How to refute this argument

Miscellaneous General
41

Hey, I’m going to be honest now, I can’t really answer anymore on the calculation problem for now (please don’t ask me any more, fellows :wink: ). But once I’ve read into it a bit more, I will get back to you.

I see what you mean about capitalist structures but I like the idea of keeping the “good” bits (competition, incentive and so forth) and chucking out the “bad” (extraneities, hierarchy, etc.). I sort of got dragged into discussing this further when I hadn’t exactly meant to.

When investment funds are returned, they wouldn’t include interest, no. The participants running the bank are incentivised to hand out investment funds because they will increase productivity; by increasing productivity their own salary (which is the average salary) increases also. I already explained how people would know/assign values to the costs of goods and services (average productivity calculated by transactions with the bank). I also answered some of the other points you raise.

42

I respect your honesty. You got more than any socialist I’ve met, they seem to be aspiring central planners. I think you might be opening up to the inability of socialist calculation.

43

I respect your honesty. You got more than any socialist I’ve met, they seem to be aspiring central planners. I think you might be opening up to the inability of socialist calculation.

Yes, I mean I have read “Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth” in its entirity and found various rebuttals but there are some additional points being brought up in this thread that I had not considered. I think I will need to read “Socialism” and “Human Action” (by Mises) before I go any further with this discussion.

44

Why don’t you like private property anyways? In the end it always comes down to an emotional response. Do you think it creates an elite? Or exploits workers? Unearned wealth? We can eliminate all those too.

45

I appreciate your participation EvilSocialist. Sorry if I come off across as a bit brash. Your quite a pleasant to discuss with.

What your describing here is a modern day corporation. Interest sharing is called a dividend. Capitalism already does this. I myself am a laborer, part owner, and shareholder in dozens of other companies. I get paid annually via dividends, and I also earn a regularly scheduled wage.

To anyone who runs anything. Who bares the consequences for poor decisions?

Capitalism shows that it matches the most efficient party to his/her best job. People who are responsible for managing situations, and are good at it, are pushed to the top. Bureaucracies on the other hand shuffle people around not according to their productivity. It’s not always clear whether someone is good at what they do or not. Bad policies and decisions are punished on the whole, rather then the individual who made the bad decision.

This also causes a moral hazard for people in power to abuse the system, placing the risks on the whole, rather then him/herself. How does your system continue to encourage individuals who share a larger load of responsibility or work?

Can you better word this? Or let me know which post where you provided an explanation of how you would formulate prices.

Also lets be honest here, your talking about the creation of money prices. Especially when you refer to the employment of historical transactionary data. Your talking about employing money, though in a framework that suits your own personal preferences.

You are trying to re-create money.

Can you send me a link to where you already explained this? I apologize that I missed it…

46

Rather then asking why he doesn’t like it. We should be asking economically, how does property not exist. Economics is not a system of ethics, it’s value free. It doesn’t matter if communists don’t like property, they have to explain to us, how in their alternative system, they aren’t just trying to re-create property. And how their version of property would be more efficient at achieving its goals, while keeping methodological subjectivism, and methodological individualism in check.

In other words, it must be shown how we deal with the fact that scarce objects must be occupied over time by individuals to reach satisfaction. When identifying the solution to this problem we then beg the question, how is this not a form of property?

I’ve met many communists who defined property word for word, but called it something else. The issue then becoming one of semantics.

47

Why don’t you like private property anyways? In the end it always comes down to an emotional response. Do you think it creates an elite? Or exploits workers? Unearned wealth? We can eliminate all those too.

I’m not yet convinced that capitalism makes for more efficient allocation of resources and (the most important thing) maximal utility/happiness but I have further research to make before I am 100% positive. Don’t think this means I’m persuaded by any stretch ;). Also producers’ co-operatives would be a cool thing to see

48

[quoteuser=“EvilSocialistFellow”]
Yes, I mean I have read “Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth” in its entirity and found various rebuttals but there are some additional points being brought up in this thread that I had not considered. I think I will need to read “Socialism” and “Human Action” (by Mises) before I go any further with this discussion.
[/quote]

That is one I have yet to read. You didn’t find it conclusive?

I’m working my way (slowly) through Human Action now, I highly recommend the study guide. Mainly because my reading comprehension doesn’t scale even with Mises’ writing ability, heh.

49

Yeah, but in the end humans make their determinations not based on rational arguments, but based on some emotional feeling. Facts and augments are then used to defend ones position, but it is reached based on an intuitive gut feeling. That’s what I wanted to address, what makes EvilSocialistFellow not like private property?

Exactly. That’s what I wanted to express, but I couldn’t find the right words. For economic activity to take place, human beings need to exclusively occupy scarce objects. Common ownership is therefore impossible.

If your concern is with economic efficiency, then there’s really no question that propertarianism wins the debate. But that’s usually not what socialists care about. Usually it’s some concern about equality or fairness, or envy. That’s what I meant, why do you intuitively dislike capitalism?

50

We must never forget that utility(happyness) can only be measured by individual human actions. The man chooses to eat pasta over steak, as it pleases him most. This will be explained further in the first 3 sections of HA. This is part of Praxeology.

There is no other way to measure human preference, beyond that of observed action. This is why the Capitalists, here on this site, feel that voluntary exchange is the best way to demonstrate individual preferences, and ultimately utility.

All definitions and explanations that attempt to explain utility absent Praxeology do so erroneously. It’s akin to trying to explain gravity absent physics. Just as gravity implies physics, utility implies Human Action.

51

I will be honest; on a moral basis the main thing I dislike is the fact producers have no say in the disposal of their product or the management of their business beyond contracts they sign beforehand. Plus, it is debatable whether economic efficiency in the present day is down to capitalist investment and coordination of labour on one hand or whether its down to the fact that the people at the bottom just carried on with normal economic activity and did the stuff the middle classes didn’t want to do. What I mean is, it is easy to look at modern day society and say, “Ah, we have had capitalism for a few hundred years and living standards have improved…therefore capitalism has worked!” I don’t just oppose capitalism on moral grounds, I question whether it really is the best possible and efficient means of production.

In other words, correlation vs. cause; yes economic activity has improved but is this down to the merits of capitalism or the merits of the “blue collar workers” who built the means of production, transported the raw materials, risked immensely dangerous and back-breaking work and built machinery to save labour (for which they were then outsourced and replaced by to save the land and capital owner costs in employing them). One has to compare the idea of competitive labour with the idea of co-operative labour and decide which one has really and truly brought us further.

That is one I have yet to read. You didn’t find it conclusive?

No. Here is a possible rebuttal: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html#seci11. The first section is just about whether or not libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms; scroll down the page to “Isn’t Socialism Impossible”. But this section mainly deals with market socialism. Scroll down further to “Isn’t Communism Impossible?” and you will see where I’m coming from. I don’t want to say the “Economic Calculation” is wrong; just that, for me, it is inconclusive and I would like to read more about economic calculation before I come to a conclusion.

52

Edit: embedded video

53

Filc, I keep trying to answer your questions and then loosing my answer on the computer accidentally. I will try to answer you at some other point but not now.

54

If the producers goal is to maximize his personal wellbeing from the production and ultimately vending of his product, how would he behave any differently then a profit seeking manager?

In other words, why are we to assume that the managers attempt at directing resources to their most profitable ends, would change simply because a laborer directed the resources rather then management?

The laborer exercises his skills in expertise and in return exchanges that, for improved material wellbeing(In the now). If this is accepted as the state of affairs, the laborer will want his product to arrive at their most profitable ends, so as to maximize his material well being. How and why would the laborer, if he had a say in things, want to change that state of affairs?

Also who is forcing the laborer, against his will, to remain employed with a firm he disagrees with?

Where does this capital (Raw materials, and land) come from? Who provides this? Does a capital owner lose ownership of his capital when someone agrees to help transform it into a more profitable product? Who will provide the capital required for capital accumulation under a system where land and resources owners are at risk of losing their resources?

The capitalist risks starving himself with long-term investment. He risks his financial position. He ops out of a regularly scheduled wage. He sets aside scarce resources for more productive employment. The capitalist restricts his consumption, to the benefit of everyone. Who compensates him for this dis-utility? What motivation does he have to pass up a regularly scheduled wage, figuring out how he will feed himself on a daily basis for years before his investment matures?

Who compensates him for placing scarce resources(savings) aside so that they can be used to create a more productive state of affairs?

Is anyone or anything stopping modern day laborers from starting their own business? Is there some coercive institution(Besides legal barriers to entry) thats preventing any laborer from influencing the state of affairs by joining the market itself?

To me if it were an ethical flaw, someone would be preventing the laborer. Under the theoretical framework of voluntary exchange, I don’t see what force is barring market entry for the alleged “laborer class”.

How do we know this is not a false dichotomy? Business’s can form and operate a number of ways. The most efficient ones, those who least wasteful, rise to the top. Some may operate as a co-op, others not so much. There are many co-ops in my surrounding area, many of which appear successful.

55

the main thing I dislike is the fact producers have no say in the disposal of their product or the management of their business beyond contracts they sign beforehand.

Producers… you mean the workers of the factory. They are hired to work for money, the producer is the person who owns the factory.

it is debatable whether economic efficiency in the present day is down to capitalist investment and coordination of labour on one hand or whether its down to the fact that the people at the bottom just carried on with normal economic activity and did the stuff the middle classes didn’t want to do.

I don’t understand this point. Are you saying that the immense increases in standards of living in the last two centuries were achieved because people just started working harder? Are you suggesting that workers in South Korea just work harder than in North Korea?

for which they were then outsourced and replaced by to save the land and capital owner costs in employing them

They were outsourced because unions priced them out of competitiveness.

56

If you could explain how ownership is “producing” anything, I’d be interested in hearing it. The entrepreneur comes up with the idea, management runs the company, and labor does all the work… what exactly is ownership “producing?”

57

It’s a poor critique, because what he is describing is a market. He’s re-creating capitalism, and this is what those quotes, taken of out context, from Mises is saying.

Worse, he calls Mises fallacious, and to justify his assertion he re-defines socialism, so as not to contradict with Mises’s Logic.

This definition of socialism is entirely vague. Interpreted one way it may even compliment Capitalism, property, and even the more controversial notion of “Self Ownership”. Interpreted another way however, does one have a positive right to the food of his neighbor? What does it mean “free access to the means of life”? Does that mean I have a positive right to the productive output of everyone else? And they to me?

It’s not a real direct assessment of the calculation problem. He finds some quotes out of context. What Mises is saying is, if your employing money prices, and your allowing exchange(Which implies a level of possession or property) then what you have is a market. It’s not Socialism at that point, depending on how you define Socialism.

All he did was create a red-herring.

Ofcoarse my critque of the article you provided was made after only skimming the article and obviously I am somewhat bias so take what I say with a grain of salt. Still I hope I inspired some things to think twice on.

58

\

NP I myself need to take a break. ttyl!

59

Filc shouldn’t you uwork within his definition of socialism? Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do with your (incoherent) definition of capitalism?

60

If the critique is to counter Mises’ logic then it must use Mises definition. It just creates a semantics argument with an ambiguous definition of socialism.