I've been investigating a bit on this topic. I understand that without prices you cannot have economic calculation. What I can't get my head around is as to how the socialist system has no prices for capital goods. Their explanation I think is a bit too shallow, since they essentially say that if all capital goods are owned by one agency, no exchange can be done and therefore no prices. Anyone care to dig a bit deeper on this issue and help me understand how this is so?
"What I can't get my head around is as to how the socialist system has no prices for capital goods." well, prices (of anything, including capital goods) are the result of exchange, they are simply exchange ratios. so without exchange, how do you plan on generating (meaningful - not arbitrary) prices? maybe i am not understanding your question? to me it seems like you are asking "what i can't get my head around is how the socialist system can have no exchange ratios when all capital goods are owned by one entity and are therefor not exchanged?" the question kind of answers itself, i think. but maybe i am misunderstanding.... any clarification you can offer would be great.
SFEcon well, one of the main reasons why Mises reached the conclusion he did was because value is subjective and is expressed only through the concrete human choice act of preferring A to B. As such, value scales are ordinal, not cardinal, and therefore cannot be mathematized or expressed through sets of equations. Mises did concede that sfecons approach would be appropriate in a state of equilibrium, but the economy is never in that state, just constantly tending towards it but never arriving, because changes in supply, demand, technology, and value scales take place every second. Mises argued the logical deductive approach is appropriate for the study of economics rather than the empirical. So I think your question there would revert back to a debate on methodology where I also think Mises was correct because of the nature of value (we might disagree there since I side with Mises on the individual preference scale being the source of value rather than aggregate production-utility trade offs). Mises did concede that the economy could be centrally planned along the lines layed out in sfecons videos if we lived in an evenly rotating economy, but that is certainly not the case presently. So to answer your question at the bottom, sfecon has, in the eyes of Mises’ followers, already lost because they have not refuted Mises on the methodological front - they just skipped right to trying to reproduce the market. They would need to start there to convince the misesians. And no, I don’t find it odd that they don’t address those types of arguments because 1) they think they already have - and I agree, and 2) it is not a prominent school of thought influencing public policy (not that Austrian economics is lol), so they are more concerned with battling the Keynesians and monetarists there, and for good reason imo. They are trying to influence public policy and (fortunately, imo) sfecon is not heavily influencing it at the moment. Question for you: Of you are so interested in duplicating the market through artificial intelligence and mathematical equations... why not just have the market to begin with and forget about all that socialism stuff? Second question: I see nothing about entrepreneurship. How would the mathematical approach reproduce the function entrepreneurship currently provides in a capitalistic economy?
@SFEcon “I would like to confine our first exchange to Mises’ assertion (my characterization) that “value is subjective”. I personally find that Mises’ overuse of the verb ‘to be’ to be the most off-putting thing about his work. Incessant assertions by an author that it is ‘he who is privileged to declaim what is’ requires that his audience accept a servile posture in order to merely continue reading. Scientists (unlike lawyers) do not conjugate the verb ‘to be’ to any great excess, and neither do they argue for what is true or false. They, rather, assert that thus and such a premise is most productive for dealing with an issue, for looking at the world, etc.” So, applying standards consistently then, wouldn’t you have to apply the same critique to your argument? I mean, you did use “to be” just as Mises does to make your assertion. Does that not make your writing equally as “off-putting” and put me in an equally ‘servile posture” in order to continue reading? Is not your argument above just as much an “incessant assertion” as Mises’? I don’t personally care, I can overlook linguistic quirks and concentrate on the soundness of the logic being put forth rather than the tone its expressed with, but you really set me up for a “Hello, Pot. I’m Kettle. Pleasure to meet you” type moment here. Does it make your own argument any more or less sound by using words that conjure up “off-putting” emotions when I read them? I would argue an emphatic “no.” And to be fair, Mises did not just assert that value is subjective. Menger had painstakingly proved that using the example (that Salerno touches on in the video) of the man valuing horses and cows according to his individual preferences in conjunction with particular sets of circumstances. Mises was taking that as a starting point to logically deduce further implications from it. I don’t think it is incumbent on Mises to re-prove what Menger already has proven. I mean, you are trying to centrally plan the economy via mathematical models, but I don’t expect you to re-prove the theory of multiplication before you incorporate it into your models. Your issue here seems to be with Menger, not Mises… not to mention that Walras and Jevons both reached the same conclusion via mathematical modeling. So I guess feel free to attempt to refute their math as well as Mengers verbal deductive logic? Side interesting note: Math IS verbal deductive logic - I used to love doing geometrical proofs in high school. It is only through those logical proofs that we are able to construct those equations in the first place. “The premise that value is subjective is commended by our everyday observations on how the people familiar to us interact with the economy. Their individual preferences are indeed fickle and widely divergent from one another. It is therefore tempting to write-off the notion of a household sector as wholly indeterminant, and thereby reject the possibility of useful mathematical metaphors to the macro economy.” I completely agree with the 1st sentence (although I see no reason to limit it to the people we are familiar with). But I do not see how that leads to the 3rd. I just don’t see how we go from A to B there. I don’t think the Austrians “write off” the household sector, they understand that a household is made up of individuals just like any other aggregate and as such the individual components of any aggregate have value scales that are accounted for and held in mind at all times. The Austrians write off being able to mathematize utility because it is expressed as rank orders rather than cardinal numbers and cannot be added, subtracted, multiplied, or divided. If someone prefers a cow to a horse, it would be impossible to say by how much. Mises thought (and I agree) that it is a grave error to think you can mathematize ordinal rankings as if they are cardinal numbers. Also, the only reason I can think of why you would refer to individual value scales as “fickle” is because they throw a monkey wrench into central planning efforts. From my perspective, it is the mentality of the central planner that is “fickle” in the sense that he thinks he can add up ordinal rankings. For guys who seem to be so up on the mathematical side of things, you would think it would be understood that ordinal preference rankings can’t be added/subtracted, etc. It all boils down to this: you guys are trying to mathematize ordinal preference rankings. You would have to convince me that its mathematically possible to add/subtract/multiply/divide 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/etc. I cannot fathom how you can argue that, but feel free to give it a go. “As you know, SFEcon adopts the counter-premise that value is most usefully regarded as objective - as the boundary conditions within which the economy operates. This is to say that the expression of value through the shapes of production and utility tradeoffs is sufficiently consistent in time to support meaningful analyses. Our premise differs from Mises’ in that it is subject empirical evaluation.” I understand you adopt the counter-premise, but I have not heard a sound argument why value is not subjective and how you can possibly mathematize ordinal preference rankings. If your goal is to centrally plan the economy, then yes I could see how regarding value as objective would be incredibly ‘useful’ towards that goal (if you were to concede or be swayed that value is subjective, then that would pretty much render the entire SFEcon approach and goal invalid). If your goal is to better understand economic phenomena, then I think regarding value as objective would not be useful at all, and would yield all sorts of crazy and destructive conclusions… it being possible to centrally plan an economy would be an example of a destructive conclusion reached form regarding value as objective. To sway me on this you would have to show how Menger is wrong, and I haven’t seen any argument presented for that. “Having solved the calculation problem, our (mathematically determinant!) theory can be run ‘in reverse’ against a series of real-world economic states to determine the underlying utility parameters implied by the notion that marginal revenues are always approaching marginal costs. You can inspect a brief summary of one such study at www.sfecon.com. From the home page, click on THEORY; and from the theory outline, click on AN EMPIRICAL STUDY.” I don’t think you understand the problem properly. I have looked at that before we had this discussion and see no indication of any progress towards better understanding. “Of course no one would insist that you to accept these results as dispositive: you can always hold out for a more perfect R-squared, and terminate our correspondence based on a personal conclusion that SFEcon has demonstrated itself to be empirically false. But I suggest that the more fair reading of the evidence would lead one to reject the Austrian assertions that “utility functions cannot be quantified” or that “there are no constants in economics that allow the use of mathematics as anything other than a pedagogical device or logical helpmate for conceptualizing economic relationships” Again, it is about the flawed methodology being used. If these presentations sufficiently commend the possibility of useful references to calculable economic boundary, then perhaps we can close by revisiting the wisdom “subjective valuation”. First, I hope you might accept that value is largely objective insofar as it expresses the objective facts of our technologies for transforming inputs into outputs. These facts do of course change; but the changes have nothing to do with “free will” or “subjective unquantifiable preferences”. I don’t think those presentations do what you claim they do lol… and I do not accept that value is largely objective. I understand that you require value to be objective in order for your approach to work, but unfortunately for you value is subjective, not objective. If it was objective, there would be no scope for profitable exchange - and we know profitable exchange exists. That completely devastates SFEcons entire premise. “Free will and subjective unquantifiable preferences are indeed characteristic of each individual within a household sector.” … each individual, period. No reason to arbitrarily focus on the household. If preferences are unquantifiable at an individual and household level, I can’t see what makes them all the sudden become quantifiable when you expand beyond the individual and household. Human action is always undertaken by individuals. “But please consider that these uncertainties do not multiply when you add them together to get at the behavior of a household sector.” They don’t multiply, but then do not reduce or divide either ;) To the contrary, they tend to cancel one another out: when we are referring to a household sector composed of millions of individuals, we can use the theory of large numbers to presume that their collective behavior should be solidly predictable. In fact, our experience is that the parameters describing a household sector are more consistent in time than those describing industrial sectors. I think that after reading this I have even less respect for this position lol. The problem is your approach uses a flawed methodology, does not have a comprehensive theory of value and has not refuted Menger on value or Mises on calculation. It’s like we are talking apples and oranges at this point. I don’t accept your starting premise that value is objective so until that gets cleared up how do you expect me to accept any conclusions drawn from what I think is a flawed starting point?
They got their prices for capital goods the same way they got their technology: by copying the West's homework. They created "close enough" artificial prices by reverse-engineering a facsimile of the capitalist price system. The Soviet consulate in Hong Kong watched the stock exchange for commodity prices, for example, and factory directors scoured American mail-order catalogues for the prices of clothing, home appliances, and so on. Mises makes that exact point in his paper: Socialism can only respond to the price signals it is able to absorb from the market-oriented world that surrounds it. It can't create any price system of its own because nothing is truly for sale and the distributed intelligence of the market can't do its job.
@@mpmitchell2112 This is completely irrelevant to the situation; but I truly do value individuals, like you, who attain fairly rhetorical strategies of description when debating.
Ah, the phalanstery... Depicted as the second worst possible future for mankind (only trumped by a dark, cold post-apocalyptic earth after the sun goes out for ever) in Imre Madách's 1861 play: The Tragedy of Man
They followed market model. They made the cheapest shit they could weather its chernobyl reactor or other disaster. If your goal is to make profit, then it will hurt you.
In our system, only a few will end up owning everything. Even in a "perfect" system... a few possessed psychopaths will also eventually own everything. in our spiritual realm, no perfect constitution or perfect philosopy is sufficient to make our world better. We are all corrupt !
how can it be a market if there is only one owner (the central planning agency)" also, do you not understand the important role that profits play in allocating scarce resources to their most productive uses? Rothbard had a funny retort to that. He said "the socialists came back and said 'we can duplicate the market, we can play market'... if they are so interested in duplicating the market, why not just have the market to begin with and forget about all this socialism junk?" lol. Mises likened the socialists 'playing market' to kids playing 'house' or cops and robbers lol.
damn bruh this is destroying not socialism but marxist socialism.. Explain to me how this destroys market socialism lol..like democratizing the workplace n shit
I agree with these arguments but I don't know if it nessecarilly is that great of a defeater. If we presumed that there was just one mind with one set of values and the technical know-how of how production works they should be able to figgure out what the most efficient use of resources is. For example Crusoe on his island has the knowledge of what he wants to produce and the know-how of how to do it, and so can produce things. In a socialist system with one owner with a bunch of inputs they should be able to work out the correct ways to produce things because they know what they value, prices would be unnecessary because they have the technical knowledge of how many materials go into producing the thing and obviously given that they are presumed to know the technical information and only have one value scale to content with it should be trivial for them to determine how to direct their resources. I understand if a socialist system had multiple values coming into competition that this would be difficult, but since mises is assuming idealized socialism where everyone is working together they only have one value scale in which case it shouldn't be that difficult. This might not apply to the real world and trying to satisfy consumer preferences but I don't think it completely defeats the concept of economic planning.
The Crusoe family are the ones doing the work and expending the resources based on their own values and skills, so they vaguely know when the next log of timber or ounce of metal is going to be worth the effort to them. When there are a lot more people and you want to take better advantage of specialization of labor, it doesn't scale well. A market price reflects every component in the production of a good, as well as the supply and demand for it; and it does this through a dynamic process of negotiation by all parties throughout the chain of production. It's too much information and it is changing too quickly to be centrally planned.
wow what cool capitalist innovation, some lady made a thing to braid hair. ooo so good, we really need more fidget spinners. Damn calculating prices is very impressive.
This guy didn't say anything that made any real sense to my brain. For i would think that whatever the economic or political system, as long as you had economist, accountants, mathematicians and financial experts that you would be able to calculate "whatever" it was you choose to calculate? Another thing. Who are these capitalist? Capitalist are I expect, mostly high school graduates who have inherited the stolen fortunes of their ancestors. My point: What do they really know about "efficiency"? Nothing. Most are wasteful.
This should be titled : “PROFESSOR UTTERLY DESTROYS SOCIALISM WITH FACTS AND LOGIC”
Fails miserably
Great presentation. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Socialism is when government does stuff and the more stuff it does the more socialist it is.
That's just true yeah
I've been investigating a bit on this topic. I understand that without prices you cannot have economic calculation. What I can't get my head around is as to how the socialist system has no prices for capital goods. Their explanation I think is a bit too shallow, since they essentially say that if all capital goods are owned by one agency, no exchange can be done and therefore no prices. Anyone care to dig a bit deeper on this issue and help me understand how this is so?
"What I can't get my head around is as to how the socialist system has no prices for capital goods."
well, prices (of anything, including capital goods) are the result of exchange, they are simply exchange ratios. so without exchange, how do you plan on generating (meaningful - not arbitrary) prices?
maybe i am not understanding your question? to me it seems like you are asking "what i can't get my head around is how the socialist system can have no exchange ratios when all capital goods are owned by one entity and are therefor not exchanged?" the question kind of answers itself, i think. but maybe i am misunderstanding.... any clarification you can offer would be great.
SFEcon
well, one of the main reasons why Mises reached the conclusion he did was because value is subjective and is expressed only through the concrete human choice act of preferring A to B. As such, value scales are ordinal, not cardinal, and therefore cannot be mathematized or expressed through sets of equations. Mises did concede that sfecons approach would be appropriate in a state of equilibrium, but the economy is never in that state, just constantly tending towards it but never arriving, because changes in supply, demand, technology, and value scales take place every second.
Mises argued the logical deductive approach is appropriate for the study of economics rather than the empirical. So I think your question there would revert back to a debate on methodology where I also think Mises was correct because of the nature of value (we might disagree there since I side with Mises on the individual preference scale being the source of value rather than aggregate production-utility trade offs).
Mises did concede that the economy could be centrally planned along the lines layed out in sfecons videos if we lived in an evenly rotating economy, but that is certainly not the case presently.
So to answer your question at the bottom, sfecon has, in the eyes of Mises’ followers, already lost because they have not refuted Mises on the methodological front - they just skipped right to trying to reproduce the market. They would need to start there to convince the misesians.
And no, I don’t find it odd that they don’t address those types of arguments because 1) they think they already have - and I agree, and 2) it is not a prominent school of thought influencing public policy (not that Austrian economics is lol), so they are more concerned with battling the Keynesians and monetarists there, and for good reason imo. They are trying to influence public policy and (fortunately, imo) sfecon is not heavily influencing it at the moment.
Question for you:
Of you are so interested in duplicating the market through artificial intelligence and mathematical equations... why not just have the market to begin with and forget about all that socialism stuff?
Second question:
I see nothing about entrepreneurship. How would the mathematical approach reproduce the function entrepreneurship currently provides in a capitalistic economy?
@SFEcon “I would like to confine our first exchange to Mises’ assertion (my characterization) that “value is subjective”. I personally find that Mises’ overuse of the verb ‘to be’ to be the most off-putting thing about his work. Incessant assertions by an author that it is ‘he who is privileged to declaim what is’ requires that his audience accept a servile posture in order to merely continue reading. Scientists (unlike lawyers) do not conjugate the verb ‘to be’ to any great excess, and neither do they argue for what is true or false. They, rather, assert that thus and such a premise is most productive for dealing with an issue, for looking at the world, etc.”
So, applying standards consistently then, wouldn’t you have to apply the same critique to your argument? I mean, you did use “to be” just as Mises does to make your assertion. Does that not make your writing equally as “off-putting” and put me in an equally ‘servile posture” in order to continue reading? Is not your argument above just as much an “incessant assertion” as Mises’? I don’t personally care, I can overlook linguistic quirks and concentrate on the soundness of the logic being put forth rather than the tone its expressed with, but you really set me up for a “Hello, Pot. I’m Kettle. Pleasure to meet you” type moment here. Does it make your own argument any more or less sound by using words that conjure up “off-putting” emotions when I read them? I would argue an emphatic “no.”
And to be fair, Mises did not just assert that value is subjective. Menger had painstakingly proved that using the example (that Salerno touches on in the video) of the man valuing horses and cows according to his individual preferences in conjunction with particular sets of circumstances. Mises was taking that as a starting point to logically deduce further implications from it. I don’t think it is incumbent on Mises to re-prove what Menger already has proven. I mean, you are trying to centrally plan the economy via mathematical models, but I don’t expect you to re-prove the theory of multiplication before you incorporate it into your models. Your issue here seems to be with Menger, not Mises… not to mention that Walras and Jevons both reached the same conclusion via mathematical modeling. So I guess feel free to attempt to refute their math as well as Mengers verbal deductive logic? Side interesting note: Math IS verbal deductive logic - I used to love doing geometrical proofs in high school. It is only through those logical proofs that we are able to construct those equations in the first place.
“The premise that value is subjective is commended by our everyday observations on how the people familiar to us interact with the economy. Their individual preferences are indeed fickle and widely divergent from one another. It is therefore tempting to write-off the notion of a household sector as wholly indeterminant, and thereby reject the possibility of useful mathematical metaphors to the macro economy.”
I completely agree with the 1st sentence (although I see no reason to limit it to the people we are familiar with). But I do not see how that leads to the 3rd. I just don’t see how we go from A to B there. I don’t think the Austrians “write off” the household sector, they understand that a household is made up of individuals just like any other aggregate and as such the individual components of any aggregate have value scales that are accounted for and held in mind at all times. The Austrians write off being able to mathematize utility because it is expressed as rank orders rather than cardinal numbers and cannot be added, subtracted, multiplied, or divided. If someone prefers a cow to a horse, it would be impossible to say by how much. Mises thought (and I agree) that it is a grave error to think you can mathematize ordinal rankings as if they are cardinal numbers. Also, the only reason I can think of why you would refer to individual value scales as “fickle” is because they throw a monkey wrench into central planning efforts. From my perspective, it is the mentality of the central planner that is “fickle” in the sense that he thinks he can add up ordinal rankings. For guys who seem to be so up on the mathematical side of things, you would think it would be understood that ordinal preference rankings can’t be added/subtracted, etc.
It all boils down to this: you guys are trying to mathematize ordinal preference rankings. You would have to convince me that its mathematically possible to add/subtract/multiply/divide 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/etc. I cannot fathom how you can argue that, but feel free to give it a go.
“As you know, SFEcon adopts the counter-premise that value is most usefully regarded as objective - as the boundary conditions within which the economy operates. This is to say that the expression of value through the shapes of production and utility tradeoffs is sufficiently consistent in time to support meaningful analyses. Our premise differs from Mises’ in that it is subject empirical evaluation.”
I understand you adopt the counter-premise, but I have not heard a sound argument why value is not subjective and how you can possibly mathematize ordinal preference rankings. If your goal is to centrally plan the economy, then yes I could see how regarding value as objective would be incredibly ‘useful’ towards that goal (if you were to concede or be swayed that value is subjective, then that would pretty much render the entire SFEcon approach and goal invalid). If your goal is to better understand economic phenomena, then I think regarding value as objective would not be useful at all, and would yield all sorts of crazy and destructive conclusions… it being possible to centrally plan an economy would be an example of a destructive conclusion reached form regarding value as objective. To sway me on this you would have to show how Menger is wrong, and I haven’t seen any argument presented for that.
“Having solved the calculation problem, our (mathematically determinant!) theory can be run ‘in reverse’ against a series of real-world economic states to determine the underlying utility parameters implied by the notion that marginal revenues are always approaching marginal costs. You can inspect a brief summary of one such study at www.sfecon.com. From the home page, click on THEORY; and from the theory outline, click on AN EMPIRICAL STUDY.”
I don’t think you understand the problem properly. I have looked at that before we had this discussion and see no indication of any progress towards better understanding.
“Of course no one would insist that you to accept these results as dispositive: you can always hold out for a more perfect R-squared, and terminate our correspondence based on a personal conclusion that SFEcon has demonstrated itself to be empirically false. But I suggest that the more fair reading of the evidence would lead one to reject the Austrian assertions that “utility functions cannot be quantified” or that “there are no constants in economics that allow the use of mathematics as anything other than a pedagogical device or logical helpmate for conceptualizing economic relationships”
Again, it is about the flawed methodology being used.
If these presentations sufficiently commend the possibility of useful references to calculable economic boundary, then perhaps we can close by revisiting the wisdom “subjective valuation”. First, I hope you might accept that value is largely objective insofar as it expresses the objective facts of our technologies for transforming inputs into outputs. These facts do of course change; but the changes have nothing to do with “free will” or “subjective unquantifiable preferences”.
I don’t think those presentations do what you claim they do lol… and I do not accept that value is largely objective. I understand that you require value to be objective in order for your approach to work, but unfortunately for you value is subjective, not objective. If it was objective, there would be no scope for profitable exchange - and we know profitable exchange exists. That completely devastates SFEcons entire premise.
“Free will and subjective unquantifiable preferences are indeed characteristic of each individual within a household sector.”
… each individual, period. No reason to arbitrarily focus on the household. If preferences are unquantifiable at an individual and household level, I can’t see what makes them all the sudden become quantifiable when you expand beyond the individual and household. Human action is always undertaken by individuals.
“But please consider that these uncertainties do not multiply when you add them together to get at the behavior of a household sector.”
They don’t multiply, but then do not reduce or divide either ;)
To the contrary, they tend to cancel one another out: when we are referring to a household sector composed of millions of individuals, we can use the theory of large numbers to presume that their collective behavior should be solidly predictable. In fact, our experience is that the parameters describing a household sector are more consistent in time than those describing industrial sectors.
I think that after reading this I have even less respect for this position lol. The problem is your approach uses a flawed methodology, does not have a comprehensive theory of value and has not refuted Menger on value or Mises on calculation. It’s like we are talking apples and oranges at this point. I don’t accept your starting premise that value is objective so until that gets cleared up how do you expect me to accept any conclusions drawn from what I think is a flawed starting point?
They got their prices for capital goods the same way they got their technology: by copying the West's homework. They created "close enough" artificial prices by reverse-engineering a facsimile of the capitalist price system. The Soviet consulate in Hong Kong watched the stock exchange for commodity prices, for example, and factory directors scoured American mail-order catalogues for the prices of clothing, home appliances, and so on. Mises makes that exact point in his paper: Socialism can only respond to the price signals it is able to absorb from the market-oriented world that surrounds it. It can't create any price system of its own because nothing is truly for sale and the distributed intelligence of the market can't do its job.
@@mpmitchell2112 This is completely irrelevant to the situation; but I truly do value individuals, like you, who attain fairly rhetorical strategies of description when debating.
Ah, the phalanstery... Depicted as the second worst possible future for mankind (only trumped by a dark, cold post-apocalyptic earth after the sun goes out for ever) in Imre Madách's 1861 play: The Tragedy of Man
I find the lack of Russian sources in this video concerning. The Soviet planners did a lot of research in this area.
They followed market model. They made the cheapest shit they could weather its chernobyl reactor or other disaster. If your goal is to make profit, then it will hurt you.
Great talk
I can't wait until all property including nature, airspace and planets and space itself could be owned by private people.
Elon Musk is gonna homestead Mars and keep everyone else out.
In our system, only a few will end up owning everything.
Even in a "perfect" system... a few possessed psychopaths will also eventually own everything.
in our spiritual realm, no perfect constitution or perfect philosopy is sufficient to make our world better. We are all corrupt !
land and space are already owned. wtf are you talking about?
TGGeko how to homeatead a whole planet?
me too!
He reminds me of Woody Allen but productive.
Say what you want about Woody Allen, but he's definitely productive. He's made millions selling neurotic films to neurotic people.
11:50
how do corporations like wallmart or amazon work? planning, period
In a capitalist society.
Planning ≠ centrally planned economy
Hahha. Excellent argument. For stupids
Thickest Noo Yawk accent lol
How about the schumpeterian critic of a rational socialist agency as a de facto market with a middleman and the banning profits?
how can it be a market if there is only one owner (the central planning agency)"
also, do you not understand the important role that profits play in allocating scarce resources to their most productive uses?
Rothbard had a funny retort to that. He said "the socialists came back and said 'we can duplicate the market, we can play market'... if they are so interested in duplicating the market, why not just have the market to begin with and forget about all this socialism junk?" lol. Mises likened the socialists 'playing market' to kids playing 'house' or cops and robbers lol.
damn bruh this is destroying not socialism but marxist socialism.. Explain to me how this destroys market socialism lol..like democratizing the workplace n shit
"Market socialism". Oxymoron.
@@baph0met or you could just google what worker coops is
I agree with these arguments but I don't know if it nessecarilly is that great of a defeater.
If we presumed that there was just one mind with one set of values and the technical know-how of how production works they should be able to figgure out what the most efficient use of resources is.
For example Crusoe on his island has the knowledge of what he wants to produce and the know-how of how to do it, and so can produce things.
In a socialist system with one owner with a bunch of inputs they should be able to work out the correct ways to produce things because they know what they value, prices would be unnecessary because they have the technical knowledge of how many materials go into producing the thing and obviously given that they are presumed to know the technical information and only have one value scale to content with it should be trivial for them to determine how to direct their resources.
I understand if a socialist system had multiple values coming into competition that this would be difficult, but since mises is assuming idealized socialism where everyone is working together they only have one value scale in which case it shouldn't be that difficult.
This might not apply to the real world and trying to satisfy consumer preferences but I don't think it completely defeats the concept of economic planning.
The Crusoe family are the ones doing the work and expending the resources based on their own values and skills, so they vaguely know when the next log of timber or ounce of metal is going to be worth the effort to them. When there are a lot more people and you want to take better advantage of specialization of labor, it doesn't scale well. A market price reflects every component in the production of a good, as well as the supply and demand for it; and it does this through a dynamic process of negotiation by all parties throughout the chain of production. It's too much information and it is changing too quickly to be centrally planned.
wow what cool capitalist innovation, some lady made a thing to braid hair. ooo so good, we really need more fidget spinners. Damn calculating prices is very impressive.
Don't buy it then.
This guy didn't say anything that made any real sense to my brain. For i would think that whatever the economic or political system, as long as you had economist, accountants, mathematicians and financial experts that you would be able to calculate "whatever" it was you choose to calculate? Another thing. Who are these capitalist? Capitalist are I expect, mostly high school graduates who have inherited the stolen fortunes of their ancestors. My point: What do they really know about "efficiency"? Nothing. Most are wasteful.
You got no brain. That's why.
Texas Instruments can calculate anything.