My stupidity persists on the calculation problem

[Solid_Choke]

@Niccolò

@fakename

It is probable that my conception of utility is wrong, and I have been reading, but I still think that if utility is subjective then there is no way to scientifically asses the welfare benefits or costs of socialism versus capitalism. So even if it is known that socialism cannot calculate, we cannot say from this fact that socialism is less preferable to capitalism.

Knowing that this must be wrong I ask if you would know any good articles/books on utility or calculation.

Fakename, I think you’re on the right track here. The more subjective and individualistic you get in poli. econ, the better.

I think the basic point for “socialist” calculation isn’t so much that it is preferrable as it is that “socialism” cannot efficiently allocate resources and possesses no means to assess the proper use functions.

This, as you have pointed out, does not mean that “capitalism” is superior to “socialism” on every level, merely that “capitalism” can do something that “socialism” cannot.

P.S. I use quotes because I don’t subscribe to the view that capitalism = free market (what Mises seems to have been referencing), nor do I believe that socialism = teh evil collective-centralized boogeyman.

Do you deny that the commonly used means to attain socialism tends toward totalitarianism?

[hayekianxyz]

@Niccolò

@fakename

It is probable that my conception of utility is wrong, and I have been reading, but I still think that if utility is subjective then there is no way to scientifically asses the welfare benefits or costs of socialism versus capitalism. So even if it is known that socialism cannot calculate, we cannot say from this fact that socialism is less preferable to capitalism.

Knowing that this must be wrong I ask if you would know any good articles/books on utility or calculation.

Fakename, I think you’re on the right track here. The more subjective and individualistic you get in poli. econ, the better.

I think the basic point for “socialist” calculation isn’t so much that it is preferrable as it is that “socialism” cannot efficiently allocate resources and possesses no means to assess the proper use functions.

This, as you have pointed out, does not mean that “capitalism” is superior to “socialism” on every level, merely that “capitalism” can do something that “socialism” cannot.

P.S. I use quotes because I don’t subscribe to the view that capitalism = free market (what Mises seems to have been referencing), nor do I believe that socialism = teh evil collective-centralized boogeyman.

But then surely if the socialist does admit that utility is subjective then their whole argument for socialism falls apart.

[Jon_Irenicus]

It does mean that total state-imposed socialist systems cannot even qualify as economic systems though because they fail in addressing the major economic problem of allocating economic resources.

-Jon

[Jon_Irenicus]

Actually, Rothbard (and I think Mises) argue that money profits are just a particular instance of the more general notion of psychic profits. They’re simply the type that dominate in any advanced economic system, though.

-Jon

[Niccolo]

@Solid_Choke

Do you deny that the commonly used means to attain socialism tends toward totalitarianism?

I guess a socialist would reply, “it depends upon what you mean by socialism.”

I would say that most movements that have called themselves communist or socialist have ended in totalitarian despotism, but I don’t know if that’s so much a problem with socialism as it is with the state.

[jimmy]

@Niccolò

@Solid_Choke

Do you deny that the commonly used means to attain socialism tends toward totalitarianism?

I guess a socialist would reply, “it depends upon what you mean by socialism.”

Mises was defining socialism as a state in which the means of production could not be privately owned… and as such were exempt from monetary calculation. In the socialist state that he described, there was money but it’s use was restricted to the purchase of consumer goods. Factories and the like were “publicly owned” and their production was directed by the commune.

[Niccolo]

@jimmy

@Niccolò

@Solid_Choke

Do you deny that the commonly used means to attain socialism tends toward totalitarianism?

I guess a socialist would reply, “it depends upon what you mean by socialism.”

Mises was defining socialism as a state in which the means of production could not be privately owned… and as such were exempt from monetary calculation. In the socialist state that he described, there was money but it’s use was restricted to the purchase of consumer goods. Factories and the like were “publicly owned” and their production was directed by the commune.

Well, I don’t think too many current socialists think in that aspect of Bolshevism.

[Black_Bloke]

@Niccolò

P.S. I use quotes because I don’t subscribe to the view that capitalism = free market (what Mises seems to have been referencing), nor do I believe that socialism = teh evil collective-centralized boogeyman.

Perhaps it’d be better if you called it Marxist calculation rather than socialist calculation, so you could avoid the use of scare quotes.

[fakename]

This question is starting to stray off of the calculation argument and into utility (should I therefore start a new thread for my utility question?). Well for the sake of saving space on the forum I will ask this here.

Utility is hard for me to understand and I’ve read rothbard’s main essay on welfare economics twice. So here are my objections so far:

I think one of the axioms of austrian economics is that people will act and that they act according to their self-interests. Both result in contradictions if they are denied.

To continue, therefore a person’s actions will always be taken only if this action is utilty maximizing. (utility maximizing being =to self interests).

So if a person’s preference scale is this 1) not get married, 2) get married and then the state forces the person to act such that the preference scale is 2) get married, 1) not get married, then there is a contradiction between the statement that people act according to their self-interests and this preference scale; for the person is getting married (performing an action) while prefering to be unmarried.

Clearly then, the preference scale has to be this 1) get married, 2) not get married after the state intervenes. This would be utility maximizing.

Aside from either a total lack of understanding of the terms of the argument (e.g. utilty, preferences…) or a lack of additional information on this subject I think that I am correct because the logic looks good.