Economic Calculation, What is at the center?

[Esuric]

@DD5

Good. Are you looking real hard to find an argument here with me. I don’t get it.

Why can’t you answer this simple and direct question? When one party refuses to answer a simple question about their position you know something is wrong. You said the socialist cannot produce a warship, so now I want clarification before you take me around another circle.

[DD5]

@Esuric

This way you can continue making pretend like you actually understand economics.

I don’t think anybody here even knows what your position is. They can build ships or they cannot build ships. Once again, Ensuric resorts to childish play when he feels he is being inconsistent.

[DD5]

@Esuric

Why can’t you answer this simple and direct question?

I did answer it. I don’t know. And if you have an answer then you don’t know what you’re talking about.

This question of yours bears no significance regarding the debate. This scenerio was properly addressed in the general case by me. I simply resorted to Mises’ position on this. That’s all.

[Esuric]

@DD5

Since when is the socialist utopia about being able to use what Capitalism has left it and being able to hang on for a while? Why are we even discussing this nonsense?

This is the whole point, actually. Maybe you’re not familiar with the socialist doctrine, but it is the final stage of human development, according to the socialists. Feudalism made way for capitalism, and capitalism must give way to socialism. The socialist calculation debate is not some hypothetical historical scenario, where the world never discovered markets, or developed the price mechanism. Mises is telling the world that the ‘last and final stage of human development’ will lead to the end of civilization.

@DD5

I don’t think anybody here even knows what your position is. They can build ships or they cannot build ships. Once again, Ensuric resorts to childish play when he feels he is being inconsistent.

I’ve found that your understanding of AE is often very shallow and overly simplistic. Your debating tactics, on the other hand, are very crafty and quite aggressive. You mask your ignorance quite well.

[DD5]

@Esuric

Why can’t you answer this simple and direct question?

Here is my answer. I take Mises position on this:

We may admit that in its initial period a socialist regime could to some extent rely upon of the preceding age of capitalism. But what is to be done later, as conditions change more and more? Of what use could the prices of 1900 be for the director in 1949? And what use can the director in 19890 derive from the knowledge of the prices of 1949? (Mises, Human Action)

[DD5]

@Esuric

I’ve found that your understanding of AE is often very shallow and overly simplistic

I think you have some serious ego issues.

[filc]

@Esuric

This way you can continue making pretend like you actually understand economics.

@DD5

I don’t think anybody here even knows what your position is.

Speak for yourself DD5, don’t speak on others behalf.Esuric is not the one bouncing around his argument. I feel fairly comfortable in knowing his position.

[Reasoning]

@DD5

Here is my answer. I take Mises position on this:

We may admit that in its initial period a socialist regime could to some extent rely upon of the preceding age of capitalism. But what is to be done later, as conditions change more and more? Of what use could the prices of 1900 be for the director in 1949? And what use can the director in 19890 derive from the knowledge of the prices of 1949? (Mises, Human Action)

You don’t need prices to build a warship. You need prices to determine what is the most efficient way of building the warship.

[Stranger]

@Esuric

@Stranger

These ratios are economic ratios.

What ratios? I didn’t mention any ratios.

Yes you did, X:Y,Z,E is a ratio.

@Stranger

One scientist may be able to produce X with Y,Z,E, while the next scientist can produce 0.5X, while the vast majority of people can produce 0X.

I’m not talking about economic efficiency. You’re right when you say that there are many different ways to produce X, and I said that myself in the comment you’re responding to. All I’m saying is that the scientist knows how to produce X; the economic and technical efficiency of the recipe is not the issue at hand. The prices conveyed are merely information signals, telling you what Y,Z,E are worth to society; they are the opportunity costs.

The scientist is not the planner. There is only one planner, and he does not know how to produce anything. He only knows how to give orders and boss people around.

[Esuric]

@DD5

Here is my answer. I take Mises position on this:

We may admit that in its initial period a socialist regime could to some extent rely upon of the preceding age of capitalism. But what is to be done later, as conditions change more and more? Of what use could the prices of 1900 be for the director in 1949? And what use can the director in 19890 derive from the knowledge of the prices of 1949? (Mises, Human Action)

This doesn’t answer my question. Mises is talking about economic calculation. I’m not talking about economic calculation. Once again, you decide to play games.

[Stranger]

@Reasoning

@DD5

Here is my answer. I take Mises position on this:

We may admit that in its initial period a socialist regime could to some extent rely upon of the preceding age of capitalism. But what is to be done later, as conditions change more and more? Of what use could the prices of 1900 be for the director in 1949? And what use can the director in 19890 derive from the knowledge of the prices of 1949? (Mises, Human Action)

You don’t need prices to build a warship. You need prices to determine what is the most efficient way of building the warship.

You need capital to build a warship. If this capital does not already exist at your disposal, in the exact time and at the exact place that you will build the warship, in the exact quantity that you know to be needed to build this warship, then how are you going to build a warship?

[filc]

@DD5

Since when is the socialist utopia about being able to use what Capitalism has left it and being able to hang on for a while? Why are we even discussing this nonsense?

Our discussion is not isolated to genuine socialism alone. You conveniently altered the argument to only Genuine Socialism a while back but when the debate started we were talking about government interventionism in general.

If you believe that economic calculation is only isolated to instances of Genuine socialism then we fail to use it’s lessons in other forms of interventionist governments.

Remember? Let me re-quote from where we started.

@filc

So privately owned sections of the economy are simply directed by the hand of the state. So we go from one method of coercion to another. In this method they can pretend it’s still “Capitalism” while retaining all the negative effects of socialism.

Any time coercion is applied it necessarily implies a disruption of the formation of meaningful prices. It necessarily distorts the structure of prices, accumulation of wealth, and direction of capital.

[Esuric]

@Stranger

Yes you did, X:Y,Z,E is a ratio.

No it’s not. Saying that X requires Y,Z, and E is not an economic ratio.

@Stranger

The scientist is not the planner. There is only one planner, and he does not know how to produce anything. He only knows how to give orders and boss people around.

The scientist can be a planner, or the planner can ask the scientist about producing “X.” The biggest confusion here is that people are not familiar with the differences between scientific knowledge and tacit knowledge. A functional economic system, what Mises and Hayek wrote about, deals with the ability to engage in rational economic calculation, which society depends upon. Their conclusion is that the higher the degree of dispersed tacit knowledge, the more rational the calculations (more knowledge available). Scientific knowledge, what the socialist appeal to, cannot coordinate an economy.

[filc]

@DD5

I think you have some serious ego issues.

To the contrary DD5.

@Mises

We may admit that in its initial period a socialist regime could to some extent rely upon of the preceding age of capitalism. But what is to be done later, as conditions change more and more? Of what use could the prices of 1900 be for the director in 1949? And what use can the director in 19890 derive from the knowledge of the prices of 1949? (Mises, Human Action)

And yet he still refers to the lack of prices(money). Way to miss it.

[Stranger]

@Esuric

@Stranger

Yes you did, X:Y,Z,E is a ratio.

No it’s not. Saying that X requires Y,Z, and E is not an economic ratio.

@Stranger

The scientist is not the planner. There is only one planner, and he does not know how to produce anything. He only knows how to give orders and boss people around.

The scientist can be a planner, or the planner can ask the scientist about producing “X.” The biggest confusion here is that people are not familiar with the differences between scientific knowledge and tacit knowledge. Rational economic calculation, what Mises and Hayek wrote about, deals with the ability to engage in rational economic calculation, which society depends upon. Their conclusion is that the higher the degree of dispersed tacit knowledge, the more rational the calculations (more knowledge available). Scientific knowledge, what the socialist appeal to, cannot coordinate an economy.

That’s denial, not an argument.

[DD5]

Ensuric, Here this is for you: (no offense Reasoning)

@Reasoning

You don’t need prices to build a warship. You need prices to determine what is the most efficient way of building the warship.

Now, this is your side of the debate. It must be because you would rather play childish games with me then actually reply to such erroneous assertions. I bet Flic agrees with the above.

[Reasoning]

@Stranger

You need capital to build a warship. If this capital does not already exist at your disposal, in the exact time and at the exact place that you will build the warship, in the exact quantity that you know to be needed to build this warship, then how are you going to build a warship?

This is true but is not related to the question. It is perfectly possible to obtain the necessary capital to build a warship without the use of a price system.

[filc]

@Stranger

You need capital to build a warship. If this capital does not already exist at your disposal, in the exact time and at the exact place that you will build the warship, in the exact quantity that you know to be needed to build this warship, then how are you going to build a warship?

The planner has a schematic, and a recipe of items necessary. He has a whip. I think it can be done. Whether he wastes half of a nations resources, or kills half of his population to do it is irrelevant.

[DD5]

@Reasoning

@Stranger

You need capital to build a warship. If this capital does not already exist at your disposal, in the exact time and at the exact place that you will build the warship, in the exact quantity that you know to be needed to build this warship, then how are you going to build a warship?

This is true but is not related to the question. It is perfectly possible to obtain the necessary capital to build a warship without the use of a price system.

At least you don’t claim that this is Mises’ position in the socialist calculation argument. Correct?

[filc]

@Stranger

@Esuric

@Stranger

Yes you did, X:Y,Z,E is a ratio.

No it’s not. Saying that X requires Y,Z, and E is not an economic ratio.

@Stranger

The scientist is not the planner. There is only one planner, and he does not know how to produce anything. He only knows how to give orders and boss people around.

The scientist can be a planner, or the planner can ask the scientist about producing “X.” The biggest confusion here is that people are not familiar with the differences between scientific knowledge and tacit knowledge. Rational economic calculation, what Mises and Hayek wrote about, deals with the ability to engage in rational economic calculation, which society depends upon. Their conclusion is that the higher the degree of dispersed tacit knowledge, the more rational the calculations (more knowledge available). Scientific knowledge, what the socialist appeal to, cannot coordinate an economy.

That’s denial, not an argument.

It’s called delegation Stranger. And we are trying to clarify the economic calculation argument as explained by Mises.