All your doing is rebuilding Capitalism from the top down, into a system that suits your own personal preferences. Your trying to: Re-Create Busness Re-Create Capitali productivity Re-Create Competition Re-Create Money In every attempt your trying as best you can to mimic the efficacy of the market. In your market system, how are fleeting subjective ordinal preferences handled by the proletariat calculatory system? How do people know the costs of goods and services, so that they can adequately plan for their own personal consumption? How is money earned? How does your monetary include interest(Time discrepancies). How does your monetary system of use-value price goods and services? Do those prices represent the concerted collective subjective preferences of the individuals that desire to use them?
Your trying to:
In every attempt your trying as best you can to mimic the efficacy of the market.
In your market system, how are fleeting subjective ordinal preferences handled by the proletariat calculatory system? How do people know the costs of goods and services, so that they can adequately plan for their own personal consumption?
How is money earned? How does your monetary include interest(Time discrepancies). How does your monetary system of use-value price goods and services? Do those prices represent the concerted collective subjective preferences of the individuals that desire to use them?
Hey, I'm going to be honest now, I can't really answer anymore on the calculation problem for now (please don't ask me any more, fellows ;) ). But once I've read into it a bit more, I will get back to you.
I respect your honesty. You got more than any socialist I've met, they seem to be aspiring central planners. I think you might be opening up to the inability of socialist calculation.
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
Yes, I mean I have read "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth" in its entirity and found various rebuttals but there are some additional points being brought up in this thread that I had not considered. I think I will need to read "Socialism" and "Human Action" (by Mises) before I go any further with this discussion.
Why don't you like private property anyways? In the end it always comes down to an emotional response. Do you think it creates an elite? Or exploits workers? Unearned wealth? We can eliminate all those too.
I appreciate your participation EvilSocialist. Sorry if I come off across as a bit brash. Your quite a pleasant to discuss with.
EvilSocialist:When investment funds are returned, they wouldn't include interest, no. The participants running the bank are incentivised to hand out investment funds because they will increase productivity;
What your describing here is a modern day corporation. Interest sharing is called a dividend. Capitalism already does this. I myself am a laborer, part owner, and shareholder in dozens of other companies. I get paid annually via dividends, and I also earn a regularly scheduled wage.
EvilSocialist:The participants running the bank are
To anyone who runs anything. Who bares the consequences for poor decisions?
Capitalism shows that it matches the most efficient party to his/her best job. People who are responsible for managing situations, and are good at it, are pushed to the top. Bureaucracies on the other hand shuffle people around not according to their productivity. It's not always clear whether someone is good at what they do or not. Bad policies and decisions are punished on the whole, rather then the individual who made the bad decision.
This also causes a moral hazard for people in power to abuse the system, placing the risks on the whole, rather then him/herself. How does your system continue to encourage individuals who share a larger load of responsibility or work?
EvilSocialist:(average productivity calculated by transactions with the bank
Can you better word this? Or let me know which post where you provided an explanation of how you would formulate prices.
Also lets be honest here, your talking about the creation of money prices. Especially when you refer to the employment of historical transactionary data. Your talking about employing money, though in a framework that suits your own personal preferences.
You are trying to re-create money.
Can you send me a link to where you already explained this? I apologize that I missed it....
EmperorNero:Why don't you like private property anyways? In the end it always comes down to an emotional response. Do you think it creates an elite? Or exploits the workers?
Rather then asking why he doesn't like it. We should be asking economically, how does property not exist. Economics is not a system of ethics, it's value free. It doesn't matter if communists don't like property, they have to explain to us, how in their alternative system, they aren't just trying to re-create property. And how their version of property would be more efficient at achieving its goals, while keeping methodological subjectivism, and methodological individualism in check.
In other words, it must be shown how we deal with the fact that scarce objects must be occupied over time by individuals to reach satisfaction. When identifying the solution to this problem we then beg the question, how is this not a form of property?
I've met many communists who defined property word for word, but called it something else. The issue then becoming one of semantics.
I'm not yet convinced that capitalism makes for more efficient allocation of resources and (the most important thing) maximal utility/happiness but I have further research to make before I am 100% positive. Don't think this means I'm persuaded by any stretch ;). Also producers' co-operatives would be a cool thing to see
EvilSocialistFellow:Yes, I mean I have read "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth" in its entirity and found various rebuttals but there are some additional points being brought up in this thread that I had not considered. I think I will need to read "Socialism" and "Human Action" (by Mises) before I go any further with this discussion.
That is one I have yet to read. You didn't find it conclusive?
I'm working my way (slowly) through Human Action now, I highly recommend the study guide. Mainly because my reading comprehension doesn't scale even with Mises' writing ability, heh.
http://mises.org/books/humanactionstudy.pdf
filc:Rather then asking why he doesn't like it. We should be asking economically,
Yeah, but in the end humans make their determinations not based on rational arguments, but based on some emotional feeling. Facts and augments are then used to defend ones position, but it is reached based on an intuitive gut feeling. That's what I wanted to address, what makes EvilSocialistFellow not like private property?
filc:In other words, it must be shown how we deal with the fact that scarce objects must be occupied over time by individuals to reach satisfaction. When identifying the solution to this problem we then beg the question, how is this not a form of property?
Exactly. That's what I wanted to express, but I couldn't find the right words. For economic activity to take place, human beings need to exclusively occupy scarce objects. Common ownership is therefore impossible.
EvilSocialistFellow:I'm not yet convinced that capitalism makes for more efficient allocation of resources and (the most important thing) maximal utility/happiness but I have further research to make before I am 100% positive.
If your concern is with economic efficiency, then there's really no question that propertarianism wins the debate. But that's usually not what socialists care about. Usually it's some concern about equality or fairness, or envy. That's what I meant, why do you intuitively dislike capitalism?
We must never forget that utility(happyness) can only be measured by individual human actions. The man chooses to eat pasta over steak, as it pleases him most. This will be explained further in the first 3 sections of HA. This is part of Praxeology.
There is no other way to measure human preference, beyond that of observed action. This is why the Capitalists, here on this site, feel that voluntary exchange is the best way to demonstrate individual preferences, and ultimately utility.
All definitions and explanations that attempt to explain utility absent Praxeology do so erroneously. It's akin to trying to explain gravity absent physics. Just as gravity implies physics, utility implies Human Action.
EmperorNero:If your concern is with economic efficiency, then there's really no question that propertarianism wins the debate. But that's usually not what socialists care about. Usually it's some concern about equality or fairness, or envy. That's what I meant, why do you intuitively dislike capitalism?
I will be honest; on a moral basis the main thing I dislike is the fact producers have no say in the disposal of their product or the management of their business beyond contracts they sign beforehand. Plus, it is debatable whether economic efficiency in the present day is down to capitalist investment and coordination of labour on one hand or whether its down to the fact that the people at the bottom just carried on with normal economic activity and did the stuff the middle classes didn't want to do. What I mean is, it is easy to look at modern day society and say, "Ah, we have had capitalism for a few hundred years and living standards have improved...therefore capitalism has worked!" I don't just oppose capitalism on moral grounds, I question whether it really is the best possible and efficient means of production.
In other words, correlation vs. cause; yes economic activity has improved but is this down to the merits of capitalism or the merits of the "blue collar workers" who built the means of production, transported the raw materials, risked immensely dangerous and back-breaking work and built machinery to save labour (for which they were then outsourced and replaced by to save the land and capital owner costs in employing them). One has to compare the idea of competitive labour with the idea of co-operative labour and decide which one has really and truly brought us further.
No. Here is a possible rebuttal: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html#seci11. The first section is just about whether or not libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms; scroll down the page to "Isn't Socialism Impossible". But this section mainly deals with market socialism. Scroll down further to "Isn't Communism Impossible?" and you will see where I'm coming from. I don't want to say the "Economic Calculation" is wrong; just that, for me, it is inconclusive and I would like to read more about economic calculation before I come to a conclusion.
I question whether it really is the best possible and efficient means of production.
Edit: embedded video
Filc, I keep trying to answer your questions and then loosing my answer on the computer accidentally. I will try to answer you at some other point but not now.
EvilSocialistFellow:on a moral basis the main thing I dislike is the fact producers have no say in the disposal of their product or the management of their business beyond contracts they sign beforehand.
If the producers goal is to maximize his personal wellbeing from the production and ultimately vending of his product, how would he behave any differently then a profit seeking manager?
In other words, why are we to assume that the managers attempt at directing resources to their most profitable ends, would change simply because a laborer directed the resources rather then management?
The laborer exercises his skills in expertise and in return exchanges that, for improved material wellbeing(In the now). If this is accepted as the state of affairs, the laborer will want his product to arrive at their most profitable ends, so as to maximize his material well being. How and why would the laborer, if he had a say in things, want to change that state of affairs?
Also who is forcing the laborer, against his will, to remain employed with a firm he disagrees with?
EvilSocialistFellow:who built the means of production, transported the raw materials, risked immensely dangerous and back-breaking work and built machinery to save labour
Where does this capital (Raw materials, and land) come from? Who provides this? Does a capital owner lose ownership of his capital when someone agrees to help transform it into a more profitable product? Who will provide the capital required for capital accumulation under a system where land and resources owners are at risk of losing their resources?
The capitalist risks starving himself with long-term investment. He risks his financial position. He ops out of a regularly scheduled wage. He sets aside scarce resources for more productive employment. The capitalist restricts his consumption, to the benefit of everyone. Who compensates him for this dis-utility? What motivation does he have to pass up a regularly scheduled wage, figuring out how he will feed himself on a daily basis for years before his investment matures?
Who compensates him for placing scarce resources(savings) aside so that they can be used to create a more productive state of affairs?
Is anyone or anything stopping modern day laborers from starting their own business? Is there some coercive institution(Besides legal barriers to entry) thats preventing any laborer from influencing the state of affairs by joining the market itself?
To me if it were an ethical flaw, someone would be preventing the laborer. Under the theoretical framework of voluntary exchange, I don't see what force is barring market entry for the alleged "laborer class".
EvilSocialist:One has to compare the idea of competitive labour with the idea of co-operative labour and decide which one has really and truly brought us further.
How do we know this is not a false dichotomy? Business's can form and operate a number of ways. The most efficient ones, those who least wasteful, rise to the top. Some may operate as a co-op, others not so much. There are many co-ops in my surrounding area, many of which appear successful.
the main thing I dislike is the fact producers have no say in the disposal of their product or the management of their business beyond contracts they sign beforehand.
Producers... you mean the workers of the factory. They are hired to work for money, the producer is the person who owns the factory.
it is debatable whether economic efficiency in the present day is down to capitalist investment and coordination of labour on one hand or whether its down to the fact that the people at the bottom just carried on with normal economic activity and did the stuff the middle classes didn't want to do.
I don't understand this point. Are you saying that the immense increases in standards of living in the last two centuries were achieved because people just started working harder? Are you suggesting that workers in South Korea just work harder than in North Korea?
for which they were then outsourced and replaced by to save the land and capital owner costs in employing them
They were outsourced because unions priced them out of competitiveness.
If you could explain how ownership is "producing" anything, I'd be interested in hearing it. The entrepreneur comes up with the idea, management runs the company, and labor does all the work.... what exactly is ownership "producing?"
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
EvilSocialistFellow:No. Here is a possible rebuttal: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html#seci11.
Yet as David Schweickart observes "[i]t has long been recognised that Mises's argument is logically defective. Even without a market in production goods, their monetary values can be determined." [Against Capitalism, p. 88] In other words, economic calculation based on prices is perfectly possible in a libertarian socialist system. After all, to build a workplace requires so many tonnes of steel, so many bricks, so many hours of work and so on. If we assume a mutualist society, then the prices of these goods can be easily found as the co-operatives in question would be offer their services on the market. These commodities would be the inputs for the construction of production goods and so the latter's monetary values can be found.
It's a poor critique, because what he is describing is a market. He's re-creating capitalism, and this is what those quotes, taken of out context, from Mises is saying.
Worse, he calls Mises fallacious, and to justify his assertion he re-defines socialism, so as not to contradict with Mises's Logic.
First, and most obvious, socialisation (as we discuss in section I.3.3) simply means free access to the means of life.
This definition of socialism is entirely vague. Interpreted one way it may even compliment Capitalism, property, and even the more controversial notion of "Self Ownership". Interpreted another way however, does one have a positive right to the food of his neighbor? What does it mean "free access to the means of life"? Does that mean I have a positive right to the productive output of everyone else? And they to me?
It's not a real direct assessment of the calculation problem. He finds some quotes out of context. What Mises is saying is, if your employing money prices, and your allowing exchange(Which implies a level of possession or property) then what you have is a market. It's not Socialism at that point, depending on how you define Socialism.
All he did was create a red-herring.
Ofcoarse my critque of the article you provided was made after only skimming the article and obviously I am somewhat bias so take what I say with a grain of salt. Still I hope I inspired some things to think twice on.
EvilSocialistFellow:Filc, I keep trying to answer your questions and then loosing my answer on the computer accidentally. I will try to answer you at some other point but not now.
NP I myself need to take a break. ttyl!
Filc shouldn't you uwork within his definition of socialism? Isn't that what we're supposed to do with your (incoherent) definition of capitalism?
If the critique is to counter Mises' logic then it must use Mises definition. It just creates a semantics argument with an ambiguous definition of socialism.
It's a poor critique, because what he is describing is a market. He's re-creating capitalism, and this is what those quotes, taken of out context, from Mises is saying
I will address the questions you raised (I had a whole post typed out and lost it) at some point but would just like to deal with this; if you could scroll down further to section I.3 that would be good. The reason I say this is because I.2 is about market socialism (not my position) whereas I.3 is about moneyless communism and collectivism (with labour vouchers).
And what if Mises is countering socialist logic by redefining socialism himself (which I am sure he is)?
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun: And what if Mises is countering socialist logic by redefining socialism himself (which I am sure he is)? I answered this for you days ago. The definition of socialism, used by Mises, is the same one you can google. It's the same definition used on the Socialism wiki page, written by, tada socialists. The definition described in the article above is not the widely accepted view of socialism. Though considering your semantical I wouldn't be surprised if you used that definition. Note that days after me pointing this out to you, your still laboring over a befuddled issue of semantics. | Post Points: 50
I answered this for you days ago. The definition of socialism, used by Mises, is the same one you can google. It's the same definition used on the Socialism wiki page, written by, tada socialists. The definition described in the article above is not the widely accepted view of socialism. Though considering your semantical I wouldn't be surprised if you used that definition. Note that days after me pointing this out to you, your still laboring over a befuddled issue of semantics.
Industrial organization of the factors of production. To be breif.
So, then.. given your answer... shouldn't you use the established version of capitalism, as I am? Or does the standard only apply to one side?
The way I see it, if you invest all your savings into the material you have every right to profit. Your job is to pay the workers the market wage, nothing else. Remember, you bought the material for them to work on. He would have never been able to produce without the material. If the workers want to own the means of production they can simply buy the factory. There is a lot of risk involved, and contrary to what people think you do not buy the worker, the worker sells his labour.
If he doesn't like the job he can get another one. This type of system forces you to get higher education, or simply find a higher paying job.
The main question is how much should a "backbreaking" worker get payed? Are you also saying that backbreaking work is "real work" and other jobs do not matter?
But back to the main question, who is to decide how much the pay should be?And on what grounds?
Some people think a toilet scrubber should be payed 5 bucks an hour others think 50$ an hour.Value is subjective.Example:
Example:
I now work as a paper boy and get payed 2.6k a month, I have to deliver 800 journals in a neighbourhood. I have to finish at 9:30 am, therefore I wake up everyday around 2am every morning. The reason this job pays so much, is simple, nobody wants to do it.
Some other people that work the "journal delivery bussiness" think they are being "exploited", others like me think it's too easy(I develloped a great system,hehe).
He is not redefining socialism, he is merely refuting the socialism in his time.
For a complete refutation of all forms of socialism, including the up to date ones here it is...http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/11986/268579.aspx#268579
EvilSocialistFellow:...for me, it is inconclusive and I would like to read more about economic calculation before I come to a conclusion.
Evil, I also respect your honesty and I apologize if I sounded antagonistic. Regarding economic calculation, before you dig into Mises' "Human Action" and "Socialism" I suggest you spend 10mins on this 1958 essay (which was recently posted on another thread here): I, Pencil
As for your opposition to capitalism on moral grounds, consider this scenario. Laborer X and Laborer Y both "earn" 80 labor vouchers (LV) a month. X decides to "spend" all 80 LV each month (dinners, ice-cream, drinks, parties, the works). Y is more frugal and spends only 40 LV and saves 40 LV a month. Ten years down the road, what is immoral about X voluntarily agreeing to do some work for Y in exchange for Y's unspent LVs? What is immoral about different human actions and human decisions resulting in different outcomes down the road? What is immoral about individual sovereignty and responsibility for one's own actions? Finally, how could any voluntary exchange (human interaction) be immoral?
In terms of viability, capital only exists because Y saved 40 LV/month. If everyone spent all their LVs all the time, there'd be no "means of production" to fight over.
Z.
EDIT: fixed link
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:If you could explain how ownership is "producing" anything, I'd be interested in hearing it. The entrepreneur comes up with the idea, management runs the company, and labor does all the work.... what exactly is ownership "producing?"
It would take a terrible arrogance to assume that investors, entrepreneurs and managers are not at all involved in the process of producing the products and services we consume, and that only the hands that physically touch something are required to make it happen with the speed and efficiency with which the modern firm does so.
I couldn't have said it better.
Entrepreneurs and managers are productive. Investment/ownership is a provider, only necessary under the propertarian system.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:So, then.. given your answer... shouldn't you use the established version of capitalism, as I am? Or does the standard only apply to one side?
No. What your doing is using the definition of Capitalism, applying yuor own personal theories, and deducing conclusions from it. Thats far beyond just establishing the definition.
I as well use the same definition of Capitalism found in wiki, or anywhere else. The definition alone does not conclude the involvement of certain things as you suggest, like the state. I should have expected this in your befuddled confused semantics world, you add a bunch of other fluff that doesn't necessarily follow from the definition of Capitalism. Like a state, or "absolute property rights(Which you have never explained the meaning of). I'm not arguing whether the absence of a state is or is not possible in Capitalism. I am saying that you cannot properly deduce that from the definition alone, unless your confused, as you continue to be.
So given given your attempt to try rebuke me, you can walk away embarassed now. Thanks. Do you actually have a criticism here or are you just following me around trolling? :)
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Entrepreneurs and managers are productive. Investment/ownership is a provider, only necessary under the propertarian system.
A statement of complete economic ignorance. Why don't we just get rid of savings all together and see how far our capital stock grows. It's clear you don't understand the roll of savers(capitalists).
Once again, like the statue in that harbor, your dishonesty shines bright under the guise of liberty.
I never said capitalism requires a state. But I said that it can have a state, and has had throughout its history.
I have defined what I mean by absolute property laws 4 or 5 times now.
I have also repeatedly pointed out to you that you can run from it all you want saying "it's just semantics." But your definition of capitalism (voluntary exchange) is far from any established definition (problem 1) but more importantly, is entirely incoherent for any kind of rational discourse.
Don't get mad at me because you willingly engage in deception and I call you out on it.
You apparently didn't read that sentence at all, as I acknowledged the role of the investor in the propertarian system. He/she is a provider. Ownership itself does not produce anything. It provides captial for people to produce things.
But whatever, say the same thing as me and call me ignorant for it... doesn't that make you ignorant too?
Epicurus:Once again, like the statue in that harbor, your dishonesty shines bright under the guise of liberty. I never said capitalism requires a state. But I said that it can have a state, and has had throughout its history.
So where in my definition of Capitalism am I being dishonest?
Epicurus:I have defined what I mean by absolute property laws 4 or 5 times now.
No you have not defined anything. You can't even stick to a single definition. In fact you can't even agree on simple english phrases. To make matters worse it sounds like your endorsing multiple definitions of Socialism as well.
Epicurus:I have also repeatedly pointed out to you that you can run from it all you want saying "it's just semantics." But your definition of capitalism (voluntary exchange) is far from any established definition (problem 1) but more importantly, is entirely incoherent for any kind of rational discourse.
The above definition is realized under a model of voluntary exchange. How can this be denied? I'm not saying that other forms of Capitalism cannot exist. In fact I would argue that removing Capitalism and markets all together is completely impossible, as it tries to deny praxeology. What I am saying is, the conclusion of voluntary exchange, is the private means of production.
I see that you:
A) Became confused in our last debacle where you went scurrying away unable to answer my quesitons or
B) Are upset that I've pointed out the fallacies, and now your trying to mis-represent my position. Thanks
Epicurus:Don't get mad at me because you willingly engage in deception and I call you out on it.
So explain to us then Mr. Honesty, how the above provided definition of Capitalis is inherently tyrannical. Based on the definition alone. Furthermore, explain why it's tyrannical that two people cannot occupy the same scarce resource at once.
And for the record, you've never explained what Absolute Property rights meant. In fact you can't define anything without using history. You've read too much marxist jargon and actually believe that history is a refuting mechanism, designed to promote your own ideology.
@flic
I have no idea how you have the patience to explain things.
He'll probably give you his personal view on the history of capitalism. Omit most of the important questions, and only answer those he wants with wonderful rhetoric.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Ownership itself does not produce anything.
Ownership is simply an an ackwnoledgement that no two people can occupy the same scarce resource at the same given time. This is just you getting hung up on semantics again, not like the word ownerhsip.
Look your dragging me back into a fruitless argument over items that are of not a concern to socialists or capitalists alike. What you need to do is explain to us, how your system is not just a re-defined regirgitation of the market. How are you not just trying to re-create everything, as an afterthought to markets.
Call it what you like, it call it socialism, call it market socialism. But what your doing is trying to rebuild capitalism, while trying as best you can to omit any termonology that relates to it.