The dogma of socialism proclaims that slave economies paved the way for feudalism, which paved the way for capitalism, which will pave the way for socialism (historical materialism). “The hand mill brought feudalism, and the steel mill brought capitalism.” Each stage is a necessary historical progression towards the final stage. Mises was well aware of the socialists position, but you are not. Mises is exploding the socialist myth, and attacking the belief that socialism is better because it comes after capitalism. Mises is not re-writing history, he’s refuting the Neo-Marxists, and then he refutes the Neo-classicals.
No because your position is not clear, and you know it’s not clear, which is why you refuse to answer this direct and simple question. I have not backed away from any of your questions.
I don’t know how far back in the thread I need to go. But if I click on the link in the OP of this thread it takes me back to that thread. I scrolled up, so even a little further back in that particular thread and here’s a quote of filc to you:
I gather filc said here that he is referring to the economic calculation problem defined by Mises. And he says in the same paragraph that “In socialism there is… no economic calculation” and that “…the prices that are formed would still be meaningless…”.
And my position was clear. They cannot build modern ships in the socialist commonwealth. As for the day after, I told you that they could go at it for a while using the previous structure of production. I don’t know for how long. Nobody can know.
I meant rational economic planning! What is this??? During the entire discussion, I am referring to economic planning. There are many posts where I clearly point this out. You catch one or two phrases where I wasn’t precise and you think you have something? This is all you can bring against me?
I think he’s trying to modify his position. I think all of them are. I think they went back and did some reading and found that Mises was simply too explicit on this issue. By “no economy at all” he meant just that. They realize this and they are trying to retroactively change the debate and what I have said. Look at the last post by Ensuric.
I have never encountered here such a low level of debate. You are now basically trying to support the same conclusions I have been taking, so you are now looking for some ways in which you can justify your previous debate with me.
I don’t know what anybody is really trying to say. If I can’t as an ‘outsider’ that tried to get involved until my posts were ignored which honestly is fine because it doesn’t appear anybody knows what the other person is really trying to say anymore.
I wouldn’t mind seeing the quotes of Mises saying it would be “impossible” or “no economy at all”. Logically “impossible” and “all” are terms in logical discussions that are not to be taken lightly and glossed over. Anybody doing science wouldn’t write those words down for the fun of it. Their logic would prevent that. Pick up any logic book and take note of how long, seemingly endless at times, the term “all” or “impossible” is not only defined but exhausted in whatever context those terms would be relevant in. Those terms are not a footnote in logic or logic book. They are some of the main highlights.
Rational economic calculation is indeed impossible in the socialist commonwealth. But that doesn’t mean that planning is impossible. Again, they are two different things.
Yes, Mises and Hayek’s logic are absolutely astounding, which is why they would never make such claims (see the quote from Hayek).
Nobody said it was. It is rather dishonest of you to try to redefine my position on this after this long thread. There were tens of posts other then the one you just quoted that indicate that I am indeed, talking about economic calculation and in most cases, explicitly expressing it. And I must remind you that you started this thread (or the previous thread) with claiming that socialists could build damn good warships and tractors.
I said in one of my first posts in this discussion, back in the other thread, that I don’t really think anybody is wrong in this current discussion. I don’t think that kind of conclusion can be made absolutely. Due to the following reasons: I’m seeing a lot of talking past each other. You’ll note DD5 will say you’re strawmanning him. Or “that’s not what I’m saying”. You and filc seem to be doing variations of the same thing back to DD5.
I would take note of that. It’s not to be downplayed by anybody, not you, DD5, filc, or anybody jumping into this current discussion. That in and of itself makes any finality to the argument nearly impossible, I say nearly, cause who knows. The thread may turn around and some of whatever it is might actually clear up and everybody will know what everybody else is really trying to say.
This is a good case in point off of my last post. DD5 has been talking about economic calculation.
Again. I’m not interjecting into the debate. I’m simply affirming that he has been doing that even in the last thread in which this thread spun off from, he was talking about that.
Tomorrow the whole world becomes one unified socialist common wealth. Prices are gone, and all records to previous prices have been forgotten. The socialist planner and his minions have no access to actual economic opportunity costs (no possibility for rational economic calculation). Can he (and his minions) produce a warship (ignoring costs to society, ect)?
I already answered this question. I can’t help it if you don’t like the answer. Perhpas I don’t understand what you are asking. Maybe you should get to the point and stop wasting both of our time.
true in a certain way, but he did already answer that question.
I would also recognize that he did say that he might not understand your question. To me that means, he already answered your question, doesn’t want to keep repeating the answer, but since you seem to be not satisfied with his answer then he’s open to the possibility that he doesn’t understand your question.
1: Is my question not clear? Do you understand it?
2: Here’s his answer, a quote from 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)
[From this we may also deduce, to go back to Flic’s point, that Swedish, or Japanese prices (or whatever) are not really that useful for Soviet or Chinese economic calculation].
Here Mises is talking about rational economic calculation (see bold text). But I already know that rational economic calculation, which requires prices, is impossible in a socialist common wealth. What I want to know is if there can be any planning at all. Can the planner create a warship? If not, why? Can he create something like a motorcycle? it’s less complicated, but still a somewhat intricate piece of machinery. What’s the cut off for planning in general?
This is what I’m trying to figure out. Maybe you can help me. If you understand what I’m saying, then maybe you can re-state my question in a more comprehensible way.
Also, if his position is that civilization would never be able to produce such goods (Warship, Motorcycle) if it had never developed a market based economy, then I agree. Mises, though, isn’t saying this.
I will kindly remind you that the debate is simply this. I respectfully hope that the following statement will not go over anyone’s head.
I contend that Economic Calculation(General) revolves around the formation of meaningful prices, and/or money.
DD5 disagrees, he says that money and market prices are not at hte center of economic calculation. Again to quote him for the third time.
(This is the third time I have stated the argument at hand)
Please note my position, and as far as I can tell Esuric’s has not changed at all. DD5 however has called me crazy for accusing him of saying that money and prices were not the fundamental point of economic calculation.
But when I referenced the above quotes about how he contends that ecnoomic calculation is NOT about money and prices he says
So I sit with my hands up in sheer confusion.
I still maintain that the center focal point of the Economic Calc problem is money, and the formation of meaningful prices. I look forward to when someone actually wants to explain why that is not the case and that the fundamentals of economic calculation stem from something else.
That has been the debate, and has been my position since the previous thread.