Calculation and Socialism [Archive]

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 00:14

...and here's a reply: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.21.9366&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Enjoy.

I obviously haven't read that yet, just as you obviously haven't watched the lecture.

But just looking at it, I notice it mentions Oskar Lange. I actually own two of Lange's books, "Political Economy" and "Socialism," in their original language (Polish). While Lange's idea of "market socialism" is certainly an interesting and innovative one, it ONLY deals with interest and not profit. It essentially creates a managerial economy, not an entrepreneurial one. So it leaves out literally the single most important factor in economic growth.

And, of course, there's the problem of this: WHY try create a "market socialist" economy that is subject to ALL of the problems of overreaching government (e.g. public choice problems, corruption, and so forth) when you can just opt for the market?

Had you actually watched the lecture, you would have noticed that the lecturer actually dealt with Lange's ideas.

In any case, I'll give that paper a read when I have the time. Thanks for posting it.

Hoipolloi Cassidy

16th August 2011, 00:19

And here's a third response:

The second problem with the Calculation Problem is, that Mises developed it in the early 'twenties, in Vienna. A lesser man might have been humbled by the thought that he was writing a book demonstrating that Socialism was not economically viable at the time the Socialists of Vienna had managed to rebuild the economy, house hundreds of thousands of workers, and bring an end to tuberculosis. This didn't bother Mises since, as he later explained, his operating concepts were the equivalent of what Kant called "synthetic a-prioris:" being immediately, intuitively accessible to the intellect (like "space," or "up and down,") they had transcendental validity; they required no proof, and least of all from the likes of you. Like an empty doorway and a maple tree [...] Free-Market Economics should not mean, but be. - reprinted from WOID: a journal of visual language (http://theorangepress.com/woid/woid20/woidxx05.html).

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 00:33

^ LOL, Kantian synthetic a priori has little to do with the theoretical approach that Menger/Mises/etc. espoused and the success of Viennan socialists in doing anything has nothing to do with economic calculation...

Watch the lecture and you'll know what I'm talking about.

NewSocialist

16th August 2011, 00:35

gendoikari

16th August 2011, 00:51

A lecture by economist Joseph Salerno on socialism and the problem of economic calculation:
alqUqdbfxhk

Enjoy.

They don't know how to determine the best and most valued uses of all of the resourcesUm.... not to rain on the parade here... but capitalism specifically doesn't make the best uses, it just goes where it can get the highest amount of currency.

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 00:51

The last LvM Institute lecture I watched was "Anti-Capitalists: Barbarians at the Gates," so it'll take a while before I can stomach another lecture from your organization. But I assure you, I'll get around to watching it when I have enough spare time to. I'm very familiar with the "economic calculation debate" as it is, so I don't expect Mr. Salerno to tell me anything I haven't heard before.

With respect to the paper I linked to, it only mentions Oskar Lange's position for historical reasons. The authors of the paper do not agree with Lange's market socialist response to Mises.

Okay then, can you please summarize the argument? The abstract makes no sense, as it seems to be arguing for economic calculation based on labor-time... which is an absolutely laughable argument, considering that labor is heterogenous.

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 00:52

Um.... not to rain on the parade here... but capitalism specifically doesn't make the best uses, it just goes where it can get the highest amount of currency.

The monetary price of a good indicates how much people value it... So yes, in the economic sense, capitalism does direct resources to their "best" uses.

syndicat

16th August 2011, 00:59

The monetary price of a good indicates how much people value it... So yes, in the economic sense, capitalism does direct resources to their "best" uses. except that this is a notorious fallacy. prices are determined by bargaining power, not desires or preferences of people. a homeless person who is broke has desires and needs...but no money to purchase anything.

owners of productive property are part of a class with a relative monopoly of ownership of productive property and assets to acquire it in markets. hence those who lack such assets are forced to submit to employment by firms at the price they can specify due to their superior bargaining power. profits would not be possible without this vast difference in bargaining power.

that's because owners qua owners are essentially social parasites.

a moneybags who is dumb as stone can hire money managers who have the skills to use his assets to make money.

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 01:11

except that this is a notorious fallacy. prices are determined by bargaining power, not desires or preferences of people. a homeless person who is broke has desires and needs...but no money to purchase anything.

owners of productive property are part of a class with a relative monopoly of ownership of productive property and assets to acquire it in markets. hence those who lack such assets are forced to submit to employment by firms at the price they can specify due to their superior bargaining power. profits would not be possible without this vast difference in bargaining power.

that's because owners qua owners are essentially social parasites.

a moneybags who is dumb as stone can hire money managers who have the skills to use his assets to make money.

Just that there is no "monopoly ownership of productive property and assets." Capital assumes many forms, including factories, capital machinery, education, etc. Are you saying that a few people own most of the capital in the world? Are you saying that the vast majority of people don't get a high school or college education? Are you saying that most people can't earn enough on their own to open up their own business, even though this happens in the United States all the time?

Furthermore, a poor person is poor because the goods they provide just aren't as valued as the goods that the wealthy provide... For example, the CEO of McDonald's leads the entire company and everything that company does, while a regular worker at McDonald's only makes the burgers. Society values the work of the CEO more, so the CEO gets paid more than the burger-maker. That's just economic fact and nothing else.

Hoipolloi Cassidy

16th August 2011, 01:25

^ LOL, Kantian synthetic a priori has little to do with the theoretical approach that Menger/Mises/etc.

Watch the lecture and you'll know what I'm talking about.
Yukyukyuk, too bad Mises himself thought it did. Read Mises and you'll know what the pathetic little nutter was talking about.

Sensible Socialist

16th August 2011, 01:44

Furthermore, a poor person is poor because the goods they provide just aren't as valued as the goods that the wealthy provide... For example, the CEO of McDonald's leads the entire company and everything that company does, while a regular worker at McDonald's only makes the burgers. Society values the work of the CEO more, so the CEO gets paid more than the burger-maker. That's just economic fact and nothing else.
Who is this "society" you speak of? Perhaps if every person in the world was consulted on the wage of the CEO would you point have a bit of sense to it. However, the amount paid to a CEO is not decided by society, or even by the business as a whole, but by a few individuals privy to the higher decision making of the company. They choose to pay the CEO thousands of times more money than the burger-maker. Personally, I value those who make the food, who actually produce goods and wealth, above those who sit and watch it all occur. But because I was never consulted or asked, never had a voice, the CEO is paid more.

Society values the work of teachers, nurses, firemen, etc., yet they're not living in the lap of luxury.

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 01:51

Yukyukyuk, too bad Mises himself thought it did. Read Mises and you'll know what the pathetic little nutter was talking about.

I have read some of Mises's works, including his magnum opus Human Action, and I can guarantee that his methodological approach is not "being immediately, intuitively accessible to the intellect they had transcendental validity; they required no proof." His methodological approach has to do with a rigorous scientific approach using classical logic. If you don't believe me, then yukyukyuk read Mises himself:

http://mises.org/Books/theoryhistory.pdf

http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf

Or you can try to find what some of Mises's students have to say about epistemology/methodology, e.g. these lectures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMxIncVc4H0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiXcO3pcR8I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePu2bx-XXdQ

EDIT: Here is a good example of Misesian methodology in use -

P7ZVsKJv-cY

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 01:56

Who is this "society" you speak of? Perhaps if every person in the world was consulted on the wage of the CEO would you point have a bit of sense to it. However, the amount paid to a CEO is not decided by society, or even by the business as a whole, but by a few individuals privy to the higher decision making of the company. They choose to pay the CEO thousands of times more money than the burger-maker. Personally, I value those who make the food, who actually produce goods and wealth, above those who sit and watch it all occur. But because I was never consulted or asked, never had a voice, the CEO is paid more.

Society values the work of teachers, nurses, firemen, etc., yet they're not living in the lap of luxury.

The society I speak of is the sum of all individual actions represented in the economy. CEOs are paid more because there is a higher demand for their labor than for the average low skilled laborer. This is because they have higher productivity than the low skilled laborer - a decision made by a CEO can literally make or break the individual(s) who hires him/her. This productivity, in turn, is a subjective valuation made by the people who hire the CEO.

If you think this subjective valuation is wrong, then you are by all means invited to open up your own burger chain where the low skilled labor is paid more than the high skilled labor. Ben & Jerry's tried to do something similar and they ended up paying their CEO many times what their average worker earned... The laws of economics won again.

#FF0000

16th August 2011, 02:02

The monetary price of a good indicates how much people value it... So yes, in the economic sense, capitalism does direct resources to their "best" uses.

Except that the "best" in this sense has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually best. For example, I think we would all agree that crops would best be used to feed hungry people. The market, however, thinks dumping so many tons of food into the Atlantic is a more sound decision.

gendoikari

16th August 2011, 02:07

I obviously haven't read that yet, just as you obviously haven't watched the lecture.

But just looking at it, I notice it mentions Oskar Lange. I actually own two of Lange's books, "Political Economy" and "Socialism," in their original language (Polish). While Lange's idea of "market socialism" is certainly an interesting and innovative one, it ONLY deals with interest and not profit. It essentially creates a managerial economy, not an entrepreneurial one. So it leaves out literally the single most important factor in economic growth.

And, of course, there's the problem of this: WHY try create a "market socialist" economy that is subject to ALL of the problems of overreaching government (e.g. public choice problems, corruption, and so forth) when you can just opt for the market?

Had you actually watched the lecture, you would have noticed that the lecturer actually dealt with Lange's ideas.

In any case, I'll give that paper a read when I have the time. Thanks for posting it.
The problem with mises is that he is completely ignoring the fact that Prices under capitalism are just as imaginary as prices under socialism. Their relations to supply and demand do help stabilize certain aspects but they are still imaginary and furthermore under capitalism, those in control of the capital are going to be working for more. Meaning those without power, the workers will have to accept the "market" for labor, so they aren't necessarily getting more value out of their labor than they believe it's worth, mearly settling for the highest they can get. Meanwhile the ones in control of the capital can also to some extent set the prices of goods to be sold, within a certain reasonable limit. what this does is create a system within capitalism that, while on the surface distributes goods and services relatively efficiently it comes at the cost of the human condition.

What I mean by that is these goods are distributed according, to the highest bidder. Well bidder of what. Money? its an artificial construct and has nothing to do with the actual production of an item. in the right market a man with a bottle of water that he took five minutes to gather, can sell it at a higher price than a bar of gold that took several miners several hours to get at. So in this the division of labor can and is unfair, based simply on what one chose to do. When in fact both gold and water are both items required for modern society. Gold being less so than water, but still, both items are required, but the man who gathered the water gets paid more than those that spent their blood sweat and tears to get at the gold. Now obviously not all markets work like this and gold is generally the more expensive item but only for the reasons in the previous example that the water was. Scarcity. It seems obsurd to pay $200, $300, $400 dollars for a bottle of water, and yet in certain markets it is worth that. And while this system ensures that water is sent to the middle east and arid places, it does nothing to address the desparity in the compensation of the production. Essentially when it comes to labor the buyer is setting the price.

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 02:09

Except that the "best" in this sense has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually best. For example, I think we would all agree that crops would best be used to feed hungry people. The market, however, thinks dumping so many tons of food into the Atlantic is a more sound decision.

How is dumping food into the sea profitable? Can you please provide examples of this actually happening and prove that this is due to free market policies?

Furthermore, if you wish to feed the poor more, is socialism really the proper way to go about doing it? Or would it be better to, say, give the poor a "voucher" (like in the US, where you can get food stamps) for which they could purchase food? Or would it be even better to allow economic growth to lift the poor out of poverty and allow them to purchase their own food?

Food for thought. ;)

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 02:21

The problem with mises is that he is completely ignoring the fact that Prices under capitalism are just as imaginary as prices under socialism. Their relations to supply and demand do help stabilize certain aspects but they are still imaginary

Huh? The price is used to make supply = demand. How is this in any way "imaginary?"

and furthermore under capitalism, those in control of the capital are going to be working for more. Meaning those without power, the workers will have to accept the "market" for labor, so they aren't necessarily getting more value out of their labor than they believe it's worth, mearly settling for the highest they can get. Meanwhile the ones in control of the capital can also to some extent set the prices of goods to be sold, within a certain reasonable limit. what this does is create a system within capitalism that, while on the surface distributes goods and services relatively efficiently it comes at the cost of the human condition.

If this is true, then why is there such tremendous upward mobility in the United States? Why do the statistics show that everyone becomes wealthier over time?

Is it not true that certain forms of capital (e.g. education) are available to almost everyone in a highly advanced capitalist economy, such as the United States?

Is it not true that almost anyone can start a business and acquire capital if they have a good idea which can acquire funding?

What I mean by that is these goods are distributed according, to the highest bidder. Well bidder of what. Money? its an artificial construct and has nothing to do with the actual production of an item.

Money is a medium of exchange... it has everything to do with the "actual production" of a good.

What else do you propose? Replacing money with the far less efficient barter and exchange? Haha.

in the right market a man with a bottle of water that he took five minutes to gather, can sell it at a higher price than a bar of gold that took several miners several hours to get at.

Yes, and that illustrates the principle of "utility."

So in this the division of labor can and is unfair, based simply on what one chose to do.

How is that unfair? The man performed work and brought a good to the market that was obviously desired. Not only was he benefited, but clearly the person who bought the water was benefited as well.

When in fact both gold and water are both items required for modern society. Gold being less so than water, but still, both items are required, but the man who gathered the water gets paid more than those that spent their blood sweat and tears to get at the gold.

Well, in your society, if it really were that simple, then people would quit gold mining and go into water gathering until the supply of water increased so much that the price would no longer make it worth to gather such an incredible supply of water. At that point, more people would go back into gold-mining until an equilibrium of sorts would be reached.

Now obviously not all markets work like this and gold is generally the more expensive item but only for the reasons in the previous example that the water was. Scarcity. It seems obsurd to pay $200, $300, $400 dollars for a bottle of water, and yet in certain markets it is worth that.

It is worth that much because that's how much people value it. How is that absurd? Wouldn't you part with a large sum of your money if you were parched?

And while this system ensures that water is sent to the middle east and arid places, it does nothing to address the desparity in the compensation of the production.

If you reduced the compensation for water gathering, wouldn't less water be gathered, and as such, wouldn't there be a lower supply of water and a higher price of water? Wouldn't this cause some to die of thirst or go without washing themselves? In either case, wouldn't this policy force some to go without a good that they would buy if it were more affordable?

#FF0000

16th August 2011, 02:36

How is dumping food into the sea profitable? Can you please provide examples of this actually happening and prove that this is due to free market policies?

Tons of crops are destroyed (or just never planted) to control the price of food. You could say "OH BUT THAT'S THE STATE" but then the alternative would still be people just not producing crops because it's so unprofitable.

Furthermore, if you wish to feed the poor more, is socialism really the proper way to go about doing it? Or would it be better to, say, give the poor a "voucher" (like in the US, where you can get food stamps) for which they could purchase food? Or would it be even better to allow economic growth to lift the poor out of poverty and allow them to purchase their own food?

We have programs like this and people are still malnourished. Not only that but programs like this are the first ones you and your libertarian buddies would take the ax to, so I'm kinda confused why you'd suggest that.

And regardless, food being too expensive isn't really the problem. The problem is that these crops are thrown away, left to rot, or never planted because it's not profitable to grow them. We have the means to feed everyone on the planet, but we can't with our current method of distribution.

gendoikari

16th August 2011, 02:45

Huh? The price is used to make supply = demand. How is this in any way "imaginary?"

Because the concepts of supply and demand are just as imaginary or at least subjective. Why is a car worth $20,000 dollars.... What is a dollar? What makes 20,000 of them= a car. It's supply meeting demand but those are subjective concepts as fleeting and changing as a breeze. which is hardly scientific.

How is that unfair? The man performed work and brought a good to the market that was obviously desired. Not only was he benefited, but clearly the person who bought the water was benefited as well.

Because they both created goods that were necessary, One worked harder, and got paid less. How is that fair in any sense of the word?

It is worth that much because that's how much people value it. How is that absurd? Wouldn't you part with a large sum of your money if you were parched? Yes and a man dying of thirst would surely give his right arm for water, doesn't make it fair to use that leverage over him to take all you can. This is the flaw in your demand equaling supply making everything fair. It isn't fair because demand is inextricably linked to desperation, and the selling party often has leverage over another, unless that item is labor, where the buyer has leverage. The guy selling the water has the power to send away people starving who want to work but are asking for a higher wage than he wants to pay and yet when selling his product he can charge what he wants to for it because well, he sets the price. And the man setting the price will always choose a price in his favor.

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 02:47

Tons of crops are destroyed (or just never planted) to control the price of food. You could say "OH BUT THAT'S THE STATE" but then the alternative would still be people just not producing crops because it's so unprofitable.

They wouldn't be producing the subsidized crops... But do you think that they would just shut down shop and produce nothing else with the land, labor, and capital they own? Of course not! They would use that to produce other, as of yet unsubsidized crops, such as apples and so forth. And if the land/labor/capital were unprofitable for that, then it would be reallocated to more productive uses in the economy, therefore improving the living standards of people in other ways.

We have programs like this and people are still malnourished.

Are they? According to whom/what data? And why?

Not only that but programs like this are the first ones you and your libertarian buddies would take the ax to, so I'm kinda confused why you'd suggest that.

I'm suggesting it because it's a more efficient means of feeding people than a complete nationalization of the means of production.

And regardless, food being too expensive isn't really the problem. The problem is that these crops are thrown away, left to rot, or never planted because it's not profitable to grow them. We have the means to feed everyone on the planet, but we can't with our current method of distribution.

Yes, we have the means to feed everyone on the planet. The problem is that once we reallocate all resources to that end, then what?

The entire point of economic calculation is to produce the goods that consumers want. The problem with a single monopolistic owner of all of the means of production (e.g. a socialistic state or a "workers' commune" of some sort) is that it is incapable of determining what consumers want and it is incapable of producing the kind of entrepreneurial decisions that are needed in order to grow the economy and improve living standards over the long-run.

So the point is, sure, we can feed on the planet right now. But after that, socialism cannot achieve anything. A socialist economy cannot grow fast enough in order to keep up with a growing population. It cannot grow fast enough in order to provide anyone with anything more than a paltry amount of food to survive - beyond that, nothing else!

Capitalism, on the other hand, can feed everyone and provide so much more. The problem is that not enough of the world is embracing not enough capitalism. Notice that it is the countries with the most controlled economies that are the ones with the most starvation.

gendoikari

16th August 2011, 02:50

..... I just realized what the inherent flaw with capitalism was..... the labor market is flooded, and it always will be.

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 02:52

Because the concepts of supply and demand are just as imaginary or at least subjective. Why is a car worth $20,000 dollars.... What is a dollar? What makes 20,000 of them= a car. It's supply meeting demand but those are subjective concepts as fleeting and changing as a breeze. which is hardly scientific.

So you're proving Mises's point here... Socialism is incapable of meeting the demands of consumers. What it can meet are the whimsical demands of some central planner. Thus, a centrally planned society is doomed to provide its citizens with a lower standard of living than a free market one.

Because they both created goods that were necessary, One worked harder, and got paid less. How is that fair in any sense of the word?

Worked harder by what measure? Why should "hard" work be the standard of measure and not the productivity of that work?

Yes and a man dying of thirst would surely give his right arm for water, doesn't make it fair to use that leverage over him to take all you can. This is the flaw in your demand equaling supply making everything fair. It isn't fair because demand is inextricably linked to desperation, and the selling party often has leverage over another, unless that item is labor, where the buyer has leverage. The guy selling the water has the power to send away people starving who want to work but are asking for a higher wage than he wants to pay and yet when selling his product he can charge what he wants to for it because well, he sets the price. And the man setting the price will always choose a price in his favor.

Okay, well what you're advocating is restricting the compensation for certain forms of labor, which would have the result of less of those goods being produced... Which would mean more people dying of thirst.

You can moralize about it being unethical (which it is not; you wouldn't buy water unless it was a good deal for you), but in the end it is capitalism that gets people the goods that they need.

krazy kaju

16th August 2011, 02:53

..... I just realized what the inherent flaw with capitalism was..... the labor market is flooded, and it always will be.

And yet real wages constantly rise! What a flaw that is! :confused:

gendoikari

16th August 2011, 03:07

And yet real wages constantly rise! What a flaw that is! :confused:
actually real wages for those not in control are going down.

So you're proving Mises's point here... Socialism is incapable of meeting the demands of consumers. What it can meet are the whimsical demands of some central planner. Thus, a centrally planned society is doomed to provide its citizens with a lower standard of living than a free market one.

actually I believe that prooves both are doomed to fail unless another form of leverage can be found for the working class. which via democracy is what socialism is all about.

Worked harder by what measure? Why should "hard" work be the standard of measure and not the productivity of that work?

really your going to compare several hours of swinging a heavy axe or drilling blast holes to sticking a bottle in a river? But then again, that is the point, one is obviously more work but by what measure, we need a scientific measuring post by which we can measure this or else all economics are doomed to be voodoo math at best.

You can moralize about it being unethical (which it is not; you wouldn't buy water unless it was a good deal for you), but in the end it is capitalism that gets people the goods that they need.

No capitalism gets goods to those with the artificial construct called money. Last I checked there were millions of starving people in africa who could be producing if they weren't malnourished. which is an extremely high demand area, but prices are low there, care to guess why?

The problem is that not enough of the world is embracing not enough capitalism. Notice that it is the countries with the most controlled economies that are the ones with the most starvation.

aren't most of those starving african nations a step below anarchy?

#FF0000

16th August 2011, 03:32

Are they? According to whom/what data? And why?

Yeah, they are. People like to make snide comments about how "lol the poor are fat though" but they don't realize that being stuffed doesn't mean healthy. The biggest problem is that healthy food is hard to access and isn't especially affordable. In both rural and urban areas, there exist "food deserts" where people are too poor to buy enough of the healthy stuff, or where the healthy stuff is simply out of reach.

And this isn't even touching third world hunger, which is a whole other situation.

I'm suggesting it because it's a more efficient means of feeding people than a complete nationalization of the means of production.

Who's talking about nationalization?

Yes, we have the means to feed everyone on the planet. The problem is that once we reallocate all resources to that end, then what?

Then people don't starve, I guess?

Capitalism, on the other hand, can feed everyone and provide so much more. The problem is that not enough of the world is embracing not enough capitalism. Notice that it is the countries with the most controlled economies that are the ones with the most starvation.

Oh bullshit. The only reason countries like India, for example, are anywhere close to being the players on the world stage that they are today is because of government's involvement in the economy. If you actually paid attention, you'd see the countries struggling the most are the ones being bullied into adopting laissez faire economic policies by the World Bank/IMF

Do you remember Haiti, for instance? Do you remember the famine it had, that came on the heels of years of economic liberalization? After the tariffs on rice and wheat were done away with?

I mean, you being wrong here isn't even about your Misean dogma. You just don't know anything about what you're talking about.

gendoikari

16th August 2011, 03:35

I mean, you being wrong here isn't even about your Misean dogma. You just don't know anything about what you're talking about.Fuck haiti look at the bolivian water crisis.

#FF0000

16th August 2011, 03:38

Fuck haiti look at the bolivian water crisis.

Oh, forget about it. Water is a huge issue in so much of the world right now. Food deserts ain't shit compared to water insecurity caused by privatization.

gendoikari

16th August 2011, 04:44

Oh, forget about it. Water is a huge issue in so much of the world right now. Food deserts ain't shit compared to water insecurity caused by privatization.

It's RIGHT there, IT FALLS FROM THE SKY, and yet, they can't take it SO MUCH FUCKING BULLSHIT!!!

Skooma Addict

16th August 2011, 05:15

How is dumping food into the sea profitable? Can you please provide examples of this actually happening and prove that this is due to free market policies?

Furthermore, if you wish to feed the poor more, is socialism really the proper way to go about doing it? Or would it be better to, say, give the poor a "voucher" (like in the US, where you can get food stamps) for which they could purchase food? Or would it be even better to allow economic growth to lift the poor out of poverty and allow them to purchase their own food?

Food for thought. ;)

You are just assuming that everyone could afford to feed themselves, but there is no reason to expect this. Not everyone will be able to find work or take care of themselves.

Even if it were true that a completely free market would increase productivity (which I deny, as the resulting social unrest and financial collapse would cripple the economy), it is still better to sacrifice some productivity in order to fund certain social programs.

Rafiq

16th August 2011, 06:02

I think the problem with Miseans, including yourself and the fellow in the lecture, is that they assume socialism is in the constraints of capitalism.

Just look at their language: "Consumers, Profit, etc"

Socialism should not be very complex to understand.

A system of producing and distributing via direct planning is not Utopian.

There are not Markets in socialism, goods do not have "prices" and "Market Values". There is no market.

The USSR failed, not because, like Gacky3 sais "There was no workers control over the means of production" and that "It was State Capitalist", it failed because the revolution did not spread, and therefore the USSR had to spend it's whole existence defending itself (Not to mention 17 countries invading it during the civil war, including britian and the US, and later Nazi Germany, cold war, etc).

It only boils down to one argument: Where will the profit motive be? That is an easily delt argument, though.

Rafiq

16th August 2011, 06:07

Arguing with "Free Marketters" is useless. Why bother? You're not going to change their mind, because whatever arguments you use they will defend by saying "Free Market dur not allow such tings" or "Free market did not do dis" or "Free market make rainbow and sunshine" and not to mention of course: "Free market cauz no prolem it is da government"

All Libertarian Rightists are religious, no matter their defence. Their god is the 'Free Market' (non existent) and their prophet is Mises... Or Ayn Rand... Or Ron Paul (the three main religions)

Now let us stop wasting time bickering with Utopians and move on to something productive. Obviously these people have not been hit by the recent financial crisis, but, from seeing what Happened in Britain, I don't think we should care too much about their opinion on things, and continue to just burn stuff down.

Revolution starts with U

16th August 2011, 09:28

RGacky3

16th August 2011, 10:34

And yet real wages constantly rise! What a flaw that is! http://www.revleft.com/vb/calculation-and-socialism-t159748/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

In the US it basically stopped in the 1970s, the only reason it was raising before was the labor shortage and the giant swash of land available and the economy continualy growing.

What it can meet are the whimsical demands of some central planner. Thus, a centrally planned society is doomed to provide its citizens with a lower standard of living than a free market one.

Free markets are centrally planned also, thats what corporations are.

Worked harder by what measure? Why should "hard" work be the standard of measure and not the productivity of that work?

Productivity is not and never has been tied to compensation under capitalism.

You can moralize about it being unethical (which it is not; you wouldn't buy water unless it was a good deal for you), but in the end it is capitalism that gets people the goods that they need.

Not it does'nt, and whats unethical is not the market, its the capitalist system of property and profit motive.

RGacky3

16th August 2011, 10:42

Furthermore, a poor person is poor because the goods they provide just aren't as valued as the goods that the wealthy provide... For example, the CEO of McDonald's leads the entire company and everything that company does, while a regular worker at McDonald's only makes the burgers. Society values the work of the CEO more, so the CEO gets paid more than the burger-maker. That's just economic fact and nothing else.

Is that what a CEO does? what do you think would happen if a CEOs pay was subject to the demoratic choice of all McDonalds workers? Rather than just picked by himself? You know he pays himself right? If that is ACTAULLY what he's worth, are you saying that if the workers of Mcdonalds chose compensation rather than the CEO do you think they would pay him the same?

There are examples of this such as Germanies Co-determination law (btw, their economy is doing pretty well)

gendoikari

16th August 2011, 12:40

I noticed a few things:
1) It's so funny when capitalists come here with their cock-sure attitude that they are gods amongst intellectuals, and us anti-caps are just ignorant wretches who have no idea what economics is.
2) To psuedo libertarians, America wins because it's capitalist. But if you're talking about how bad America is at taking care of its people, it's because it's socialist. Make up your mind people!
3) Since Miseians define capitalism as "voluntary exchange" to them socialism means "involuntary exchange." Every single time one of them comes here, without fail, they have no idea what socialism is.

Food for thought. Enjoy ;)

Yeah i noticed the video seemed to equate socialism AS the planned economy in the traditional sense.... so how do they explain non planned economy socialists? They seem to forget that the core tenant of socialism is the means of production being owned in common. after that well... we fight a lot.

gendoikari

16th August 2011, 12:46

Is that what a CEO does? what do you think would happen if a CEOs pay was subject to the demoratic choice of all McDonalds workers? Rather than just picked by himself? You know he pays himself right? If that is ACTAULLY what he's worth, are you saying that if the workers of Mcdonalds chose compensation rather than the CEO do you think they would pay him the same?

There are examples of this such as Germanies Co-determination law (btw, their economy is doing pretty well)

Look there are two major flaws with capitalism in the way it is practice. When your selling labor it is the guy BUYING your labor that has leverage because of a flooded market for labor, this is inherent in the world. and when you buy an ITEM it is the seller that has leverage. That guy that has the leverage is the same one everytime, it's the capitalists. and under capitalism where exploitation via externalities is rampant since no one has leverage over that guy he has pretty much free reign and also meets the qualifications for a sociopath.

Baseball

17th August 2011, 00:37

[QUOTE=gendoikari;2208054]Look there are two major flaws with capitalism in the way it is practice. When your selling labor it is the guy BUYING your labor that has leverage because of a flooded market for labor,

Except when there are labor shortages and the worker has the leverage.

and when you buy an ITEM it is the seller that has leverage.

Why is that? Do you want the product? What is the issue here?

That guy that has the leverage is the same one everytime, it's the capitalists.

The person with the real leverage is the consumer, since all production is geared to make that person happy.

gendoikari

17th August 2011, 02:15

Except when there are labor shortages and the worker has the leverage.

Last time I check there was never a point in human history where we had 100% employment....

Why is that? Do you want the product? What is the issue here?

Because in our system where haggling is extinct you either cough up the dough or you can go fuck yourself. The capitalists know they won't overproduce because they keep things in moderate short supply, basically trying to sell the most at the highest price, with as few left over unsold as possible.

The person with the real leverage is the consumer, since all production is geared to make that person happy.

Wrong, production under capitalism is geared toward selling shit to this man, not making him happy. CEO's and the like are made happy while the lower classes are made poor.

Baseball

17th August 2011, 02:59

[QUOTE=gendoikari;2208721]Last time I check there was never a point in human history where we had 100% employment....

All labor does not work in all areas.

Because in our system where haggling is extinct you either cough up the dough or you can go fuck yourself.

I am not sure why there is any difference in haggling. There is no requirement that one party accept an offer made.

The capitalists know they won't overproduce because they keep things in moderate short supply, basically trying to sell the most at the highest price, with as few left over unsold as possible.

Aside that other socialists often describe production by capitalists in the EXACT OPPOSITE framework, it would need to be explained why leaving unconsumed production is a good thing.

Wrong, production under capitalism is geared toward selling shit to this man, not making him happy.

If a person is not pleased with items to be purchased, then idea is that that person will not purchase the item. True, that may not be always be the case. But it is difficult to see why socialism would surmise that production consumed in its production would not make people happy.

gendoikari

17th August 2011, 04:36

if a person is not pleased with the price of bread He still has to accept either no bread or pay up

if a person is not pleased with their salary they have to either quit risking financial harm and take another job at lets face it industry standard price, which will be the same as before or not work and go on welfare

if the Capitalist does not like paying as much for his wages, he can simply lower them and tell the workers to go elsewhere if they do not like it

if the capitalist wants to get more out of the products he is selling he can simply raise the prices of his good.

In all these cases the capitalist is the one making the decision, and he will always choose what is best for him. Since the entirety of the world does this it all favors the capitalist..... greatly, and more and more each decade.

La Comédie Noire

17th August 2011, 04:45

I'm pretty sure most people on this board don't support a centrally planned economy, just saying.

deadsmooth

17th August 2011, 05:38

My favorite example:

Imagine a free market, capitalist society where 10,000 people spend $50,000 ($10,000x$50,000=$50,000,000) each to go prospecting. One of them finds something worth $49,000,000, for a profit of $48,950,000 (according to free marketers).

Imagine a Socialist society where a prospecting program spends $50,000,000 sending out 10,000 prospectors, and one of them finds something worth $49,000,000, for a loss of $1,000,000 (again according to free marketers).

Many of these examples above fail to take this effect into account.

RGacky3

17th August 2011, 08:15

Yeah, this is a strawman considering we don't support centrally planned economies.

Rafiq

18th August 2011, 04:35

I support a strong centrally planned economy....

However the problem with Mises's works is that, (even flawed by itself as described by Paul CockShott) is that, under his definition of socialism, he is correct.

However his definition of Socialism is invalid.

Socialism is not the ownership over the means of production via one entity or agency completely. A system of (sorry to say) perhaps checks and balances is possible, a system where perhaps it could be, in practiced owned by the state (in the early stages I guess) yet managed in a more decentralized form, and if trouble hits the fan, it acts.

He was right completely about one thing, regarding Marx: Karl Marx never laid down the foundations for socialism, and rightfully so, It's true the blue printers are the Utopians. Marx didn't do this because he was scared to, he did it because laying down how it would work would be a waste of time, considering the material conditions and natural conditions are not things that can be planned by humans, and the material conditions of the Utopian Socialists could change over time.

Plus, I believe Communism is the absence of the state itself, so I don't see how the argument holds up at all.

robbo203

18th August 2011, 05:35

So you're proving Mises's point here... Socialism is incapable of meeting the demands of consumers. What it can meet are the whimsical demands of some central planner. Thus, a centrally planned society is doomed to provide its citizens with a lower standard of living than a free market one.
.

Unfortunately, I am not able to listen to the Salermo lecture on my antiquated computer - the audio facility has gone - but am familiar with some of his work. I expect the lecture is just ploughing the same old predictable furrow,

It all depends what you mean by socialism doesnt it? Mises and co envisaged socialism to be organised on a centrally planned basis in the sense of society wide planning - quite literally a single vast plan to coordinate the totallity of inputs and outputs. Not only is such a notion completely impractical but it precludes the decisive answer to the economic calculation problem in the form of a self regulatiing non-market feedback mechanism

In that regard you might want to look at this: http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

I think actually, standing back and looking at the whole argument from a communist non-market perspective, it is quite apparent that far from being the most efficient production system available to us, the capitalist money-based economy in all its guises (including state-run capitalism) is the most horrendously inefficient system and is becoming ever more so. Most of the economic activity carried on in capitalism serves no socially useful purpose whatsoever - from banks , insurance companies to arms producers and tax collectors and a thousand and one other occupations. Such socially useless activity, which absorbs an increasing proportion of the workforce, exists simply to keep the system ticking over on its own terms. It is entirely to do with the systemic needs of capitalism itself. In a rational needs-oriented society it will disappear completely, thus freeing up massive quantities of labour and resources for socially useful production

The notion that "Socialism is incapable of meeting the demands of consumers" - a dogma that, if you keeping on uncritically repeating often enough you will presumbly come to believe in - is somewhat laughable given the implicit presumption that capitalism is capable of "meeting the demands of consumers". Actually the demands of the consumer in capitalism only count insofar as they are backed up with purchasing power. Tell the homeless or the hungry that capitalism serves their needs and lets see what sort of response you get. You are not living in the same world as the rest of us, frankly

I might only add that the presumption that capitalism in capable of meeting the demands of the consumers, would seem a bit incongruous given the fairytale cornerstone dictum of mainstream capitalist economics that our demands are "infinite". You really want to have your capitalist cake and eat it , dont you?

La Comédie Noire

18th August 2011, 06:07

And here's another thing to consider, people who have read into soviet economics more than me have said the actual soviet economy wasn't as "centrally planned" as all that.

robbo203

18th August 2011, 23:42

And here's another thing to consider, people who have read into soviet economics more than me have said the actual soviet economy wasn't as "centrally planned" as all that.

They would be right. It wasnt strictly speaking central planned at all. Of necessity there was a considerable degree of decentralised decisionmaking particularly at the state enterpriise level with state agencies like GOSSNAB essentially acting as go betweens

Baseball

19th August 2011, 12:27

[QUOTE=gendoikari;2208824]if a person is not pleased with the price of bread He still has to accept either no bread or pay up

And...? Same is true with the socialist system.

if a person is not pleased with their salary they have to either quit risking financial harm and take another job at lets face it industry standard price, which will be the same as before or not work and go on welfare

And...? Displeased workers in a socialist system are prohibited from seeking out new work elsewhere???

i
f the Capitalist does not like paying as much for his wages, he can simply lower them and tell the workers to go elsewhere if they do not like it

And...? The workers in a socialist system are required to compensate workers at whatever rate those individuals demand???

i
f the capitalist wants to get more out of the products he is selling he can simply raise the prices of his good.

And...? If the workers want to get more out of the products they are selling...

In all these cases the capitalist is the one making the decision, and he will always choose what is best for him.

I am not quite sure why the workers would not be interested in doing what is best for them, or why that would not be considered "greedy"

But in any event, if the consumers choose not to purchase a good, the capitalist cannot make any money. So all your above concerns are limited by that problem which the capitalist faces, and which the socialist faces (though they tend to deny they face that problem).

RGacky3

19th August 2011, 12:31

And...? Same is true with the socialist system.

Not really.

And...? Displeased workers in a socialist system are prohibited from seeking out new work elsewhere???

No, but they have a say over their pay and conditions, which is a major improvement.

And...? The workers in a socialist system are required to compensate workers at whatever rate those individuals demand???

No, but again, a democratic system is better than a despotic one, even if its not perfect.

And...? If the workers want to get more out of the products they are selling...

Not neccessarily.

I am not quite sure why the workers would not be interested in doing what is best for them, or why that would not be considered "greedy"

Because he is part of his community and the economy is part of the community as well.

But in any event, if the consumers choose not to purchase a good, the capitalist cannot make any money. So all your above concerns are limited by that problem which the capitalist faces, and which the socialist faces (though they tend to deny they face that problem).

Socialism, is not generally a market system, so your not looking at it the right way at all.

Baseball

19th August 2011, 12:32

[QUOTE=Rafiq;2209615]I support a strong centrally planned economy....

However the problem with Mises's works is that, (even flawed by itself as described by Paul CockShott) is that, under his definition of socialism, he is correct.

However his definition of Socialism is invalid.

Socialism is not the ownership over the means of production via one entity or agency completely. A system of (sorry to say) perhaps checks and balances is possible, a system where perhaps it could be, in practiced owned by the state (in the early stages I guess) yet managed in a more decentralized form, and if trouble hits the fan, it acts.

Mises says that socialism is when the people "control" the means of production.

He does argue that that the Soviet style is the only logical and conceivable way for it to be organized in order to achieve its objectives.

Baseball

19th August 2011, 12:41

No, but they have a say over their pay and conditions, which is a major improvement.

No, the majority allegedly do. If an individual worker does not like what the majority has decided, he faces the same problem which the worker in the capitalist system faces.

No, but again, a democratic system is better than a despotic one, even if its not perfect.

But considering that such things ought be determined by the value of the work to the community, even the the majority of workers in a given industry would lack that ability.

Not neccessarily.

"Increased revenue"

Because he is part of his community and the economy is part of the community as well.

As above "increased revenue"

Socialism, is not generally a market system, so your not looking at it the right way at all.

Denying that the socialist system will not face this problem ie. that production ought be geared to what the consumers want, not what the workers want to produce, does not change that such is the only rational way of production.

RGacky3

19th August 2011, 13:15

No, the majority allegedly do. If an individual worker does not like what the majority has decided, he faces the same problem which the worker in the capitalist system faces.

Ok, but again, more people will be happy and more people will be better off than it would be under capitalism, just like democracy is better than monarchy.

But considering that such things ought be determined by the value of the work to the community, even the the majority of workers in a given industry would lack that ability.

I don't get your point.

"Increased revenue"

Why would they need increased revenue?

Btw, ever seen the way public unions work with local governments? Guess what, in many functioning democracies they work pretty well, its the same concept.

Denying that the socialist system will not face this problem ie. that production ought be geared to what the consumers want, not what the workers want to produce, does not change that such is the only rational way of production.

Yes, but all consumers are equal, that is not the case in capitalism.