[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / asmr / cafechan / doomer / tingles / vg / xivlg ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Ya'll need Mises.

File: d0c7a3e493f33ea⋯.jpg (8.45 KB, 218x231, 218:231, 1.11.jpg)

 No.97350

What would be the symptoms of the alleged 'socialist planning problem'?

Without private ownership of the means of production, there would be no price signals to automatically rank the most-and-least productive uses of the factors of production through a bidding process; economic planning would have to be used, whether with a computer or bureaucracy (though even a computer can only calculate, not see into people's minds to learn what they want and need, so it's unclear how this particularly helps).

Anyway, what would be the symptoms of this problem? Is it just 'we made things which didn't satisfy our wants as much as the set of goods capitalism would have made'?

 No.97353

Any variety of problems, as prices define just about everything in a market economy. A few samples:

>produce too much of thing

>produce not enough of thing

>produce thing but cost per unit is way higher than it should be

>produce thing but thing does not do what consumers want it to do

>produce thing but it's of horrible quality

You can find more examples by just looking at the various problems the USSR faced, and there's no shortage of those. One that I remember is chandeliers; because there were no market signals Soviet chandeliers were just made according to durability specs and ended up being comically large and heavy. Whenever they were hung onto a ceiling, the ceiling simply caved in, and they had to start covertly importing chandeliers from parts of Europe. Some Gosplan economists actually inadvertently bumped into the calculation problem from the other side, funnily enough. They were compiling a government-did-nothing-wrong report to explain away the frequent shortages the USSR was experiencing, and pointed out that the 2000+ different price levels Gosplan had to keep track of was impossible to do, and thus they were doing the best they could under the circumstances. Thus, without knowing it they were able to create the perfect case study depicting the Misesian calculation problem.

>Is it just 'we made things which didn't satisfy our wants as much as the set of goods capitalism would have made'?

It is that, but it's not "just" that. Making things that don't satisfy your wants is a pretty big deal when the want is extreme hunger and the thing is food, for instance. Not being able to satisfy wants is a pretty big deal.


 No.97357

File: a626ec913b07293⋯.png (354.87 KB, 1400x656, 175:82, misesCalculation.png)

>>97353

>Not being able to satisfy wants is a pretty big deal.

If you're a utilitarian like Mises was or a lot of other philosophers are, it's pretty much the whole deal.

Your answer emphasized shortages, but I also want to emphasize:

>The economy begins to engage in massive consumption of capital goods, like a starving body eating away at its own organs to survive.

>Depending on the black market to survive, and the corruptive and moral degradation that might cause.

>Chandeliers story

The story I remember hearing about coal production in Poland, where they started mixing it with stone dust to meet the tonnage quotas, and it resulted in coal quality so poor that it barely made it acceptable for use even in heating.

Or because of a strict number quota, nails that were so thin that you couldn't use them except as pins.

Also, just the general stagnation. I'm reminded of the novel Time Will Run Back.


 No.97358

>>97357

>If you're a utilitarian like Mises was or a lot of other philosophers are, it's pretty much the whole deal.

As long as we're talking strictly economics and not including morality in that, I would agree. I don't believe Mises was strictly utilitarian when it came to oughts, and his successors most certainly were not.


 No.97361

>>97353

>produce thing but cost per unit is way higher than it should be

Do you mean in terms of raw materials, or opportunity cost? Would like to hear more about this. Higher in terms of what cost, and why?


 No.97364

>>97358

I agree that Mises' successors were not, but I think Mises himself was indeed a utilitarian:

https://mises.org/library/defense-misess-utilitarianism

>>97361

>'Alleged' in the OP

>'Would like to hear more about this.'

Uh huh.

We all know you've got an argument you want to pull out. Just pull it out already.


 No.97365

>>97364

YOU'VE EVER SO SLIGHTLY REFERENCED AN OBJECTIVE COST, AND THEREFORE HAVE FALLEN INTO MY MASTERFUL RUSE. SO, YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE VALUE FUNCTION THEN! BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA


 No.97368

>>97357

Even if it wasn't efficient, the individual should be free to decide how to use the resources available and the price system is the only way to guarantee a fair distribution since it's based on all people using the resources they have in the way they want.


 No.97390

>>97361

Both, really. The key takeaway is that capital and other factors of production are not being allocated in the best possible manner.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / asmr / cafechan / doomer / tingles / vg / xivlg ]