Economic Calculation Problem Debunked!??

Economics Economics Questions
201

“the non-human and future generations, and is clearly elitist, your ethical position is clearly weaker.”

I resent that. because in your society their is no aspiration to earn anything. how can you feel like you have earned anything. Im sure you will say “well, in my society people wouldnt need to earn anything” or wouldnt want to earn anything.

But isnt a key human element the feeling accomplishment? Personally, your world sounds like that huge craft on Wall-E, wherr no one walks or doesnt anything toimprove the current state. Essentailly we become the herd of the shepard who in turn is the herd.

202

Note, the problem with the use of linear programming here is that it can’t be really shoehorned into graph theory (easily). You’ll have to create mappings (morphisms) between functions. If you’re lost before this post, apfelstrudel, I suggest taking up a few compsci courses at your local uni (LOL). :3

203

Felipe,

You mean how you made something up that did not occur? My logic is based on philosophical ideas stretching back to Aristotle, and is very much all about this world. If anyone’s ideas are “not of this world” it is those of the “I don’t give a shit about nature” crowd.

Perhaps you at least have time to get that irony detector checked out. It seems to be broken.

Bearchu,

Not holier than thou. But slavery is a tough thing to defend ethically, and so is a market in children. And a lot of other things…

people in the lower classes acutally enjoy their lives more than the rich

Wow, you are right! So by keeping them poor we are actually doing them a service! Yeah like I said, a lot of though things to defend…

ladyattis,

I know enough linear programming to grasp the issue, but not enough comp. sci. to grasp what you’re saying… something I plan to rectify.

204

Start with complexity theory, at least those that deal with Turing machines, because that’s where you’ll get a general test of whether or not something is computable. For example, we can’t construct a turing machine that can compute factors as there’s nothing that can determine one factor from another (in terms of priority or preference). Then work your way to graph theory (and maybe even pick up Abstract algebra as this will give you the chops to handle morphisms and the like).

The key here is to understand what is an algorithm in the general sense of the Church-Turing thesis and how that works out in all the permutations of the idea.

205

So far, no one has addressed the following issues:

-How little shit you give about nature is beside the point. You are absolutely dependant on it for survival; no such thing as being “too cool for clean air and water and a healthy topsoil”.
So how does a market address environmental issues, when money does not carry the information needed?

-Related; what about those who cannot participate in a market? I am thinking here mostly about future generations (since you cannot call them lazy, like the poor, or unimportant, like animals).

-What exactly the problem is. I notice not even you can agree that the central issue of the ECP is; is it how we produce or what we produce?

-Your response to the ethical issues I brought up. This, I think, should include why a person ought not to be able to influence decisions affecting him/her.

-You response to my assertion that the algorithmic account of practical reason moves away from Hayek’s (admittedly strong) position, and sides with your opposition on a vital issue.

ladyattis,

Thanx.

But as a someone who understand comp.sci., what do you say about Cockshott’s article? Purely scientifically, and not involving politics here. As I understand it, he is a professor in the subject, with a background in Economics.

206

I don’t think it gives a basis for his conclusions. ODV is a very shakey (and possibly arbitrary) concept. All it does is shift marginal utility into a new form, it doesn’t add anything better or new to the debate. In fact, if VP people want anything that may be the future of economics, it’s not this paper. Try the work surrounding Bitcoin, gift economics, and the like.

207

Who said i was defending slavery? I thought we cleared that notion up, when we discussed how salvery is inneficient.

The market for “children” has been discussed post-rothbard and the problems he encountered.

Wow, you are right! So by keeping them poor we are actually doing them a service! Yeah like I said, a lot of though things to defend…

So you went and asked someone? Because you seem to be assuming what you do not know. google it “are poor people happier than rich people”

208

Another problem come to mind for me in regards to ECA: are values countable? If they’re not, then no algorithm can be design to be in P-time, therefore we’re back at the start and no linear programs that can be beat the NP-time in their implementations.

Reference: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1806294&show=html

209

You response to my assertion that the algorithmic account of practical reason moves away from Hayek’s (admittedly strong) position, and sides with your opposition on a vital issue.

We dont all agree with hayek.

What exactly the problem is. I notice not even you can agree that the central issue of the ECP is; is it how we produce or what we produce?

the problem is that we need to find the best way decide how we are going to produce what. Its not a dichotomy.

We simply disagree about what the “best” way to do it is.

210

Your claim that your solution is ethicaly supperior, really doesnt resonnate. I grew up poor, worked hard, and went to school and never had a handout. I put into the market, which in turn allowed me to benefit. My opinion is that ethics dont even matter in your society. I imagine drones wondering about aimlessly, no sense of purpose. I dont mean to offend, i just cant imagine it too many other ways.

211

Lets not get all heated up over an intelectuall debate, okay?

But here’s a summary of my argument(s).

  1. Humans aren’t reducible to some observable factors or patterns (this is a deeply philosophical, but not arbitrary, it’s more about the fundamental nature of Existence than anything: Monism vs Pluralism).

  2. Given any set of productions that can be computed, can they be assigned to any set of consumptions (or groups of consumers) effectively? This an assignment problem yet to be fully examined for me, and it maybe a feasibility problem as well.

  3. Given a set of productions are their economic values (sans LTV) countable? If this part can’t be done, then any other debate on the matter is moot as anything that’s uncountable is not even algorithm (see the proof that real numbers are not countable for a grasp of this implication). But, if they are countable, then the question is are they countable in P-time or NP-time? If the latter is the case, then any attempt to make any system more efficient than what we have now (the price system) is dead in the water too. If it’s the case it can be done in P-time, then we have an argument for an alternative to the price system. But that’s a pretty damn big if in my book.

212

If you shit on my lawn you better pick/clean it up or I will get medieval on your a**. Does this carry enough environmental information for you?

Who appointed you as someone else’s spokesperson/defender? As I said, you commies are nothing but a bunch of megalomaniac busybodies: the defenders of the victims of voluntary action! How about you mind your own business and stop “protecting” ones that never asked for your help or concern in the first place? What about the short and bald dudes? I think they might be having difficulties getting laid. I think we should force women to have sex with them. Are you with me on that one?

The problem is that there’s no “we”, nor is there a problem of what “we do” (much less, produce). Get it? Or go back and answer my question on what values exist apart from subjective ones.

Thanks for sharing your subjective valuations. What else do you think a person (including all persons that are not yourself) ought to do or have? Roasted chickens?

213

That’s the real issue I have with VP supporters is that they confuse ought for is. Lets accept this one obvious truth: Ought != Is.

214

love the mathematical break down ladyattis- kudos

215

But here’s why I think we can’t get past the ECA in terms of computer science: the number of production and consumption nodes (u and v) is not certain. These two change all the time: production cycles start and stop on their own schedules free from consideration of consumers (and their demands) and consumers consume free from production cycles (consumption and production are decoupled/independent of each other). Take this and expand it out in terms of combinations (through time) who will produce and who will consume, and when. This makes it a halting problem. When we do know stop producing and when we do know when to stop consuming?

The latter is self-derived, but the former can only be approximated by figuring out the curves for a firm (where MC = MR, and MC is above the ATC curve in an monopolistic competition). These don’t stay the same through time, they always change with the independent factor/variable of consumers. This means producers are always guessing regardless of what system you choose to adopt. The reason why the price system is the best option is because it’s turing recognizable, but it doesn’t attempt to decide when either consumption or production ought to halt. This allows for humans to make this decision with ease, among other goodies it provides (stability in face of uncertainty inherent to Existence, more configurations of Factors of Production, and etc).

216

ladyattis,

Again, ignoring economics and philosophy for a sec, is it technically possible?

Cockshott is a supporter of central planning, and I reject some of his conclusions as well (on ethical grounds, since I don’t know anything about comp.sci.)

Bearchu,

Love to hear more on how Rothbard’s foot was removed from his mouth by others.

Robert Nozick believes that a free system would allow the individual to sell himself into slavery. Walter Block also supports this position, arguing that one does not truly own something if one cannot sell it; thus self-ownership requires one to be able to sell oneself into slavery.
Even Locke and Rothbard can be included here, if one extends slavery to include things like sweatshops.

Are you seriously saying that the evidence that money does not provide happiness ought to be interpreted, not as a sign that the pursuit of profit does not improve life, but that keeping others poor is OK because “hey, they seem to be happy anyway! Fuck 'em!”

As for not agreeing with Hayek… fuuuuuuck, really? He is like the one guy you have on your side that actually makes sense sometimes.

never had a handout

Was it a public school?
A lot of people never get the chance to go to school. They starve to death before they hit that age.

ladyattis,

  1. As I said I reject monism. However, monism does not follow from being able to objectively assert needs.
    While we are on that subject, my last assertion on objective valuation has not been addressed.

  2. Well done, thank you. I’ll get back with an answer when I understand what you are talking about :slight_smile:
    (If you could explain the basics in stupid-english it would be awesome!)

z1235,

Ehm, no?

I mean, like in the example I gave before, if choosing between two methods of production (or two products to consume), A and B, how do you choose the one that is the most environmentally sound if price is the only info you have? Price says nothing about environmental impact.

On the second point, anger, ad hominem and reducto ad absurdum are not going to distract me from the fact that you don’t have an answer.
You know I am not a communist, that I am against force and coercion, and that I find it of outmost importance that people affected by something get to influence the decision (that is, if you have actually read what I post). So drop it and give me and actual answer, or at least say you don’t give a shit, that’s at least a slightly stronger response.

On the third point, I already did this. Feel free to comment on it.

Fourth point is again a combo of ad hominem and reducto ad absurdum. All I said was that any response to the ethical issues I brought up should include why a person ought not to be able to influence decisions affecting him/her, since that is a major ethical issue that I brought up.
Also I know you are trying to make it seem like I contradict myself, but I clearly allow for different personal opinions (as I have pointed out).

ladyattis,

Don’t bring up VP from out of nowhere you too. Ought != is? Well, duuuuh. Ought = should be*

*why it should be is not a part of the meaning of the word itself; an argument for it must be made on it’s own, and this I have done.

217

It is not technically possible as the economic value is at the margins of any algorithm. It’s not inborn to any definition of any unit within the algorithm. So, all you get is approximations from the algorithm (heuristics). This doesn’t mean it’s not useful, but it does mean it doesn’t offer anything in terms of usefulness as a replacement to the price system.

Also, I bring up the VP because the majority of criticisms have been laid at the VP on YT. Also, the reason why I bring up Ought != Is because there’s a huge issue in terms of individuals confusing a moral statement for a scientific statement (normative versus positive sciences).

218

ladyattis,

Though I know no cs, I can tell that your reasoning is deeply within the context of a capitalist economy. I recall encountering the same issue with you on the TZM forums. How familiar are you with Marxist and/or anarchist theory? Not being a condescending dick here, just wondering.

I am, and have always been, very clear on this being a ethical/philosophical question.
The inability of some VP-followes to comprehend that is a reason that I think the TVP-TZM split was friggin’ awesome. Hopefully one of the parties will fuggin learn…

219

Praxeology is not a context which fits inside of a capitalist economy. It’s the other way around. A capitalist economy is an economic system which fits inside the context of praxeology, as all economic systems fit inside that context. LadyAttis’s comment has nothing to do with the “context” of a capitalist society but of society in general, although I could see how you superficially could draw that conclusion if had no idea what LA was talking about.

Economic calculation is always present, whether you allow capitalism or not. Removing capitalism does not remove the innate praxeological structure of man.

220

Strudel, you don’t answer anything. You merely type words. Then type some more, repeating the same fallacies that have been pointed out to you ad nauseaum. Re-read this thread – jokes included. It’s all in there for you. As for…

I enjoy peeing on your carpet. I ought to be able to influence your decision to kick me out of your house, as it would affect me profoundly.