You continue to misrepresent my view over and over again, and frankly, I am quite sick of it. If you think that the focal point of my argument is not the absent of prices, then you’re mad! You’re so distrubd by what I claim is the conclusion of the calculation argument, that that you completely missed the basis for the argument, absent of money prices. I don’t think there was a single post in that thread that I didn’t emphasize the absent of economic calculation due to the absent of money prices.
I don’t think I have much more to add. I think that you have misunderstood the calculation problem. You and a few others keep referring to non-socialist Commonwealth like China and the Soviet Union, not realizing that they had money prices that they could resort to for their calculations. I have made this point perhaps 100 times in the previous thread. In the pure socialist commonwealth, there are no such prices at all.
There will be no economy at all**, as Mises said and meant!**
Of course, as I have also said numerous times in the previous thread, Mises is not talking about simple small barter economies when he refers to “economy”.
Are we in agreement? I’m not sure, and I don’t think you understand my position. The point you raise is irrelevant and noncontroversial (that you need some kind of markets for a functional economy and economic calculation). The Neo-Classical’s agreed with the Austrians when it came to this issue. But the real socialist calculation debate revolves around the possibility of calculation without money prices and real markets for capital goods. The Neo classicals said that calculation was possible with quasi-markets for the consumer goods industries. Our references to the Soviet Union and China deal with the issue at hand. The fact that you can’t see this demonstrates Flic’s point. And again, you’re taking Mises’ usage of the term “impossible” too literally.
So just to be clear: We both agree that if the western world never developed market economies then we couldn’t have accumulated such plentiful and sophisticated capital (again, this is irrelevant). But I’m saying that if the governments of the world completely took over the means of production tomorrow, that they would still be able to produce warships, and that this condition could last for quite some time. Do you agree with this? Furthermore, I’m saying that market socialism, fascism (our current condition), and welfare states must also necessarily collapse because of this calculation/coordination problem.
Oh really? I would have spared you had you not been so blatantly antagonistic but it’s time for you explain yourself or calm down. Your way out of line. First off I am NOT CRAZY and the below dialogue will prove why this discussion went in the wrong direction.
The next following dialog is the discussion back and forth between you and me, which ultimately started the debate.
Everyone of my responses has specifically to do with economic calculation, the formation of MEANINGFUL PRICES. Which you deny has anything to do with economic calculation below.
Now based on your last statement does that make ME crazy? Or you? My whole argument has been about the formation of meaningful prices. You outright argue that this not the economic calculation problem, and very rudely I might add.
Further more you have attacked my character and Esuric’s simply because you unsuccessfully explained yourself, to which we became confused and mistook your position. Conveniently amending your argument when necessary. To be honest I havn’t the sligtest idea what you think economic calculation is, I am totally confused as to what you believe but I know that explaining in the way you did originally leads us to a number of fallacy’s. You started out saying it had nothing to do with prices, and came a full 180 degrees ultimately agreeing with me. It sounds like you should have just agreed with me from the getgo. It makes me feel like your desperately seeking someone to argue and fight with.
DD5 you have treated me with much contempt, and I do not think, based on the above dialog, that I deserved it. I have been mislead into an open line of fire with you when I have done nothing antagonistic to deserve it. You on the other hand have been very unfriendly with your responses and I do resent that, especially since it sounds like you don’t even disagree with me.
There is nothing wrong with explaining something the wrong way, I do it all the time. But to carry someone on stubbornly just to be right does not help you, it doesn’t help me, and it doesn’t help by-standards who are trying to learn. Good day!
Well said, I got a little annoyed when he started accusing me of mis-representing him, and called me crazy. So I went on a little rant which distracted me from your previous point, which I also agree to whole heartedly.
Thanks Esuric.
[EDIT] On a side note,
Mises explains quite plainly in HA that copying prices of a neighboring geographical location is still fallacious as it doesn’t represent current domestic conditions of the local economy.
So again we are back with the manipulation of prices, and why market prices(Not mimiced prices) are paramount. This is why we refer to socialist and non-socialist entities, because the economic calculation problem does not apply to one specific model of socialism, and socialism alone, but applies to all methods of coercive disruption and intervention in the market, fascistic and socialistic alike. Economic calculation applies just as much to capitalism, as it does to socialists, and fascists. The total state of fascism(Which I argue is just a different variant of socialism) and total state of socialism however share similar consequences due to the economic calculation problem. The Econ calc problem does not apply to a perfect socialist model, but all various levels of state intervention. It explains specifically why the market stops working at various degrees when the natural formation of market prices is tampered with.
A BIG chunk of of Human action is about manipulating market prices by way of intervention, and why it distorts the structure of the market.
That is ultimately all I have been trying to explain to you, and why money, and market prices, are the root of the economic calculation debate.
I think my identifiers to real-X (whatever X is) are different from yours. But when I sit back and think about it, I agree with you. When you say “impossible” here it is a different from your use of "impossible in the next sentence:
I am identifying that it is impossible for the socialist in the armchair to complete any given projects. Yet, and this is important, projects get done. Why? It’s not because the socialist had anything to do with it. It was the productive individuals doing the actual work that got the work done. Add what I said here to your statement that it is impossible for a socialist to plan and it explains more as to why the market is still making projects.
Impossible is one of three categorical forms in Aristotelian logic. There is necessary, possible, and impossible. Anybody that is familiar with logic, such as Mises who had recommended one of the many intro. to logic books that mentions this, would find that term to be very significant. It’s not to be taken lightly.
That’s great, but socialist planners can in fact produce warships. This is where the controversy started, and since then, DD5 has been all over the place. I don’t even know if he’s still supporting his initial assertion.
But small tribes isolated from any sort of market prices can make warships, granted, they’re usually a few sticks tied together with a man holding a spear, but that’s good enough for their purposes. Where’s the arbitrary cut-off?
It’s human action. If the socialist doesn’t see any prices then they only implement their plans with force not by any consumer driven plan. But there is a market and there are signals being sent to get the rubber tires to the factory. The factory calls out for them. The socialist organizing the plans of how many tires goes to the factory are only basing their plans on the market, ie. there is a factory that produces and sells rubber tires. How many tires go there depend on the resources in the total market that the socialist has their hands in. It’s a well demarcated boundary line between the socialist redistributing and the actual market where there are individuals doing the work and actually exchanging with the consumers.
True, the socialist planner does not directly complete the project himself. Instead he commands his slaves to do the work for him.
If the central planner gave the orders that resulted in the completion of a given task how did they have nothing to do with it?
Yes, motivated through fear of the jail-house or bayonet.
How do you define market? Are you referring to the skilled laborers that make up the population? If so are you saying that the market always exists and could never truly be abolished?
Because when I said that the socialist planner can produce a warship, I didn’t mean that he literally produced it himself, with his bare hands, obviously. I don’t care how he gets it done; that’s not the issue here. Can we try to remain focused please? The confusion is taking us all over the place.
It is implied that coercion us used under a socialist regime, thats just a given. The point is, he is still capable of producing a warship, he just cracks the whips and sends his serfs to do the job. How long it takes him and what quality is a result is for another discussion.
The question is not whether or not coercion is applied. Being a socialist nation that is a given. The coercion is ultimately what breaks the formation meaningful of prices.
I was being too extreme in my wording. They did have something to do with it. They gave orders. But that’s not actual production of the good.
true
Where economic goods are being voluntarily economized, exchanged, and involves capital with individuals that doing these acts. I included that these voluntary exchanges might be, depends on the situation, aggressed against during the actual exchange, ie. taxes, regulations, etc…, but the exchange is always voluntarily. What I mean by voluntary is human action, which includes in its definition choice, ie. the marginal utility of A to B. There being this choice and during that act of exchange all that can be said for a fact is those involved in the exchanged preferred that particular exchange above all else to act upon in their life.
Yes. They are part of the market.
Almost never abolished. I’ll explain. North Korea right now has a market. The market is where all economizing takes place. Socialist or any other interventions of strictly aggressive styles are not the voluntary exchanges that are taking place in the market. The voluntary exchanges are being aggressed against in North Korea. The only time the market can be abolished is when all economizing exchanges come to a full stop. That means starvation and any other economic goods not being exchanged in any particular part of society due to aggression. When the market is abolished most likely people are soon to be dead. I think a person can last without food for about two weeks. So when economizing and the market at large is abolished then that is the end of society itself and all the individuals that the event would pertain to.
there ya go. the serfs are actually producing the warship. not the socialist. they are doing the job.
It doesn’t take him any time to do something he is not actually doing.
That’s all the socialist does. So it is part of the debate, but doesn’t necessarily have to do with economic calculation because coercion doesn’t calculate. It is impossible, which is the point I believe.
I don’t know why this discussion has started to derail like this. I guess it is very insulting that people here keep misrepresenting what I say or say that I am all over the place. I have been very consistent.
The calculation problem is not about disruption in prices. That’s interventionism.
It is also not about meaningful/informative or not meaningful/informative prices in terms of satisfying the most urgent needs of the consumers.
The calculation prices is about no prices at all. It is about no prices for any of the means of production. Under such a hypothetical scenario, there can be no rational economic planning at all. It is complete chaos.
Go over the previous thread that this started in. This has already been addressed. We’re not talking about small fishing boats or rafts that some primitive tribe can build for itself. That’s not the type of "economy’ we’re talking about.
I quoted you because in a very precise and eloquent manner, you summarized the Calculation argument as put forward by Mises. You don’t have to pretend I was all over the place just because you may have said some things in the beginning that seem to contradict your final conclusion. Who cares! In the imaginary socialist commonwealth, no economy can form (beyond the primitive barter economy). You obviously understand this point now, so like you said “can we try to remain focused?”