No thats entirely wrong DD5 and you know. The argument started when we were clarifying Mises position about Economic Calculation in general, not just in a socialist commonwealth. I made that very clear and have quoted it for you several times. Do you want me to go through that painful process for you again and re-quote you? Mises references Economic Calculation all throughout HA, and he is not in all cases referring to genuine Socialism.
Mises argument was that without a market you wouldn’t have market prices and that without market prices the socialist planner would be unable to determine which projects were the most efficient uses of capital out of the vast myriad of uses that capital has.
Mises further explains that the reason that the socialist countries were able to rationally allocate resources to any degree is because “these were not isolated socialist systems. They were operating in an environment in which the price system still worked. They could resort to economic calculation on the ground of the prices established abroad. Without the aid of these prices their actions would have been aimless and planless. Only because they were able to refer to these foreign prices were they able to calculate, to keep books, and to prepare their much talked about plans.” [Human Action, p. 703]
But that is not what we are debating here. We are not debating whether or not a socialist commonwealth absent all references to prices could rationally allocate resources, we are arguing whether or not a dictator ruling a society without prices could build a warship even if it takes all of the nations resources to do it.
No thats entirely wrong DD5 and you know. The argument started when we were clarifying Mises position about Economic Calculation in general, not just in a socialist commonwealth. I made that very clear and have quoted it for you several times. Do you want me to go through that painful process for you again and re-quote you? Mises references Economic Calculation all throughout HA, and he is not in all cases referring to genuine Socialism.
Mises argument was that without a market you wouldn’t have market prices and that without market prices the socialist planner would be unable to determine which projects were the most efficient uses of capital out of the vast myriad of uses that capital has.
Mises further explains that the reason that the socialist countries were able to rationally allocate resources to any degree is because “these were not isolated socialist systems. They were operating in an environment in which the price system still worked. They could resort to economic calculation on the ground of the prices established abroad. Without the aid of these prices their actions would have been aimless and planless. Only because they were able to refer to these foreign prices were they able to calculate, to keep books, and to prepare their much talked about plans.” [Human Action, p. 703]
But that is not what we are debating here. We are not debating whether or not a socialist commonwealth absent all references to prices could rationally allocate resources, we are arguing whether or not a dictator ruling a society without prices could build a warship even if it takes all of the nations resources to do it.
Yes because continuing to call us stupid makes you right.
He said they were a slave economy. Then it was gone. he may have deleted it.
Ensuric, you’re digging a really deep hole for yourself.
I don’t think anyone here has been arguing that socialism could produce a warship or any other technologically advanced item if no existing technology were in place. I assumed from the beginning that were taking the economy as is and debating rather or rather not a socialist economy could produce things using the existing infrastructure. With that being said I was not involved with the orginal conversation so maybe I assumed wrong.
Wholly crap! This debate is hitting rock bottom. All of a sudden we are talking about calculation problems in general and not the socialist calculation debate.
Give me a break!
I sense that everybody here is trying to get out of the hole they dug for themselves. Especially Ensuric, and now you also. I cannot believe you just said that.
Seriously. Will each of you quit bickering like a bunch of old hags![:P]
As if any of you are innocent of the low blows. Get over it.
I’m no historian, but I could swear they used slave labor.
I’m saying that you entirely missed his conclusion.
There is such a thing as a market-slave economy. The USA in its early decades was such.
Egypt wasn’t a market-slave economy; It was just a slave-command economy. You have slave economy => Feudalism => Merchant capitalism => Industrial capitalism. History of eco thought, lesson one.
You forgot the inevitable final socialist commonwealth, comrade.
I don’t care about the low blows. What bothers me is that we have a group of people talking about things they don’t really understand. And instead of investigating the matter, they continuously equivocate, obfuscate, and avoid simple and direct questions. Essentially, they’re trying to repair their broken egos.
Now you’re also going to tell me what we’ve been debating. And if he uses up all of the resources, then the game is over. You’re not making any valid argument here against the claim that what you are describing is, in all practical terms, not and economy at all.
Correct, but when you have absolutely not way of determining efficiency for anything, then the whole system is nothing but chaos. There can be no economic order. Such is the extreme case for the socialist commonwealth that brings Mises to the radical and devastating conclusion that such a system is nothing but chaos.
Reasoning,
You cannot build ships under chaos, and you must understand that Mises said chaos and meant it.
Socialism must come after capitalism, since Marx wrote Das Kapital in 1867. Your argument is about some imaginary world. So, my question stands.
wilderness, you seem like a descent objective observer. If I’m not mistake, I think you were there from the start - from the other thread. were you?
What do you think of the following statement just made by Flic?
And yet I’m sure DD5 would think the same of you. tit-for-tat. Now can this thread talk about something economical cause I don’t even know if the debate is about the economic calculation problem anymore as it seems the debate has actually turned into a debate as to what the heck are we talking about again…lol
hey. I guess as long as everybody is having fun. Great intellectual insights sometimes happen in the most odd ways.
happy hunting.[:)]
That is the argument of the socialist commonwealth. It’s imaginary! Mises must construct this imaginary commonwealth to explode the myths of the socialists.
As for you question. I already answered it. Mises’ quote was an adequate response. I also responded to this in my own words many times. Let go of it already.