Autrian School's Economic Calculation Problem

[Cael]

This is usually held up as the ultimate reason why Socialist economies should not be tried. Personally I think its nonsense, but does anyone have a link to a good Socialist refutation of Von Mises and his deciples?

Obvious the title should read Austrian School.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It's nonsense. There are plenty of threads about this, here's a recent one:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economic-calculation-argument-t113038/index.html

[mikelepore]

Next time I argue with them I think I'm going to try another approach. Instead of rattling off a bunch of reasons why their theory is false, I'm going to challenge them to define exactly what they think needs to be "calculated" and to demonstrate why they think it's necessary. I don't think they even know what their own argument is. All they did was memorize a cliche "socialism will always be so inefficient that the people will have to stand in long lines to buy anything, and there will be shortages of everything." Mises and Rothbard and Hayek had actual arguments to go along with their cliches and stereotypes, even though they were illogical arguments -- but most of their disciples today don't even have that much - they just begin and end with the cliche ... Definition -- Socialism: an economic system in which the people stand in line all day to buy cheese.

[Hyacinth]

Next time I argue with them I think I'm going to try another approach. Instead of rattling off a bunch of reasons why their theory is false, I'm going to challenge them to define exactly what they think needs to be "calculated" and to demonstrate why they think it's necessary. I don't think they even know what their own argument is. All they did was memorize a cliche "socialism will always be so inefficient that the people will have to stand in long lines to buy anything, and there will be shortages of everything." Mises and Rothbard and Hayek had actual arguments to go along with their cliches and stereotypes, even though they were illogical arguments -- but most of their disciples today don't even have that much - they just begin and end with the cliche ... Definition -- Socialism: an economic system in which the people stand in line all day to buy cheese.
There's your first mistake. Personally I don't have the patience for the likes of right libertarians, it is like arguing with fundamentalists—correction, it is arguing with fundamentalists—there's simply no getting through to them. This isn't to say that there's no fruitful debate and discussion to be had on the question of economic calculation, far from it, only none with the likes of the Austrian school, who simply assert that calculation is impossible.

[Hyacinth]

As to the OP: apart from the already recommended thread, and scouring RevLeft for the other numerous discussions on economic calculation, I'd highly recommend looking at some of Paul Cockshott's papers on the topic (which can be found here: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html#econ), as a number of them direct address your question.

[mikelepore]

There's your first mistake. Personally I don't have the patience for the likes of right libertarians, it is like arguing with fundamentalists—correction, it is arguing with fundamentalists—there's simply no getting through to them. This isn't to say that there's no fruitful debate and discussion to be had on the question of economic calculation, far from it, only none with the likes of the Austrian school, who simply assert that calculation is impossible.

I don't debate with right wingers in an attempt to persuade them. I debate them so I can talk past them for the benefit of the other people who are observing. There are lurkers online who are "sitting on the fence" -- perhaps they will later move to the left, and perhaps they will later move to the right. We have to conduct public debates with fascists and all kinds of kooks so that the people who are not yet ideologically committed can be educated.

[New Tet]

I don't debate with right wingers in an attempt to persuade them. I debate them so I can talk past them for the benefit of the other people who are observing. There are lurkers online who are "sitting on the fence" -- perhaps they will later move to the left, and perhaps they will later move to the right. We have to conduct public debates with fascists and all kinds of kooks so that the people who are not yet ideologically committed can be educated.

Sorry, Mike, but I have to raise an objection here. While agree that we can and ought to debate the "kooks" that advance economic quackery here and elsewhere, I am of the opinion that the only way "to conduct public debate" with real fascists is with a baseball bat.

Fascist, real fascists, don't debate. When they do, it's with a posse close behind them and only to lure you into a position in which they can injure or kill you.

Unfortunately, a baseball bat is the only form of address they understand.

[mikelepore]

I didn't mean an argument in a dark alley or along a lonely highway. I meant a debate in a newspaper column, talk radio, and internet forums. I will expose the errors that come from any source. No category of fanatic should be ignored on the grounds that they're not worth mentioning. We have to list all of the fallacies and lies that we find them making use of. The worse their beliefs, the easier the job is.

[ZeroNowhere]

Fascist, real fascists, don't debate. When they do, it's with a posse close behind them and only to lure you into a position in which they can injure or kill you.

Unfortunately, a baseball bat is the only form of address they understand.I do not recall that being part of the definition of 'fascism'. Unless you're arguing that all people who happen to hold fascist beliefs do that, since beating people up rather than debating them is not necessary to be a fascist, real or otherwise (Heavy Fascism, or no fascism at all). In fact, I'm sure that a fascist could successfully debate to the contrary, whether you happened to have a baseball bat, something else the size of it, possibly more organic and/or imaginary, or biological weaponry.
In which case debating with a fascist sounds even more boring than most abortion debates, if such a thing is possible. And it wouldn't really fulfill Mike's purpose, except inasmuch as beating somebody up shows superior theoretical clarity, in the same way establishing capitalism does, according to some people.

[1billion]

It's nonsense. There are plenty of threads about this, here's a recent one:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economic-calculation-argument-t113038/index.html

Im confused do we want an all powerful dictator or decentralized communes?:confused:

[cyu]

Im confused do we want an all powerful dictator or decentralized communes?

What, are you trying to troll or something? I doubt there's anybody here that is calling for a dictator, besides possibly yourself. The most disagreement I tend to see in this area seems to be between democratic centrism and decentralization.

[1billion]

What, are you trying to troll or something? I doubt there's anybody here that is calling for a dictator, besides possibly yourself. The most disagreement I tend to see in this area seems to be between democratic centrism and decentralization.

I'm not trolling, I'm just confused I'm sorry for my wording. I'm just wondering, since I thought communism was about decentralization than central planning. please forgive my terms.

[cyu]

You might want to spend some time in the Learning forum: http://www.revleft.com/vb/learning-f43/index.html

I've yet to see any leftist on this website calling for dictatorship. Almost nobody of any political stripe does that these days, at least not publicly. The only people I've seen doing it openly are certain pro-capitalists that are followers of Social Darwinism.

[GPDP]

You might want to spend some time in the Learning forum: http://www.revleft.com/vb/learning-f43/index.html

I've yet to see any leftist on this website calling for dictatorship. Almost nobody of any political stripe does that these days, at least not publicly. The only people I've seen doing it openly are certain pro-capitalists that are followers of Social Darwinism.

Also, fascists.

[cyu]

Also, fascists.


I've always considered them the same thing :D

[Hyacinth]

Im confused do we want an all powerful dictator or decentralized communes?:confused:

I'm not trolling, I'm just confused I'm sorry for my wording. I'm just wondering, since I thought communism was about decentralization than central planning. please forgive my terms.
The thread which you are confused about isn't about central vs. decentralized planning, rather it attempts to establish the possibility of socialist planning, in whatever form. The same underlying mechanisms are necessary for both, the question of how planning is to be structured is a separate one, with most of the posters on this forum taking the side of decentralized planning.

[Hyacinth]

Also, we must distinguish between whether we will have a centralized or decentralized administrative and coordinative structure, vs. a centralized or decentralized decision making structure. What most people are presumably opposed to is the latter; even people who support central planning in this day and age don't support the planners having the power to make the decisions about what is produced, rather they regard their role as purely administrative and coordinative.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This is usually held up as the ultimate reason why Socialist economies should not be tried. Personally I think its nonsense, but does anyone have a link to a good Socialist refutation of Von Mises and his deciples?
This book pretty much covers it:

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/ (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/)

Also, I should note that numerous different socialists have published numerous different refutations since the late 1920s. For example, there is H.D. Dickinson's Price Formation in a Socialist Community (published in 1933) and Oskar Lange's On the Economic Theory of Socialism (published in 1938). Misesians deal with them by pretending they don't exist. In fact, they seem to have a strategy of waiting until everyone has forgotten about the refutation and then re-stating the same old refuted arguments.