/liberty/ - Liberty

>How can economic action that always consists of preferring and setting aside, that is, of making unequal valuations, be transformed into equal valuations, and the use of equations?

By unequal valuations, did he mean subjective values of an individual cannot be compared to another individual quantitatively?

There are many ways in which Mises has been interpreted. That the calculation is too complex is something he explicitly denied.

https://mises.org/wire/entrepreneurship-kirzner-vs-mises

…of course, central planning is explicitly barred by socialism while capitalism is based on the proprietorship of a central planner.

>>79710

>2. He concedes that we have demolished the argument that socialist calculation is too complex to be feasible.

Complexity is not the problem. It never was. As we have pointed out repeatedly.

It's telling that you guys can seldom summarize the philosophers and economists you read in your own words. You don't make their thoughts your own, you are just happy you have these smart people on your side. This is true for Stirner, Cockshott, Cottrell, Zizek, Bookchin, and often Marx. I'm not playing these silly games. If you think there is something relevant written in this paper, at least quote one passage to show me as much. Don't expect me to read ten pages after you wrote two letters.

>>79714

>actually listing Karl "they won't let me in Saint Imier" Marx

>>79714

Sorry that I made you read to find something of revelence.

I shouldve known ancaps can't read.

>I still see people arguing that Mises' point was that "The calculation is too complex to do!"

Hell, even the wikipedia page on the Economic calculation problem says that this is the issue.

>>79714

Hayek left the door open by only leaving it up to "processing complexity" which doesn't make much sense when Mises had already dealt with that before him. Maybe it was just Hayek being a cunt wanting to have some relevant achievement to his name and decided to appropriate Mises's theory.

>>79738

>I shouldve known ancaps can't read.

Not to brag, but I read about a hundred books last year. I could list them if you want, but would rather save myself the time.

>>79812

Were you reading pamphlets or what? How the fuck do you finish a book every 3.6 days?

>>79818

Depends on what he's reading. I can finish 500 page fiction novels in around that time easily enough. That number stretches credibility for really dense nonfiction works, however.

>>79818

>dis nigga cant read a book in three and a half days

It's about the content of the book, not the length. Doesnt matter if it's 600 pages, if it's a good ass book you will tear through it in a single sitting.

We should start a book club with some tame chaps from /leftypol/. This way we are literally on the same page and can debate on even ground.

>>79830

You seems skeptical, but I can assure you the reason you've never finished Kapital is not because it's a long book, but a boring book.

>>79832

Just because you finished a book quickly does not mean it is good. There is no linear relationship between how easy a book is to read and how great it is in ideas. It is more likely that you did not comprehend the book than that it was a good book. Unless you also think Dr. Suisse books are the greatest books in existance?

>>79835

It depends a lot on the type of the book, for example most fiction should be read in a single sit if possible while philosophical works should be read and reread slowly and carefully.

>>79828

It also depends on how much time you actually spend reading per day.

>>79829

>This way we are literally on the same page and can debate on even ground.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>79821

>>79818

Was reading a lot of different things, ranging from simple pamphlets and light hearted fiction to economics and thomistic philosophy, and whatever is in between these two extremes. The really short pamphlets, I don't count. Length was anywhere between a hundred and six-hundred pages or so, although

My schedule this year is not as insane. I'm actually listening to my lectures now instead of reading books on my phone (my grades hated me, but I don't regret that tradeoff), I have a girlfriend to take care of, spend more time with my family, and my work has gotten more demanding. Which is all fine by me. Wisdom is to be found in more than books, as good as they are if you approach them right. I have met people who claim to read two- or three-hundred books a year, including very long and dense ones, who nevertheless do not show much depth of thought, or who are still incredibly ignorant on some topics that they actively engage in. They read much, but without any system behind it.

>>79838

Thank you for your contribution. You are special!

>>79829

This has about as much chance as working out as socialism does; half the time we're not even using the same mindset for argumentation so debating on "even ground" or even with a modicum of civility is next to impossible.