It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Socialist Calculation Problem

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Karl Marx defined socialism as: a ban on the private ownership of the means of production.

Aside from the fact that man's mind is his motive power which produces that which people want, so socialism really seeks to regulate the thoughts of others, there are a number of economic problems with socialism. The very most potent one I have ever found is called the Socialist Calculation Problem, otherwise known as the Economic Calculation Problem, and is outlined in depth in "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" by Ludwig von Mises in 1920 first, and was subsequently added to in response to criticism. He intellectually SAVAGES the arguments presented up to that point, and indeed to this very day to show how socialism is economically possible.

A quick summary of Mises' argument. If the private ownership of the means of production are banned, that means that they are all public (the state owns them all). If the state owns all the means of production, that means the state has nobody to trade those goods with. If there's nobody to trade with, there are no markets. If there are no markets, there are no prices. Therefore socialists have no RATIONAL economic method to allocate resources intelligently.

Here is a WIKI outlining the issues broadly. en.wikipedia.org...
Here is a link to the wiki for Mises' article in 1920 and subsequently his finished work. en.wikipedia.org...
Here is a link to the president of the Mises Institute explaining the problems with the Socialist Calculation Problem www.youtube.com...

Without refuting this problem, socialism cannot exist intelligently. It's just a religion of VERY disturbed men trying to stifle the free will of others. That's why these links matter. People need to think about these issues.




posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Socialism is meant for a unselfish world.

Another world is possible



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3sixand9
Socialism is meant for a unselfish world.

Another world is possible


No it is not, and I hope it never becomes an unselfish world. If you don't love yourself, you can't follow God's commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" worth a dang



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JimERustler

Your argument has a severe flaw.


If the state owns all the means of production, that means the state has nobody to trade those goods with.


The state would/could still trade with other countries.



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimERustler

Your argument has a severe flaw.


If the state owns all the means of production, that means the state has nobody to trade those goods with.


The state would/could still trade with other countries.


If you can't even get microeconomics to work, perhaps you should just back waaaaaaay up and figure that out before you try to posit a macro response.


Microeconomics are VERY important to figuring out the cost of consumer goods.... and for planning out products from research to development to production to shipping....
The fact of the matter is that the state would STILL be flying blind on the global market in regards to the value of the products they were talking about.
edit on 31-3-2020 by JimERustler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JimERustler

Communism and Socialism are not the same things.

Socialism allows for enterprise and private ownership. Communism abolishes ownership and replaces it with usership.

Socialism proposes equal distribution of profit, especially among those who generated the profit. Communism proposes equal distribution of assets to the usership.

Socialism is an economic principle and can be applied under numerous political systems. Communism is a political system.

edit on 31/3/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JimERustler

Communism and Socialism are not the same things.

Socialism allows for enterprise and private ownership. Communism abolishes ownership and replaces it with usership.

Socialism proposes equal distribution of profit, especially among those who generated the profit. Communism proposes equal distribution of assets to the usership.

Socialism is an economic principle and can be applied under numerous political systems. Communism is a political system.



www.history.com...

Communism is a specific case of socialism, which was ironically intellectually savaged by Marx. The Utopians all had flaws, the market socialists all had flaws, and then came Marx with "scientific socialism" AKA communism to "deal" with their failures. Socialism (including Communism) through and through is refuted by Mises' argument however. It's a philosophy of slavery, rallied for by people who seek to rob their betters. Bad plan. Their betters are often prepared for such events.
edit on 31-3-2020 by JimERustler because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2020 by JimERustler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JimERustler

There would still be markets that have values for buying and selling. Even if half of the worlds countries suddenly went state controlled production, they could/would still trade with other countries. They could/would trade with other “socialist” countries for goods swapped, rather than monetary.

So yes, big flaw in your argument. So big they make “your mamma” jokes.



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimERustler

There would still be markets that have values for buying and selling. Even if half of the worlds countries suddenly went state controlled production, they could/would still trade with other countries. They could/would trade with other “socialist” countries for goods swapped, rather than monetary.

So yes, big flaw in your argument. So big they make “your mamma” jokes.


Yeah they would, the prices would just be gobledegook and shortages and surpluses would occur shortly. They would have no RATIONAL way of trading. It'd be flying blind by night. INDIVIDUALS are paramount to getting an accurate price signal.



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimERustler

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimERustler

There would still be markets that have values for buying and selling. Even if half of the worlds countries suddenly went state controlled production, they could/would still trade with other countries. They could/would trade with other “socialist” countries for goods swapped, rather than monetary.

So yes, big flaw in your argument. So big they make “your mamma” jokes.


Yeah they would, the prices would just be gobledegook and shortages and surpluses would occur shortly. They would have no RATIONAL way of trading. It'd be flying blind by night. INDIVIDUALS are paramount to getting an accurate price signal.


No. The market values would still be set by the value (worth of product) set by the markets of the other countries. Be it through swap trading or monetary trades. Same as it is now.



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimERustler

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JimERustler

Communism and Socialism are not the same things.

Socialism allows for enterprise and private ownership. Communism abolishes ownership and replaces it with usership.

Socialism proposes equal distribution of profit, especially among those who generated the profit. Communism proposes equal distribution of assets to the usership.

Socialism is an economic principle and can be applied under numerous political systems. Communism is a political system.



www.history.com...

Communism is a specific case of socialism, which was ironically intellectually savaged by Marx. The Utopians all had flaws, the market socialists all had flaws, and then came Marx with "scientific socialism" AKA communism to "deal" with their failures. Socialism (including Communism) through and through is refuted by Mises' argument however. It's a philosophy of slavery, rallied for by people who seek to rob their betters. Bad plan. Their betters are often prepared for such events.


Socialism can be applied as an economic principle under Capitalist political economies. Communism cannot.

An example is the social security schemes of various political systems that protect the worker base through job change, unemployment, illness, and disability. Social Security is Socialist. It doesn't stop people from working (although some do use it that way) nor does it stop people from persuing personal and business profit.



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: JimERustler

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimERustler

There would still be markets that have values for buying and selling. Even if half of the worlds countries suddenly went state controlled production, they could/would still trade with other countries. They could/would trade with other “socialist” countries for goods swapped, rather than monetary.

So yes, big flaw in your argument. So big they make “your mamma” jokes.


Yeah they would, the prices would just be gobledegook and shortages and surpluses would occur shortly. They would have no RATIONAL way of trading. It'd be flying blind by night. INDIVIDUALS are paramount to getting an accurate price signal.


No. The market values would still be set by the value (worth of product) set by the markets of the other countries. Be it through swap trading or monetary trades. Same as it is now.


Nope the prices would be based not on truth, but in subjectivity of those "in charge".

What would you do if the other nations priced their goods in such a manner as to play you? I'll tell you what - you'd get played.

edit on 31-3-2020 by JimERustler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JimERustler

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JimERustler

Communism and Socialism are not the same things.

Socialism allows for enterprise and private ownership. Communism abolishes ownership and replaces it with usership.

Socialism proposes equal distribution of profit, especially among those who generated the profit. Communism proposes equal distribution of assets to the usership.

Socialism is an economic principle and can be applied under numerous political systems. Communism is a political system.



www.history.com...

Communism is a specific case of socialism, which was ironically intellectually savaged by Marx. The Utopians all had flaws, the market socialists all had flaws, and then came Marx with "scientific socialism" AKA communism to "deal" with their failures. Socialism (including Communism) through and through is refuted by Mises' argument however. It's a philosophy of slavery, rallied for by people who seek to rob their betters. Bad plan. Their betters are often prepared for such events.


Socialism can be applied as an economic principle under Capitalist political economies. Communism cannot.

An example is the social security schemes of various political systems that protect the worker base through job change, unemployment, illness, and disability. Social Security is Socialist. It doesn't stop people from working (although some do use it that way) nor does it stop people from persuing personal and business profit.


Socialism is neither economic, nor principled. And I will fight for that truth tooth and nail. You are correct though about one issue, socialism NEEDS a capitalistic society to leech off of, or it literally starves to death... Social Security is one of the dumbest and most inefficient way of "taking care" of old people that could possibly be devised. You know who came up with it right? That's right - Otto von Bismarck - modern socialists' favorite hero they never knew they had (who paved the way for Hitler's rise to power). You know why they chose 65 as the age to start paying? Because that was the average life expectancy of those who would pay into it.

I don't think of American socialists as socialist. I think of them as nazis. Literal National Socialists. And it's my opinion that nazi's need their asses kicked. Whether or not they are racist Germans or not.
edit on 31-3-2020 by JimERustler because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2020 by JimERustler because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2020 by JimERustler because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2020 by JimERustler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JimERustler


Nope the prices would be based not on truth, but in subjectivity of those "in charge

No different to the way they are now.


What would you do if the other nations priced their goods in such a manner as to play you? I'll tell you what - you'd get played.

Again, no different to the way they are now.
edit on 3132020 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

dude those in charge are NEVER those involved in the actual production of the goods, and are not invested in that process, so they ignore the little facts that all matter in producing a product in reality, and they impose their utopian ideas onto the economy and ruin the freedom and prosperity of everyone as they do so. Socialism is STRAIGHT UP EVIL.



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

whoever is insta-starring your posts are mindless followers who can't comprehend the magnitude of the problem for them. If you don't have ACCURATE prices, but rather "prices" that depend on divested parties interests, then you don't have an ACTUAL trade happening. You don't have an ACTUAL market. You don't have ACTUAL prices that people WANT TO PAY for a given good.... Central planners are just playing God. And let me tell you - THEY AIN'T GOD.



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimERustler
a reply to: TerryDon79

dude those in charge are NEVER those involved in the actual production of the goods, and are not invested in that process, so they ignore the little facts that all matter in producing a product in reality, and they impose their utopian ideas onto the economy and ruin the freedom and prosperity of everyone as they do so. Socialism is STRAIGHT UP EVIL.


That’s nice.

Still doesn’t change or counter anything I’ve posted in response to the gaping hole in your OP.



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: JimERustler
a reply to: TerryDon79

dude those in charge are NEVER those involved in the actual production of the goods, and are not invested in that process, so they ignore the little facts that all matter in producing a product in reality, and they impose their utopian ideas onto the economy and ruin the freedom and prosperity of everyone as they do so. Socialism is STRAIGHT UP EVIL.


That’s nice.

Still doesn’t change or counter anything I’ve posted in response to the gaping hole in your OP.


you have no idea what you are talking about. You have basically advocated that states should play God in regards to issues that they don't understand. Like playing poker all the time, without EVER looking at your cards before you bet. A nationstate that's absent the information gathered through the free market process lacks a way to *RATIONALLY* trade. You are advocating IRRATIONALITY as NATIONAL POLICY. You should be denied.



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Imagine a job that sucked REALLY bad. So bad in fact, that only one man did it, and he offered a price to do it that was "too high". Socialism would cry: MONOPOLY! and ban him from doing it, or otherwise discourage him, such as mandating he charge less. To which he would rightfully cry "tyranny!" and either throw off his shackles and resist, or be rendered akin to a slave to inferior men who understand less than him.
edit on 31-3-2020 by JimERustler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2020 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: JimERustler


you have no idea what you are talking about.

Says the person with gaping holes in their OP.


You have basically advocated that states should play God in regards to issues that they don't understand.

Not once have I done that.


Like playing poker all the time, without EVER looking at your cards before you bet.

That's actually quite fun to do, sometimes.


A nationstate that's absent the information gathered through the free market process lacks a way to *RATIONALLY* trade.

No it doesn't. It uses the values of goods sold/bought from other countries to come up with the value of goods.


You are advocating IRRATIONALITY as NATIONAL POLICY.

I have advocating for precisely nothing. Just pointing out the huge holes in your thread.


You should be denied.

That's what wives are for.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join