes. There is unemployment insurance to tide workers over if they are temporarily unemployed. For those unable to work (too young, too old, too sick or disabled), there is a guaranteed annual income or negative income tax.
The state operates as an employer of last resort for those able to work but unable to find jobs in the cooperative sector. There are a lot of public goods that cannot be provided either at all or effectively at a profit by coops in the market: roads, schools, health care, defense, law enforcement, the usual list. Many people will choose to work in public service anyway, but those who can work but cannot, in the long term, find work in a profit-seeking coop, will be given with a state job in an agency that provides public goods.
That's Schweickart's way of handling the right to a job (and a lot of other things), along with some bells and whistles I added. Since the whole system is democratic, everything in it is up for political grabs at some level, including the tax rates and taxes for financing the government.
I do not propose to discuss this further. You can read Schweickart's Against Capitalism or the shorter and more recent After Capitalism for details. I do not care if you do not think it is really socialist and I will not debate the proposition with anyone.
I will not discuss the evils or benefits of markets here; experience has taught me that is a pointless and unrewarding activity.
Neither will I discuss the value of engaging in economic modeling of this sort; if you don't believe in it, don't read such models.
And I will not discuss whether alternative models, including planned ones without markets, could accomplish the aim (guaranteed jobs or income) better than the one proposed. Such models might be suggested. This is just one way to handle the problems.
I am not saying anything more about this.
--- Eubulides <prince.plumples at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/07, andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I am a socialist as well as a liberal, so I
> > agree that the best _social order_ involves a
> right to
> > a job or income. You can call that a political
> right
> > if you want, there are arguments to be made for
> doing
> > so, although I don't call it political but social
> and
> > economic myself; but whatever terms you use we
> agree
> > that a right to a job or income is a real right.
> Btw,
> > Milton Friedman thought it was, if not a right,
> then
> > sound policy.
>
> =================
>
> No rights without duties/remedies, so who's
> obligated to create all
> those jobs? If the State deploys an elr strategy as
> opposed to
> self-authorizing a monopoly on the creation of
> jobs/work and the
> citizenry gets agitated at the ensuing waste of time
> and money, and
> believe me there will be waste, does the citizenry
> get to vote for
> lower taxes to cut the waste? Or would there be no
> need for budget
> constraints?
>
> Ian
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7