When you take the argument away from money, then yes degrees make no sense. But money is the focal point of the economic calculation problem. IT explains why as a socialist country incrimentally moves away from capitalism, and into socialism, it’s pricing structure equally incrementally becomes ruined. That means incrimentally additional amounts of waste untill full scale socialism is achieved.
This is the problem with your argument, You cannot explain why partial socialism is bad. YOur argument simply implies that only full scale socialism is bad, but that if a certain amount of capitalism exists things will be ok. YOu cannot explain how much capitalism needs to be maintained, and you cannot explain the behaviors of the market.
Directing our attention away from money we loose our argument all together. The entire signalling and informational process is all housed within mediums of exchange. It carries the information capitalists and entrepreneurs use to make their decisions. Money is what makes capitalism work. Your inablity to understand this and consistent assertion that ECon Calc is not about money is your pitfall.
Because of this you essentially have no argument what so ever when discussing with a socialist. All you can do is repeatedly assert, argumentum ad nauseum, that socialists cannot plan, and a socialist will just assert right back that they can. You cannot prove your argument a prior, nor empirically. But when our focal point is placed over money the socialist theory is eradicated a priori, and the objective evidence we witness becomes more understandable.
MIses didn’t say anything like this, the statement is simply absured. THere is ALWAYS an economy. THere may not be a market, but you are conflating markets with economies. Regardless of whatever economic system you put in place, it doesn’t magically make an economy dissapear. It just distorts it’s functionality. Economies don’t go away, even in socialist commonwealths. Markets may go away, but economies do not. Mises said nothing of the sort, your continued conflation of terms puts you at a disadvantage when arguing with the socialist. You put up easy sham arguments that are nothing more then blatant assertions that any intelligent socialist will just knock down.
You cannot explain mechanically why socialists cannot calculate without referring to the money problem.
An example of what? I haven’t the slightest idea what your talking about. It’s hard enough to keep up with what your argument is as you conflate key terms and re-word your paragraphs which make your positions appear different.
Citing some historic event doesn’t prove that 2+2=4. Logic does that, and your missing several key variables in our equation. For that matter I don’t even know what historical examples you want. There has never been a true socialist commonwealth to cite, and likely never will be. Such models are near impossible to sustain themselves for any lengthy period of time.
But citing a historic example neither proves nor disproves either one of our points and you being hung up on this is only detracting from the actual discussion. It’s irrelevent, get off it already.
You cannot prove this logically, it doesn’t follow logically at all. It’s a non-sequitur statement and gross mis-representation of the economic calculation problem. Your entire position on economic calculation discredits the argument itself, as it moves the attention away from the structure of pricing which should be at the center of the argument.
There is no reason why a socialist common wealth cannot send it’s serfs to toil and build a pyramid.
DD5, you quoted Mises here
*_
Whats odd is you ignored the last few sentences where Mises then goes back and explains why that example worked, and why without prices it couldn’t have worked for as long as it did.
Without the aid of these prices their actions would have been aimless and planless. - Mises
IF you do a simple search through Human Action, the PDF copy, you will see that nearly every explanation of Economic Calculation MIses refers to the formation of meaningful prices.
ANd Again
Back in the beggining of Econ Calc MIses explains that Economic Calculation specifically has to do with money, period!
And again
I could go on, there are numerous references to money and prices and why that is at the very CENTER of the economic calculation problem. All other failures are derivatives of that problem. The problem of money prices being perverted, or absent.
How many more quotes of Mises do you want me to get for you where he clearly explains that Economic Calculation is about money.