What makes you think markets are amoral? You’re right in that they’re not dependent on INTENTIONS, since they depend on purposeful action, but that does not make voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions “amoral.”
They are not dependent on any moral inclination; only a general preference for civil order and the benefits of cooperation over fighting it out. Thus they are amoral.
Mises spoke out repeatedly against the interventionist system that existed in his lifetime and that has only intensified today.
intensified interventionism? only in some ways, whilst in others it has dramatically reduced eg Thatcher’s abolition of credit controls, reduced barriers to capital movement, privatisation, anti-unionism. You won’t find much support from socialism for the idea that interventionism has increased, rather that it has reduced and has been handed over to anti-democratic forces of private capital. What interventionism there is seems dictated by the forces of capital, not of labour, not of socialism, not of democratic will. ‘Rolling back the state’ was and is a mantra. You seem to represent the forces behind such a movement as socialist, or at least anti-capitalist. I can’t see that at all, though I can happily concede we (thankfully) don’t have a Miseian world.
In the post where he admitted that real wages have fallen, krazy kaju said, “The reason for this is that…”
Sure, but such a statement completely contradicts his claims in the OP. The opposite argument can be put that despite “the market is hampered, but not abolished” it fails to achieve what you(?) and the OP believe it should and does do. Accepting the OP, we could argue that supposedly increased wages are a product of (what you claim is) increasing regulation.
It just seems that you are committed ideologically, and all evidence is rationalised along such lines. Fair enough, but, let’s not pretend otherwise? I mean, the OP claims wages have risen because of capitalism and free(ish) markets, and yet later admits wages haven’t risen and blames it on socialism! This is just shifting the goalposts and re-rationalising the conditions each time to support capitalism, isn’t it? It looks like it to me.
I don’t think it’s even coherent to say there is a range in which socialism is on one end and capitalism on the other.
Maybe the OP and other commenters need telling this ? I see capitalism and socialism as anti-thetical. IMO we have an essentially capitalist system - markets, private property, profit. The essence of socialism is public ownership of means of production - something we really do not have. On that basis, we’re capitalist, not socialist. In such conditions, to see extreme ‘pure’ capitalists implore us onwards to greater purity reminds me of Stalinist liquidation of the Kulaks - “We must intensify the class-war!”. I find it really quite disturbing tbh, but…I’m a socialist, so I would, wouldn’t I? 
The problems are not inherent in the free market, but in the institution known as the state.
So you say. Such views seem to ignore the reasons state came into being and the functions they fulfil. Also, there’s a (imo false) belief in perfectionism amongst this ‘pure’ capitalist stuff - all the failures are blamed on the state, lack of perfection in markets etc. There seems to be a lack of appreciation that perfection is impossible and the state (handily enough for anti-state ideologues) gets the blame.
The problems of socialism are inherent in the socialist program, which neglects the importance of incentives and suffers from the inability to coordinate production.
Granted, the price mechanism is a great transmitter of information. But now we have IT and computers and potentially near-perfect knowledge of demand/supply. I’m also atagonistic to the notion that the market should be handed primacy over human production and distribution, even if it were provably the “best” way. (The ‘best’ way is determined by one’s own wider belief system - there is no objective measure)
For the Misesian, the obstacle is physical and easy to spot: the state.
Doesn’t that strike you as a little simplistic? I mean, why did the state evolve at all and so pervasively if it is so inherently and obviously problematic?
Interestingly Marxism and anarchists and Miseians converge here - on the abolition of the state. For Marxists the state will eventually wither away as social institutions and conventions develop to replace it - organically and on a material basis. It isn’t an ideological wish, it’s a description, whereas for anarchists and Miseians it’s simply a wish based on the view that the state is the essential source of all problems? [Which begs the question why did it evolve in the first place if it is so damned dysfunctional?]
For the socialist, you have a whole bunch of intractable problems
Maybe. 
Ideally we could run experiments and have a socialist bloc and a Miseian one, or whatever else. And just see what works, and what happens? I’m with Bertrand Russell and Einstein on that. It isn’t as if there’s no good grounds for a belief in socialism (though I know this board is vehemently against it)
What are you talking about? Of course they are dependent on a moral inclination - that of voluntary exchange versus THIEVERY. The decision to exchnge is a MORAL decision. You simply WANT to believe it is not, but that’s only because you’re an ignorant fool.
lol. Nice psychologizing.
"Ideally we could run experiments and have a socialist bloc and a Miseian one, or whatever else. "
But that’s exactly what a Misesian world allows for - free association. So all the socialists can get together and essential form contracts or their equivalent and start their own thing. The Misesian, decentralized world results in a variety of experimentation and polycentrism. On the other hand, socialism relies on force which prohibits experimentation and decentralization, because power congregates upward to higher and higher levels of government.
Currently, we could have 50 state experiments in the USA. Unfortunately, socialists have nationalized many services into the federal government, and now the signal has been diluted - everything the federal government does applies fairly equally to all states. It’s easy to see how socialism prevents the decentralist experiments from being run.
So it’s ironic for someone to basically say ‘I don’t just want the libertarian scenario, i want experimentation.’ Uhh, THAT IS THE FREAKING LIBERTARIAN SCENARIO.
yes, it’s well known in evolutionary studies that altruism has a positive evolutionary impact. I’ve seen it argued that much of the belief about capitalism ‘better reflecting human nature’ (nature red in tooth and claw) came about because we discovered Chimpanzees before Bonobos - chimps being far more aggressive, competitive and hierarchical as compared to more social (and sexually uninhibited) bonobos.
the basic premise seems to be that aiding another leads to aid provided for one’s self. also, helping relatives promotes survival of group genes. and similarly, the antagonism to definite ‘others’ arises from the same basis.
On the other hand, socialism relies on force which prohibits experimentation and decentralization, because power congregates upward to higher and higher levels of government.
I don’t share such a view at all. Interesting about Miseian diversity etc though - I haven’t ever seen it put like that, usually it takes the form of pretty-extreme anti-socialism in my experience.
It’s not. It’s a logical conclusion. Thinking that an interaction between two humans where property is peacefully exchanged is “amoral”, is an indication of of foolishness. Thinking that people only engage in such exchanges just to avoid confrontation is inidicating ignorance. So, you’re an ignorant fool.
Your idea that your biased definition of ‘peaceful’ and its extended concept throughout the social order is some sort of moral default is hilarious.
As you’ve been told elsewhere, stop looking at the labels and focus on substance, and realize that it is not simply socialism vs capitalism.
If you were only looking at a narrow set of raw data, sure. With the aid of economic theory, however, we can determine what causes wages to rise and what causes them to fall. It is not about rationalizing the data to fit the ideology, but using theory to understand the data.
Do you or do you not think this is an extremely crude view of reality? Why must we be either capitalist or socialist, and not something else?
Your head must spin at the idea of a hermaphrodite.
What? What do you mean near-perfect knowledge of demand/supply? Knowledge of the concept of supply and demand, or the actual “amount” of supply and demand for each commodity and service?
The market has no hands. It is not a thing. It is a process. People retain primacy over production and distribution; the market coordinates what people should produce.
Because it is not obvious.
I would disagree. Voluntary exchange may result from a simple cost/benefit analysis. If I rob you instead of trade with you, you may swear revenge, get your clan involved, even injure/me if I botch the robbery. Now why would I go through that trouble if I could just exchange some good or service that I had lying around? I don’t think morality neccessarily has to enter into the desicion making process (although it may for some).
I would disagree. Voluntary exchange may result from a simple cost/benefit analysis. If I rob you instead of trade with you, you may swear revenge, get your clan involved, even injure/me if I botch the robbery. Now why would I go through that trouble if I could just exchange some good or service that I had lying around? I don’t think morality neccessarily has to enter into the desicion making process (although it may for some).
Yes, making social order and indirect cooperation dependent on morality is not only contrary to the social sciences but it is patently false; given that most people’s moral views undermine their own de facto behaviour.
Re: Vichy Army,
MY biased definition? Vichy, the decision to ENGAGE in peacefull exchange IS a moral decision. The thinking that is some sort of automatic, amoral (i.e. mechanistic) decision IS laughable.
Morality never enters my mind when I decide to pay for a soda and not shoot the clerk.
Re: Jackson LaRose,
I can make THOUSANDS of cost/benefit analysis until the cows come home, that would not justify my actions (I consider Utilitarianism pure quackery); the fact is that engaging in peaceful exchange versus thievery IS a moral decision.
Possibly; or you may not care, being a person that’s not good at confrontations, like Marty McFly’s father. Who cares? If on the other hand you believe that thievery is WRONG, that is EVIL, then you won’t have to bother with such calculations.
You’re confusing morality with culture.
‘Justification’ is nonsense; your definition of ‘thievery’ is arbitrary (and has nothing to do with its meaning in customary law, which says it is an actionable tort, not a moral wrong).
The fact that you can’t tell the difference between subjective value and the social theory of utilitarianism paints you as pretty silly to argue with. Utilitarianism IS a moral theory.
Would it have to? Because I don’t think about it either, but I know the actions that I take are moral if I do not trespass on someone’s property rights or freedoms. I don’t have to think it over every single time [“What should I do? What should I do?”], I just don’t commit evil acts. If I had to THINK about it every single time, I would have to be a very troubled individual.
Okay, this is obviously outside the box you are comfortable in.
You think thieving is NOT wrong? Who cares what lawyers call it, what do YOU say?
What does ONE thing have to do with the other?
Did I say it was not? I just argue it’s pure quackery, not that it is not a moral theory.
Mexican, you are obviously unfamiliar with the soul-eating tyrant I am. Morality is ridiculous nonsense; it’s not even logically possible to get away from arbitrary personal preferences.