/lit/ - Literature

the same way we do everything else, by chopping our cocks off and upvoting CIA-funded influencers on twitter

>>21763592
You could just go anti-capitalist like any true communist.

>>21763592
Trust the plan, comrade.

>>21763592
Define 'efficient allocation of labour'

>>21763592
Mises wrote that before modern computation which is why the idea of large scale data processing might of seemed absurd. You don't need to be familiar with the economics of Wassily Leontief to appreciate how AI and such could fudge things where necessary. There's so many examples of gross inefficiencies and waste right now under actually existing capitalism that claiming the use of effective demand under arbitrary nominal budget constraints is the best of all worlds is the real absurdity.

>>21763742
Watch him do it tautologically

>>21763964
I'm fairly sure you have no clue how AI works nor what it do, because you're talking out of your ass. But if you're so sure about your ideas, what is stopping you from contacting North Korea or Cuba and explaining them how they can become real communists with computers?

>>21763969
Sanctions, duhhh https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-25/crypto-conference-in-north-korea-leads-to-more-criminal-charges

Anyways reforming Soviet type command economies towards a true cybernetic planning system would involve to much bureaucratic resistance and the insiders and intelligentsia tend to believe they have more to gain from privatizing and looting the scrap metal

So, the miserable failure of every socialist country in existence wasn't enough to make you realize this?
Consider Venezuela...they have massive oil reserves, were a founding member of OPEC, and still they don't have enough money to make socialism work.

>>21763592
Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc all effectively managed economies the size of small countries using something akin to an AI politburo for pricing decisions
the days of slide rules are over

>>21764012
venezuela and cuba would be fine places to live without crippling sanction regimes denying them access to international markets

>>21764031
This. I don't know about Cuba, but Venezuela is already a good place to live if you're part of the higher classes. The problem is that the sanctions make it impossible to distribute the wealth to the lower classes. Imagine how great it would be if that were not the case, but American imperialism will never let it happen.

>>21764012
>So, the miserable failure of every socialist country in existence wasn't enough to make you realize this?
All socialists economies resorted to some form of "state capitalism". None of them were anywhere near advanced enough to actually try to work out a system not dependent on market relations. China still claims that's where they're working towards.

>Consider Venezuela...they have massive oil reserves, were a founding member of OPEC, and still they don't have enough money to make socialism work.
You know oil isn't enough to build an economy on. Venezuela wasn't exactly an advanced economy before Chavez and he didn't intend on transitioning away from a market economy... Chavez claimed to be more of a social democrat and why that didn't work out doesn't have to do with any attempt at actually working out a national planning agency or anything. Venezuela did numerous obvious populist retard shit like peg their currency to USD and nationalizing companies and taking on their foreign financial liabilities without adequately thinking of the long term issues involved.

>>21764045
Cuba is the same. There's plenty if you make it to the top, but it cannot be distributed because the country is crippled with sanctions.

>>21764053
>Venezuela wasn't exactly an advanced economy before Chavez
Weren't they the richest country in South America?

>>21764026
this is a text book about pricing by the lead guy who works on pricing at amazon and also a columbia b-school prof. interesting stuff.

>>21764060
No but still being rich =/= generally "advanced". The Saudi's are rich but if the price of oil were ever to collapse because of alternative energy... well things could change quickly

>>21764067
>No
Which one was richer?

>>21763592
Communism works the same way a man can get pregnant or a woman can have a penis. Not really but we can stop people from noticing with threats of violence and call them the oppressors despite us having all the repressive apparatus.

>>21764057
north korea is the same. communism has truly succeeded if you're part of the upper echelon of the party or a member of the ruling family, but due to the sanctions they can't redistribute any of the wealth and now the masses are experiencing food insecurity.

>>21764068
Technically none, but that's not the point.

>>21764031
What, they can't get everything they need from non-U.S.-aligned countries?
So everyone but the U.S. & its allies are total failures?
>>21764053
>oil isn't enough to build an economy on
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait...I could go on.

>>21764067
>if the price of oil were ever to collapse because of alternative energy
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>21764093
what do you think all this green energy shit is really about?

>>21764074
Well, I prefer to live under a system where a decent standard of living is open to more than just the upper echelon.
So socialism is out.

>>21764101
just be a member of the central committee bro

>>21764097
Green energy is a pipe dream.
Wind/solar farms slaughter birds.
Offshore wind farms are now slaughtering whales.
Look up "eagle kill permit" if you think green energy is actually green.
Or how much lithium is needed to make all the batteries for your electric vehicles, versus how much exists in the world.
Or how electric-car fires take like 50 tons of water to put out, vs. 2 tons for internal-combustion-engine fires.

>>21764109
I'm not a joiner.
I prefer to be left alone.
I do pretty well at that in the country where I reside.

>>21764109
Are you implying that the people who are working to make socialism possible shouldn't get the enjoy the fruits of their work?

>>21764126
>bro, you're not a real communist unless you starve yourself
Capitalists are braindead.

>>21764097
If you were really serious about green energy, you'd support hydrothermal liquefaction.
It can take arbitrary biowaste and convert it into carbon-neutral crude oil.
Cooking grease, unrecyclable plant trimmings (e.g. cactus), water-treament plant sludge...
Convicted felons, welfare parasites, illegal immigrants...plus, their breathing will no longer emit carbon dioxide.
Until you embrace this, you're not really serious about green energy.

>>21763592
by having more than two braincells

>>21764115
>kills birds, wastes water

What a rube. Habitat loss kills birds. Cars on roads kill more birds in a day than all the wind farms ever have. Windows of bildings kill birds.
How many tank farm fires, refinery fires, coal fires have there been? There is a coal fire in Europe that has been burning since the 1400s!

The wind Turbines kill birds is a lie. There was just a study of how many sea birds were killed by off shore wind farms and it noted that birds fly around them!

Lithium isn't the way to make batteries, it is just the most profitable for now.

Why do I bother trying to teach science to those interested in economics. Its like teaching math to Christians.....

>>21764115
>batteries suck
true, which is why we'll eventually transition to hydrogen.

>>21764185
You didn't Google "eagle kill permit", did you.
So much for "green" energy.
And you know what all your examples of animal deaths have in common?
None of them are green energy.
You're attempting to deflect, big-time, and it's pathetic.
>>21764195
Er, yeah...as soon as we figure out how to make pressurized hydrogen tanks not explode immediately during a car crash.

>>21764101
i... i think they might have meant that ironically

>>21764206
hydrogen is less explosive than gasoline though? hydrogen fuel cells don't rely on combustion. it's converted to electricity with pure water as exhaust.

>>21764221
>hydrogen is less explosive than gasoline
Er...

Capitalism will not stop until the human is completely phased out but we’re not far enough for the normoids to realize it yet

>>21763592
It's a choir preaching meme among corpo cultists. It doesn't even make sense.

The Economic Calculation "Problem" was floated by Mises, an extremely ideologically motivated ideologue, in 1920.

The Russian Revolution was in 1917 and wrapped up around 1923. Lenin himself finally died 1924 a heavily declined invalid.

In other words, the Calculation Problem was clearly a PREDICTION of imminent demise of what would become the USSR. That prediction failed abysmally by overwhelming empirical evidence. We can now say the USSR was the most powerful Russia has ever been. Fortunately for Internet people, time and history can get misty after the fact if you want it to be, and the Calculation Problem can be imagined to have been predicted right before 1991. If you don't care about intellectual rigor or honesty.

Declaring the USSR collapse (which was political, not economic by the way) is proof of a fundamental economic doom problem as above is like declaring that a runner is a fraud that will surely fail the race, trying to poison him outside the race to "prove" his inferiority, failing, and then declaring victory when said runner dies at 65 of cancer.

>>21764255
Socialism does a much better job of "phasing" out humans, e.g. Lysenkoism, the "Great Leap Forward", Cambodia's genocide, etc.

>>21764265
Lysenko was right tho. Denying him is denying science.

>>21764260
>the USSR collapse (which was political, not economic by the way)
Oh, please.
They ran out of hard currency & couldn't support themselves with what they made/grew themselves.

>>21764267
>Lysenko was right
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>21764278
So are you denying science? You don't want to be a science denier, do you?

>>21764248
Look of “heat of reaction” you retard

>>21764265
Talking about socialism is almost pointless. Capitalism rules the world.

>>21764045
>>21764057
>if you are part of the higher class

>>21764302
You deliberately left out the part where they said the wealth can't be distributed to the lower classes because those countries are crippled by sanctions. Good attempt though.

>>21764293
I fully support you getting a hydrogen-fueled vehicle.
Because I want to see you die in a fiery explosion.

>>21764276
Literally just read up on the wiki of the USSR collapse or something before you start trying to say otherwise.

But anyway, it's actually very simple to test this thesis even if you can't/won't do that. Simply notice the reality of North Korea. Far more of an economic basket case than the USSR could ever hope to be at its worse. It's still around and kicking. Cuba for that matter too.

There you go. We don't even have to play the tiresome game of is China "real communism" and what that really is, despite the fact that is also still around and richer than ever.

>couldn't support themselves with what they made/grew themselves.
You're clearly getting talking points from somewhere but this also hasn't been thought out. Nations being net importers of food is very common in highly developed countries. Japan has to import food to survive too, for example. Is Japan a poor country on the verge of collapse?

>>21764305
They are not sanctioned by the entire world, just the U.S.-aligned nations.
You're basically emitting that nations not aligned with the U.S. totally suck.

>>21764289
Given how much of what was trumpeted as "science" during the pandemic has turned out to be self-serving fiction, the whole 'science denier" shtick is dead on arrival.

>>21764305
No, the very fact they have higher classes is what's ironic. its an essential paradox.

>>21764309
My source is that well known alt-right propaganda machine, the New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/23/world/gorbachev-pleads-for-100-billion-in-aid-from-west.html
Needless to say, his enemies didn't float him the loan.
>North Korea
Kept afloat by China. Duh.
>China
Their government cannot possibly bail out the nation's contingent liabilities.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/protests-break-out-chinese-cities-are-buried-under-10-trillion-debt
Plus, their population is shrinking, and no one wants to immigrate there.
>Japan
Not even vaguely comparable. They have hard currency & plenty of things to trade with the rest of the world.
Your arguments are so weak, you have to be putting me on.
Or maybe you're really this dumb.
In which case, you're the perfect poster child for socialism.

>>21764322
Essential paradox...or evidence that their claims of "equity" are pure bullshit.

>>21764393
anon, thats an implication of that post you idiot, don't have to spell it out.

>>21763592
>trust the numbers and statistics i gave you bro there is no lively world
npc moment

>>21764402
Read over this thread.
Can you fault me for not knowing which posts are parodies?
The serious proponents sound like sadcringe lolcows.

>>21764445
Your inability to extrapolate responsibly will be your death here.

>>21764011
Even if it were possible, I still see two huge problems with computer-based central planning:

1. Privacy concerns. Basically computers would need to know too much about you. Instead of having Amazon, Netflix, FB, Twitter, Google, etc., it would all be ONE huge Amazon, inescapable unlike the current one, controlling all in the name of "the people" but in reality for the Big Bezos in charge. Imagine the government -- not just Google, but the government -- controlling everyone's internet history since they were kids, knowing everything about what you buy, what you want, what you desire.
2. Systemic fragility. Since everything would be computer based, any enemy hacker could know way too much about your economy and your people. It's very important for there to be something in the real world just *in case* the computer system breaks - because break it will as soon as there is a real war. So you should still allow a substantial amount of non-centrally-planned economic transactions, just like the socialists often allow a substantial amount of free trade in their countries.

>>21763592
read it and realize there's nothing there to recover from?

>>21764206
green energy is not defined by how few animals it kills you retard, i know you're not here to debate in good faith tho so whatever

>>21764313
>You're basically emitting that nations not aligned with the U.S. totally suck.
please read super imperialism by michael hudson, please i beg of you, this is a reading board so please dont let my recommendation be in vain

>>21764363
>no one wants to immigrate there.
they don't have an immigration process unless you're obscenely wealthy, which is absolutely not the same as people not wanting to immigrate there.

>>21764460
Nah, I'll just respond autistically by accident. No big deal.
>>21764603
Don't forget that AI isn't going to be perfect. Nothing created by mankind is.
Free markets can adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
AI, trained on what came before, can only respond with what worked before.
It's a recipe for stagnation.
>>21765642
Yes, killing animals indiscriminately pretty much ruins the environmental friendliness of so-called green energy.
One of the points of being environmentally friendly is to preserve nature and wildlife.
Wind/solar farms fail hugely on this criterion.
>>21765649
I'm aware that the U.S. government is spending itself into oblivion.
But that's because it pursues socialist entitlements that have no return on investment.
Your advocacy of more socialism will simply lead to collapse...as socialism does everywhere it's been tried.
>>21765656
No one in their right mind wants to immigrate to China.
Why subject yourself to a totalitarian nightmare with a heavily indebted economy and leaders who rule by their whims? Sounds like my definition of Hell.

>>21765736
>Free markets can adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
>AI, trained on what came before, can only respond with what worked before.
good lord thats some serious brainrot you got there

>>21765736
i feel like im talking to a 50 year-old burgerboomer. is that correct?

A lot of people who argue against free market because of "inefficiency" or "waste" don't get the optimal allocation is from the perspective of preferences of market agents and not the values/opinions of those who complain.
Also Keynesian tried to develop computational approaches to planning and it's not possible, because it's not possible to predict people's preferences and needs.

>>21765736
>Yes, killing animals indiscriminately pretty much ruins the environmental friendliness of so-called green energy.
>One of the points of being environmentally friendly is to preserve nature and wildlife.
>Wind/solar farms fail hugely on this criterion.
Okay, let's say this is true, and that to an extent green energy is not 100% environmentally friendly. In fact, let's stop calling it green energy and call it renewable energy so you'll stop sperging about language. At the end of the day, a wind/solar farm will only effect the local environment, meanwhile coal, oil, etc., will have a drastic global effect (global warming even by a few degrees will make a number of species extinct, and will raise water levels, displacing many humans and reducing the available land). Because of this, the renewable energy, even if not completely environmentally clean, is cleaner than coal, oil, etc.

>>21765822
>A lot of people who argue against free market because of "inefficiency" or "waste" don't get the optimal allocation is from the perspective of preferences of market agents
...and the preferences of market agents are revealed in what transactions they actually chose to make, so that in the end the market is tautologically defined as fully efficient. yes, very epic
>[T]he idea that the market is a great coordinator between needs and production, that it does this much better than planning ever could, this idea is in fact a pure tautology. It claims as an achievement nothing more than the fact that all the goods that were sold found buyers. Again, to make the thought clear: in this great coordination achievement, if the market only accepts needs with the means to buy, and real needs, as long as they don’t have money or not enough money, don’t count; and if, on the other side of the coordination achievement, in the case of products, only those that are sold, that is, that found a buyer, and everything that is of poor quality or has too high a price or has been produced in too large a quantity for it to be sold on the market does not enter into the market equilibrium, then the famous market equilibrium is a pure tautology: everything that was sold has also found a buyer; for every good that was sold, a buyer had appeared – yes, that’s probably true.... But here the whole scam is to pretend that this is an achievement. This tautology applies at any time. It applies in the greatest economic crisis as well as in the worst famine, and it applies in boom times.

>>21765822
>>21765832
"they bought what they bought, because that's exactly what they wanted to buy, which we know because that's what they chose to buy after all." ergo all the buying that happened corresponded to agent preferences, and the same thing with selling. which means perfect efficiency of the market!

and then people unironically pretend this is science rather than pure apologia

>>21763592
Did Mises know Julia?

>>21763964
Mises arguments against calculation are not tied to technology or technical difficulty of performing said calculation(availability of data etc.) but rather a conclusion coming from his anxioms where the logic of calculators ends in running in circles. There has to be some retarded YouTube character who came up with this argument because noone who read Mises or critiques of his makes that argument and this is the 2nd variation of it I've heard.

>>21764603
No, AI central planning is still retarded.

You have a limited amount of resource X and 2 kids need X to live.
If you divide X in two and give half and half both die.
So under a central planning you should use some criteria to save one of the kids or some justification to kill both.
A central planner could come with some convulted idea like for example that "the humanitaria answer is to divide X in two and kill both kids but doing the right thing in the process". Other retard could tell you that with enough computational power you could, for example, do a deep profile of the kids genes and neural structure and determine which kid survival will better society.

The problem of that is that you will never have enough computational power to determine something like that. But THERE IS a system that allows that. There is a system with enough computational power that will set society in the right course. It's called natural selection.
Instead of using some retarded statistical model to try to determine which kid shouldbe saved, allow the families of the kids, that share genetic information and have genetic interest, to compete for the survival of the kid so the genetic cluster more adapted could keep pushing forward.

No statistical model and no computer will have more computational power than reality.
Wanting to bound humanity path in a set course based on AI decision is the same as wanting reduce reality to a faulty model that will never capture it in its totality.
Instead of using reduced models of reality just allow reality to do its thing.
We don't need to "simulate" evolution and natural selection, just allow real evolution and natural selection to run its course. Any human simulation will be faulty.

>he says as we head into our bi-annual market crash

>>21764012
Which just happened to go to shit when oil fluctuated and trade was impeded. Must of their economy is not privatized anyway, it also wasn't diversified and was overly reliant on oil.

>>21764068
Chile was ahead of them for sure.
>>21764085
>Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait...I could go on.
All of those countries are much more diversified than Venezuela. Russia has some old aerospace shit and stuff from Soviet days and many more technically trained individuals. Saudi's/Kuwait are of course deep in international finance. Iran is the weaker example.
>>21764093
It's totally possible to electrify an economy and decrease overall demand with a combinations of nuclear, hydro, solar, whatever depending on context, no one is rushing those investments though so don't worry.
>>21765822
>A lot of people who argue against free market because of "inefficiency" or "waste" don't get the optimal allocation is from the perspective of preferences of market agents and not the values/opinions of those who complain.
That's empirically false. I prefer a lot of things I can't afford. Capitalism is constrained by effective demand not "preferences" in the abstract.
>Also Keynesian tried to develop computational approaches to planning and it's not possible, because it's not possible to predict people's preferences and needs.
lol I don't think so... most mathematical models of planned economies like Lange's are very neoclassical... Keynes is closer to the Austrians in most regards ironically and more radical in the sense he thought there was no rational long range pricing capacity

>>21764012
Which just happened to go to shit when oil fluctuated and trade was impeded. Must of their economy is privatized anyway, it also wasn't diversified and was overly reliant on oil.

Deleted og post

>>21764603
Those both are already the case right now. Government organizations like the NSA have the capacity to monitor basically all data flows, they are only "forbidden" to go all out by laws. So much of vital the infrastructure that makes everything work is also extremely vulnerable and has choke points that could be easily attacked fucking everything up. Basically as things stand if you don't force changes things get freely built in ways that leave data unsecure or build things in the cheapest, weakest, manner. Ideally you'd want some sort of constitutional limits and impositions to work out ways to deal with those issues but alas

>>21767023
wargames but with le trolley problem
Also social phenomena isn't Darwinian... memetics are more lamarckian

>>21767073
>Chile was ahead of them for sure.
I'm Chilean and before Chavez they were definitely richer than us.

>>21767073
>Chile was ahead of them for sure.
What the fuck are you talking about. Chile only started getting rich in the 2000s. In the 90s they were still dealing with coming out of the dictatorship and they were hit incredibly hard by the Asian financial crisis.

>>21767059
>What do you think of employee-owned companies as a compromise?
I think moving joint ownership of capitalist enterprises from one group of people to another isn't a compromise between communism and capitalism at all
>Couldn’t employee ownership of otherwise private companies turn everyone into profiteers in a way?
as long as there are profiteers, someone is being exploited. and when you merely make the workers their own exploiters, you don't get rid of any of the features of capitalism. in fact you only make capital more effective at exploitation, because arguably people self-policing is more effective than external policing. merging the exploiter and the exploitee into a single person is obviously just a further step in self-policing of the exploitees compared to merely bringing them as separate persons into a single national community, or into "the people".
so if this co-op society were be feasible, it would only represent a more perfect exploitation by capital. but it's also doubtful that it is feasible, that capitalist society can function in such way in reality, or that there's a realistic way of getting there from the current point.
>>21767073
>That's empirically false. I prefer a lot of things I can't afford.
if you have to spell such an obvious thing to him, it's clear he's too far gone. the point of the tautology he presents is that you don't actually prefer those things because you choose to buy other things over them. and it's further derived from the same tautology that you can't have more money or have other things you need cost less, because whatever those quantities are are already optimal (because your wage is also decided by the market, etc.), to the extent that the market isn't "distorted" by evil state forces or something

>>21767145
>>21767147
gdp per capita was higher? You'd really have to dig into the numbers instead of going on feels

>>21767152
Just looking at wikipedia

>Overreliance on oil prices and a fractured political system without parties agreeing on policies caused many of the problems.[45] By the mid-1990s, Venezuela under President Rafael Caldera saw annual inflation rates of 50–60% from 1993 to 1997, with the country suffering a severe banking crisis. In 1998, the economic crisis had grown even worse. Per capita GDP was at the same level as 1963 (after adjusting 1963 dollar to 1998 value), down a third from its 1978 peak; and the purchasing power of the average salary was a third of its 1978 level.[46]

Chavez came to power and was popular for a reason... retards claiming Venezuela was doing great before him are distorting things. Chavez of course didn't do sustainable reforms and fixed the exchange rate with USD in a way that was doomed to explode on them eventually tho

>>21767152
Yes, you fucking imbecile. Imagine telling someone they are going on feels, when you're the one doing it. Chile only passed Venezuela on GDP per capita PPP in 2002.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela#Economy_data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile#Main_economic_indicators

>>21767215
Fuck off. Imagine being a capitalist pig who tries to reduce life just to numbers. There's a reason why the Venezuelan people were clamoring for Chavez. Do you think they would have done that if they were so rich?

>>21763592
From what?

>>21767268
Capitalists will never be able to understand communism because they can't understand passion. They are too square minded for it. For them everything is numbers and indexes. They are unable to be passionate about the revolution. In other words, they have no soul.

>>21767215
You're not looking at the nominal numbers there are you? Also note the inflation rates in those charts you're citing

>>21767268
>Imagine being a capitalist pig who tries to reduce life just to numbers
You are literal quantifiable biomass

>>21767435
How are the nominal numbers more relevant in this specific case than the PPP? If it was the inverse, you could rightfully say that the numbers didn't reflect the reality of most people, which could have explained the ascension of Chavez, but what you're basically arguing is "okay, the average Venezuelan maybe had a higher living standard, but Chile's pseudo feudal economy was technically richer".

>>21767460
Nominal numbers matter because investors and consumers are actually morons contra Milton Friedman.

>>21763592
>>21763631
meds

>>21765757
You literally know nothing about how A.I. works.
>>21765760
No, but I get along better with people in that generation.
Mine is truly the worst generation ever.
>>21767073
>diversified
The oil and gas sector accounted up to roughly 40% of Russia's federal budget revenues, and up to 60% of its exports in 2019.
Saudi Arabia's economy is highly dependent on oil exports (87 percent of total exports).
Oil and gas account for more than half of Kuwait's GDP and approximately 92 percent of export revenues.
All these figures easily found by Google.
So now the question is...what's the weather like up your own ass?
>>21767077
>wasn't diversified and was overly reliant on oil
MY POINT.
>>21767059
Employees can buy stock if they want to. Some do.
>>21767343
Projection and "othering"

>>21768289
>The oil and gas sector accounted up to roughly 40% of Russia's federal budget revenues, and up to 60% of its exports in 2019.
That foreign trade with the west is collapsing under sanctions but Russias economy is holding up better than expect for a reason. Turns out Russia isn't just a giant gas station.

>Saudi Arabia's economy is highly dependent on oil exports (87 percent of total exports).
>Oil and gas account for more than half of Kuwait's GDP and approximately 92 percent of export revenues.
Look at how active these countries are financially internationally. Venezuela wasn't exactly doing big FDI overseas in the 90s lol

>>21768339
>Russia
They're selling oil/gas to India, who is reselling it, to dodge sanctions.
Their foreign energy trade is doing fine, under the table.
They didn't suddenly diversity their economy, moron.
>Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
Is "looking" at how active these countries are financially internationally going to change the hard percentages of how much of their income is dependent on oil & gas?
Then why even bring up such a red herring?
You're just telegraphing your ignorance.

>>21767006
What is the argument then? Can you sum it up?

>>21763964
This cuck actually wants his whole life dictated by machines.

>>21767006
you can tell always tell when someone havent read the book, always this supercomputer bullshit>>21763964

>>21763964
>>21768585
>>21768592
Their motives are transparent, and cowardly.
They're afraid to think for themselves.
They want an all-powerful government to do their thinking for them.
And a intelligent machine to do the rest of their thinking.
It's embarrassing to watch these people choose to cower.
What's causing this?
The estrogen-mimicking chemicals in tofu?
Widespread toxoplasmosis infection?
I'm truly baffled here.

>>21768592
Why do they even comment on something they haven’t read.

100 posts in and still not a single person was able to state how the book from Mises poses a problem for Marxists

>>21763964
that has nothing to do with Mises' argument, the problem is precisely that the relevant information cannot be processed and centralized given its nature, no amount of computational power can surpass this

>>21769742
eipc cope

>>21770076
101 posts

>>21763592
URSS economical issues had little to do with economical calculation. The main issues were mainly stuff relating to quality control and worker morale(it doesn't means that market forces couldn't avoid those issues, but Mises' reasoning behind why a planned economy would fail are wrong).

>>21769845
>the problem is precisely that the relevant information cannot be processed and centralized given its nature, no amount of computational power can surpass this
What information? Determining preferences or dealing with trade offs? Market economies don't do either particularly well and are suboptimal since you're left with structural excess capacity and people only buying what they can afford instead of what they want

>>21771491
why are you so pedantic? my favorite youtuber said clearly that he's been told that Mises has destroyed Marxism in that book. what else do you need

>>21764305
But they can be distributed to the higher classes it seems despite the crippling sanctions.

Most any place is good to live in if you are part of the higher classes. thats no different then fucking Saudi Arabia.

>>21771866
And how are they going to distribute the wealth to the lower classes exactly? You get that they cannot just print infinite money, right? Venezuela tried and inflation went through the roof.

>>21764012
>So, the miserable failure of every socialist country in existence wasn't enough to make you realize this?
And how many of those socialist states "failed" because the glowies rolled in, deposed their democratically elected leaders and installed right wing dictators instead?

>>21763592
If you're criticizing Marxism on any axis besides Bakunin's, I don't know why you bother.

"Marx is a Jew who surrounds himself by Jews," and "The State will require a big central bank."

And what a fucking surprise. After getting exiled from Socialist circles (by Jews) and after years of being ignored, every single fucking thing that Bakunin said would happen if people followed Marx's kike bullshit happened. Down to T. Every single fucking thing.

>Alright guys now we can do real Communism!
>We, the three Jews and our Jewish Cheka and our Jewish commissars, can now centralize all production
>Whoops starved millions of Ukrops to death
>Whoops killed millions of peasants
>Whoops oh no wait killing all the priests and digging up the corpses of saints was intentionally good on us
>Whoops lost a land war with fucking Poland
>Whoops WWII
>Whoops Stalin realized at the last minute that Jews are evil and then magically died of a stroke
>Whoops now Jewish oligarchs run everything
>Whoops America just didn't do that and they just bought China off
>Whoops standing in line for a loaf of bread in a country containing the two largest wheat producers on Earth
>Whoops collapse

Trusting Marx and ignoring Bakunin is the cardinal sin of the Left. Bakunin was right.

>>21772354
The KGB certainly existsed. The CIA was able to destroy fake Socialist countries easily because they had no legitimacy. Chile immediately went from a fairly respectable country to a failed state because Allende was a moron. All left-wing ideas are childish nonsense, when they invariably end up destroying the nation yeah, they get easily toppled by their rivals--you can't declare yourself global revolutionaries and then complain that someone decides to start a counter-revolution.

What's the exception here, Cuba? Great, that's one. North Korea is so fucked nobody even wants to take credit for it anymore, and I can't blame you, it looks like a Fascist paradise, it's too based to be sullied by association with communist faggots. Juche's where it's at man.

>>21772400
>Chile immediately went from a fairly respectable country to a failed state because Allende was a moron.
It what way did Chile actually fail before the intervention of the US?

>>21763742
Any system that maximizes the time the plebs spend working so they don't have time to have stupid ideas and ruin things for the people that actually matter.

>gommunists just ignore reality
>constantly are at war with reality in every aspect of their lives

Don't you silly niggas know expectations lead to resentment?

>>21772423
They keep burrying kids in silver mines over and over again. Somebody stop them!

>>21772400
>Chile immediately went from a fairly respectable country to a failed state because Allende was a moron
Chile was already a shithole before Allende. He somehow made it much worse in just three years though.

>>21772322
The Soviet Union tried that, too.
They kept raising people's salaries, but there was nothing to buy with that money.
Finally, they destroyed their economy, leaving Gorbachev to beg the west for a ridiculously large loan.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/23/world/gorbachev-pleads-for-100-billion-in-aid-from-west.html
>>21772354
That's not why the Soviet Union failed.
Stop making excuses.
You realize your "reason" implies the superiority of the "glowies" you refer to, right?

>>21772661
The late soviet economy was plagued by scarcity but inflation was essentially stable. Yeltsin let hyperinflation unfold to wipe out all private savings as a form of shock therapy and had to rig elections to stay in control since people were already nostalgic for the "bad old days" by the mid-90s
And ya Gorbie was of course a cuck and retard

>>21772726
No, inflation was disguised as ever-increasing salaries.
And like I said, the problem was that there was nothing to buy with all this money.
So people had no incentive to work.
And the nation entered a death spiral from which it didn't recover.

I finally found something positive to say about socialism.
I admit freely that AOC's breasts are magnificent.

>>21765826
>just turn everything into a wind/solar farm bro!
That's so cool

>>21771491
>people only buying what they can afford instead of what they want
Yes, markets can manage scarcity, good observation.

As for the entire thread I disagree with Mises on a lot of things(not so keen on praxeology the way he formulates it for starters) but the absolute mouth breathing commie illiterates itt make me want to champion him.

>>21772376
Anarchism would probably be more totalitarian(democratic) than communism. It's kind of natural progression, liberals liberated the french by giving them politician dependant courts and forced conscription, communists liberated the workers by making every single official have his bands tied by the central, anarchists say they're going to be achieve the real true form that these people only hinted at which sounds like a threat

>>21763592
Good book that btfoed Marxian Socialism and Non Marxian Socialism

also Mises was not an anarchist.

Rothbard was a pathetic kike that never understood the truth of the Austrian School like Hayek and the Minarchists

>>21767006
Hakim is a literal iraqi communist retard who living in sweden btw.

>>21764012
Venezuela declined when their Keynesian Nationalist State Capitalist Leader left in the 50s because of a kike female singer

>>21764031
Bruh.

Read Batista.

Most of these Books, Essays and Articles are from Latin American Studies, Amazon, and Kobo.

Cuba betrayed 2019 edition is from Kobo.

Books and Essays on and by Batista:

Estoy con el Pueblo: Cuatro discursos en México y Cuba. 1939

Respuesta 1960

Piedras y leyes 1961

Paradojas (1963)

Paradojismo (1964)

Cuba Betrayed 1961

To Rule is to Foresee 1962

The Growth and Decline of the Cuban Republic 1964

Dos Fechas: Aniversarios y testimonios 1933-1944 (1973)

The Growth and Decline of the cuban republic tells all from Batista

Cuba didn't suffer from le sanctions with help from ussr and warsaw pact in the late 60s to 80s

>>21764060
Yeah in the 1950s before their general was ousted

>>21764135
T. brainlet leftoid

>>21765822
See Post Keynesians

>>21767147
>Chile

Lmfao. Allende or Pinochet did not make it better.

Pinochet embraced Keynesianism in the 80s

see past presidents before those two you fucking moron

>>21773775
>Allende or Pinochet did not make it better.
He didn't say that anywhere in his post. He didn't even mention them. Are you ESL?

Ameritards in this thread coping hard. Your system is collapsing and China is laughing, the whole world laughs at your fat postive consumerist empire and at the same time you simping for capitalists.

>>21772645
Again: In what way did things become worse?
To my knowledge every relevant measure/index improved.

>>21764012
CIA destabilized and they didn't go far enough, and Chavez was a cuck that cozied up to Obama and got a little ionizing treat kek.

>/leftypol/troons kvetching
Good thread.

>>21773752
how did it btfo socialism?

>>21773570
>Yes, markets can manage scarcity, good observation.
In the worse way possible. Rent/profit necessitates land sit ideal or be underutilized, machines not be used, unemployment to exist, pseudo-scarcity in the form of IP to exist, etc, etc. You could manage scarcity without any of those issues but not in a market economy.

>>21773473
Greta Thunberg now protests wind farms.
>>21773802
>China
heir government cannot possibly bail out the nation's contingent liabilities.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/protests-break-out-chinese-cities-are-buried-under-10-trillion-debt
Plus, their population is shrinking, and no one wants to immigrate there.

>>21774544
>how dare you not overuse land to produce staples nobody will want to buy

This is you right now.

>>21774666
I wasn't talking about agriculture but residential/commercial... but if you know anything about actual agriculture today you wouldn't want to use that as a great example... in every advanced economy it's the most highly protectionist/subsidized sector of the economy... Stalin could of only dreamed of modern agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and such to help deal with the Kulaks

Mises's economic calculation argument might be a problem for Marxists but it is also a problem for Austrians too when it comes to their methodology.

The economic calculation argument argues in essence that money serves as a means of conveying information, you can measure whether your objectives are being achieved or not by seeing the amount of money your investment is generating. If it is not generating as much money, or even generating losses, you can alter your investments accordingly.

The problem this poses for Marxists is: if you want to abolish money worldwide, how will you coordinate the economy? How will you measure whether investing real resources in area X is better than in area Y? You have no real denominator to which you can reduce/abstract economic variables. So you're basically shooting in the dark.

But the problem this poses for Austrians is: the problem presupposes the validity of empiricism in economic forecasting. You can only calculate because you're using past information as a means of accounting for future events. If empirics is meaningless for economics, as Mises argued, then economic calculation as Mises postulates it is also meaningless, and we are ALL shooting in the dark anyway, since past information is strictly useless for future decisions.

>>21774769
>how will you coordinate the economy?
by consolidating and processing information coming from its different sectors
>How will you measure whether investing real resources in area X is better than in area Y?
by deciding a goal and using scientific tools to investigate and compare how the effects of putting them into X and Y would measure to that goals. because we have the knowledge to determine things like which crops are more food efficient, which crops grow better where, which crops take more effort to grow where
>You have no real denominator to which you can reduce/abstract economic variables.
the real denominator will be whatever the society whose life the economy is considers as worth pursuing in a given time and area of production
>So you're basically shooting in the dark.
no. the premise that money is the only means of gaining any economic information is ridiculous. it's not only not the only means, but the information it bestows is limited and not as useful towards satisfying human needs as it is for merely multiplying value, which a human society liberated from capital is not interested in at all.

>>21774860
>trusting a 'society' to be able to make any decisions for the benefit of that 'society' based on absolutely nothing.
Real worked out political philosophy you have there. Very nice. Now let's see how reality does with it.

The only country that matters when it comes to anything to do with economy is the United States. Until it dies from obesity, things are just gonna keep going as normal.

>>21774884
it's not a philosophy but a simple factual observation that humans have brains and are able to use them (you might be an exception) to work out plans that account for the environment and to execute them successfully

>>21774906
Right, as a 'society' they will work out plans based on the environment. With no individual incentives or benefits involved. I believe it. You basically realize your argument is just premonetary tribalism existed except in a stupid faggy way right?

>>21774860
>by consolidating and processing information coming from its different sectors

Into what unit? What does this unit measure? You have a lot of heterogeneous data that you need to boil down into one thing for economic calculation to work. Money does this by reducing all things to "value" (in the capitalistic sense). What is the planned economy's equivalent?

>>21763592
To me, marxism is about a social welfare state that gives me NEETbux, and hence, I am a marxist.
Additionally, this pedestrian social parasite conception of marxism makes both rightoids and leftoids seethe, which is honestly the chief attraction.

>>21774941
>With no individual incentives or benefits involved.
the society will be made up of individuals, so the society organizing its production in a workable way and then executing it with positive effects for itself will constitute an incentive and create real benefits for no one other than the members of that society
>You basically realize your argument is just premonetary tribalism existed except in a stupid faggy way right?
my argument is that humans have a proven capacity to use the environment and their own combined forces to their own advantage, which isn't very controversial.
you only argument seems to be that communist society existing before it comes about is logically impossible, so it can't retroactively prove itself to be realizable. which is beside the point, because the communist movement doesn't hinge on that, but is rather created by capitalism itself regardless of philosophic wankery. so do you have anything better?
>>21775003
>Into what unit?
into whatever units people come up with that corresponds to what goals they pursue in different areas of production
>What does this unit measure?
whatever people will care about when it comes to a given area of production, so things like the effort necessary, the safety of a given mode of work, nourishment value and taste when it comes to food, and so on.
>You have a lot of heterogeneous data that you need to boil down into one thing for economic calculation to work.
you don't, you can boil it down into many things and decide between them fluidly depending on circumstance, without reducing the decision procedure to a formula that weighs everything according to a single unit

>>21775036
Where's your marxist.org link?

>>21775036
>society
Go take your sõy wrists that have never worked a day in your life and start a co-op.

>>21763592
I'm not a Mises fanboy but damn he spittin on that one fr

>>21775056
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

>>21773765
what kind of retard would think batista has anything useful to say
Cuba was fine under batista, if you were a pimp, a gangster, or if you owned a latifundio

>>21764031
Are you aware Venezuela had all that oil even before the Chaves-regime?

>>21764012
>failling is the USA isolating you out of international trade

>>21775127
Lol

>>21765832
>and the preferences of market agents are revealed in what transactions they actually chose to make, so that in the end the market is tautologically defined as fully efficient. yes, very epic
rather efficient "as n goes to infinity" also it's about allocation of resources (prices show people want more of X and not Y to which market adjusts) and predicting future needs of consumers, not past choices. You did not provide the definition austrians use and the definition is not a tautology.

>>21776183
>prices show people want more of X and not Y to which market adjusts
A person working in a supermarket could also tell you that people want more X and not Y by simple observing what stays in the shelf and what tends to be short.

>>21776490
It's not just a supermarket...it's the swap meet, online vendors, mom and pop stores, restaurants, gas stations...you propose to remove agency from their buyers and put it on some central planner?

>>21763592
>numbers numbers numbers
Why can't right wingers into theory?

>>21776731
Do leftists have anything other than "theories"? When will you implement those "theories"?

>>21776731
Because our philosophy works in practice, even if it doesn't work in theory.
Burn.

>>21776876
>>21776927
>be right winger
>can't into theory so you just crunch numbers
>assumes this is everything reality has to offer
How sad it must be to be soulless.

>>21776938
>muh meaningless theories that don't even work in practice
Is this what leftists proud of?

I just did something simple that serves as a great example for this thread.
I drove down to the grocery store, bought ~3 pounds of peppermint patties from the bulk section, and brought them home. Easy peasy.
Now, let's look at how that would have gone down under socialism. I'll use typical Soviet Union practices as my basis.
First, I would stand in the peppermint patty line, and when I got to the front, I'd find there were none to be had.
If I happened to be there when the store closed, I would watch the proprietor shutter the public storefront, then open up for business in the back room, where there are plenty of peppermint patties, but I have to pay hard currency for them, not rubles. I only have rubles, so I have to leave.
Next, I would fill out a form to requisition some peppermint patties, and file it with the local Apportionment Bureau.
I'd hear back in a few weeks (if I was lucky) with demands for more info, such as why I need so many, couldn't I get by with less, what makes me so important that I deserve any to begin with, and aren't they bad for my health.
For you see, under socialism, people belong to the State, instead of the other way around. And doing anything that isn't 100% the best thing for my physical health is like stealing from the state.
Eventually, I'd pay the bureaucrat a bribe, and get approved to receive peppermint patties.
I finally get them four months later, but nowhere near as many as I requested, and they're stale.
I paid 10x more, waited 200x longer, and got terrible service and terrible quality.
And you expect me to sign up voluntarily for this nightmare?

>>21776938
I don't crunch numbers; I pay money and I take my choice. You act like this has to be some overblown intellectual exercise.
And conventional wisdom says one must suffer to write. How wonderful that you want to impose a system that'll undoubtedly produce so many "soulful" artists.

>>21776965
tsarist russia began as a backwards feudal shithole and it advanced tremendously during the soviet tenure

>>21777524
Probably 61,911,000 people, 54,769,000 of them citizens, have been murdered by the Communist Party--the government--of the Soviet Union.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM
Not my definition of "advance".
Is it yours?

>>21777524
yeah because the communists paid americans like fred koch to come in and developer their oil resources.

>>21777550
are you sure that isn't 61 billion my friend

deaths due to mass famine are an omnipresent threat to feudal shithole countries. They have been since the dawn of time. A threat that was abolished by a few decades socialist rule in China, the ussr, etc.
The industrial west caused mass famines during their period industrialization, those famines were just exported to places like India and Brazil.

>>21777566
There's never been 61 billion people in the world.
And your assertions are just plain false.
5.7M to 8.7M died in the Soviet famine of 1930-1933, which was completely caused by the Soviet government...no way to blame the tsarists.
15M to 55M died in the Chinese "Great Leap Forward". The Chinese government has no one to blame but themselves.

Fuck commies. Even if their cuckworld could be i would still be against it. A world of bug people would not only be pathetic and disgusting but would be too tame and uniform and end up being destroyed like a field of cloned corn being susceptible to a single disease.
Collectivists really are evil and deserve to be hated.
>>21768573
>People act rationally (not perfectly) and manifest their judgments of values through their choices.
>This supply and demand sets prices.
>Prices are information that regulates production
This cannot be done arbitrarily.

>>21764031
Venezuela had no toilet paper 5 years before oil prices tanked and sanctions ramped up.
Muh sanctions doesn't convince anyone.

>>21763742
Up to the level where real wage = marginal productivity of the labour

>>21764305
How do these sanctions stop them from distributing oil money?

>>21764097
Government control over the economy and society.
They say it's for global warming but that could be solved, completely fucking solved, through nuclear 10 times faster. But then energy would be cheap, military industrial complex couldn't start wars over oil, there is no reason to push DEI SDG SUCK MY FEMALE COCK initiatives for sustainability and world government.
It would only take 100 billion bucks to make molten salt reactors developed, safe and modular and the creation of an international system of fuel canisters if they wanted to use the proliferation possibility as an excuse to create another globalist bureaucracy. But this one wouldn't allow for societal interference so they wouldn't want to do it.

>>21764206
They don't explode that bad, if you make them 100 times more expensive than gas tanks. The real problem is how their fires are way stronger, way harder to see, happen way more spontaneously than gasoline.

>>21776731
>Mises
>numbers
Holy fuck lefties are retarded. Read the book.

>>21776490
This is you

>>21777689
But once their currency collapsed, they had plenty of toilet paper all of a sudden.

>>21764031
>Socialism works as long as its in a vacuum

lol, lmao even.

>>21777751
>omg how could you you think liberalism is tenable, can't you see that Revolutionary France is getting blockaded and invaded by the entire feudal world

>>21777849
>marxists abolish the free market domestically
>complain about how unfair it is so not have access to free markets internationally
what did they mean by this?

>>21777860
I didn't say anything about it being unfair, just pointing out that objection betrays a dim view of history

>>21777849
And yet despite the French people vacationing in August rather than Thermidor their civic tradition has continued to be defined by the values of the revolution ever since while post-Soviet countries generally not only immediately discarded that part of their past but burned it and scattered the ashes for good measure.

>>21777939
No, not really. You might as well bitch about no white countries wanting to trade with Haiti after the Haitians murdered all of the whites and then enshrined those principles on their constitution.

>>21764031
Well whose fault is that? Their entire existence is based on opposition to default economic policy that by which most of the world abides.

>>21776183
>prices show people want more of X and not Y to which market adjusts
>not a tautology
lmao. prices are regulated through buying and selling, and buying and selling is determined by the prices of products and of labour-power

>>21765832
it's clearly not that simple as centrally-planned economies failed to meet that condition (things people wanted like meet were lacking and stuff nobody wanted was overproduced and given away). This quote is completely missing the point while pretending to be smart

>>21778729
*meat
in other words saying "It claims as an achievement nothing more than the fact that all the goods that were sold found buyers is hardcore strawman cause free market theory is concerned with was was produced vs what was sold, not what was sold vs what was bought

>>21778729
>centrally-planned economies failed to meet that condition
which centrally-planned economies? also what condition? the point is not that a planned economy will be perfectly efficient, but that claims about the market economy made by its proponents are incorrect
>>21778734
>is hardcore strawman
it's not a strawman. rather, the text takes the claim directly from an economics textbook:
>Although entrepreneurs act out of “selfish” motives and not to improve the supply of goods to the population, the entire production of goods is ultimately geared to the wishes of the consumers. (W. Henrichsmeyer, Introduction to Political Economy)

>>21778729
>>21778734
The issue with for example meat in communists countries wasn't that they didn't knew that they need X amount of it instead of Y, where X>Y, but rather that they were unable to produce X amount of it.
Honestly this argument is actually kind of bizarre since it basically argues that the USSR and other communist countries had massive piles of consumer goods that no one there wanted just sitting around.

>>21773802
>china
Lol. Lmao.

>>21774544
>In the worse way possible. Rent/profit necessitates land sit ideal or be underutilized, machines not be used, unemployment to exist, pseudo-scarcity in the form of IP to exist, etc, etc. You could manage scarcity without any of those issues but not in a market economy.
What?

>>21778946
which part don't you understand other than him misspelling idle as ideal

>>21763969
literally unironically the CIA

>>21778959
The part where somebody holds asset of production and doesn't use them without government intervention stopping them.

>>21774568
you are confusing 'nobody wants to immigrate there' with the fact that China simply doesn't allow immigration, which are two completely different things

>>21778929
The point is that commies are the ultimate fascists and when they try to get their bullshit running they have to force it on everyone and the result is shortages and then fucking starvation.
The point is that discussing these things is stupid. Buying a gun and being ready to shoot commies and simpatizers is the point.

>>21779341
>simpatizers
Ayo, dis nigga be needin' to get buying himself a dictionary ahahaha.

>>21779147
what don't you understand about it? even if you have land, machines and buildings, production also involves buying materials and labour-power. and in capitalism if those are too expensive compared with the expected profits, then it might still be more profitable for you to invest that money into some other business altogether, resulting in your fixed capital laying idle. that's because investing extra money in circulating capital for unprofitable production might be worse for your overall profits than just letting what you've already invested in fixed capital not produce profit
>>21779341
communists try to abolish capitalist production while the fascists try to defend it from communists using state force, so calling the former the ultimate fascists is absurd. same with comparing using the state for the destruction of capitalist production with using it for trying to develop capitalist production further

>>21763592
>hurr humans are too dumb for complex distribution
Peak midwit projection

>>21779549
People are retarded on average, anon.

>>21779668
you and your mom have 50 sex partners on average even though you're a virgin. so what? you don't need a billion people to work at planning

>>21779717
Why should I listen to the minority's opinion?

>>21779792
because you live in a society and you aren't capable of satisfying all of your needs on your own

>>21779860
Damn...

>>21779437
>muh freestyle semantics
Would you rather i shot you for being a commie or face the wall for not being enough of a commie?

>>21778721
Value is determined by all three of those things. Check mate.

>>21778382
nice tautology, but free market economy doesn't claim that, try Rothbard, he addresses that directly

>>21781192
If no one wants to buy something, it doesn't matter how much it cost or how much labor it took to produce.
Name one counterexample.
>>21779236
The hell they don't.
American-born Chinese are shilled relentlessly regarding returning "home".

>>21778721
1 and 3 are circular and/or non-scientific reasoning by the way. I don't understand how people can listen and buy into this nonsense.

If we are trying to explain what value is and where it comes from what is a "cost"? How can you have a "consumer" before you have value? What is he consuming if he doesn't have a sense of value and if he does where/how did he get it because that's the entire question we are trying to determine here. Both "explanations" pre-assume a system of value already working to explain value. Reminder no one was confused by this in classic economics until Marx started tying it to politically dangerous shit about eating the rich.

>>21768289
>Mine is truly the worst generation ever.
faggot.

>>21781489
there's also risk inherent in value creation which i don't think marx ever really worked out. one common risk in capitalism is of course making a bunch of shit no one wants. or let's take it back to earliest days of american venture capital. if you fund a whaling vessel and it sinks and everyone dies, your capital created no value even if those guys were at sea for three months, but maybe another ship nails a whale and comes back loaded. are we supposed to spread the return from this risk across all actors in the market? oh, well, if you want to do that capitalism has created a thing called "insurance" that actually does just that, but you can always opt to not pay for the insurance in which case if your work is successful you keep more of the value, but because of the higher risk. man, capitalism is so friggen awesome when you start thinking about it.

>>21781588
You've proved my point.

communism sucks but this is some highly comfy shit

>>21763592
The arguments in the book aren't great. For one, Socialist countries rapidly grew their economies under socialist principles.

Another issue is that he ties his arguments around the idea of prices and not private ownership of the means of production. Communists have frequently proposed a combination of consumer facing market with calculation in kind for their industries. In this way you could really imagine a fully developed Socialist economy as no different from the way any multinational corporation makes internal decisions. A board of directors makes plans, allocate resources, and then uses profit as a signal of efficiency. Just imagine an entire economy run by one corporation with every citizen also being the shareholder of the profit.

>>21781744
>every citizen also being the shareholder of the profit
ever heard of an index fund dude? a 401k? marxists are always arguing against capitalism from 1830.

>>21763592
There's only few select companies where being an owner is better than being an employee and all of these companies are very large. There's hardly anything easier than doing your 9-5 and not giving a shit after you clock out, most people don't even give a shit during their workhours.

>>21781767
>ever heard of an index fund dude? a 401k?
That's not really my point. I'm explaining how, in socialism, everyone has access to the success of the economy and control over how it is run equally as long as you devote yourself to its development. Meanwhile, stocks in Capitalism confer benefits and ownership based on how much excess income you can devote to the market which predisposes wealthy people to get infinitely more wealthy leading to drastic inequality where the poor can never out-earn/invest the already wealthy (unless the entire economy crashes which the government won't let happen and will bail you out anyway).

>>21781866
You're delusional. Owners do literally nothing but own a company. All you have to do is have money and the job is done. Work is done by workers.

>>21781489
And if one wants to buy something, the other two do matter. What's your point?

>>21781967
>All you have to do is have money
if that is easy why do people complain about not having enough money

>>21781967
>Owners do literally nothing but own a company
This mindset explains a lot about why communist countries fail.

>>21764031
Why do your communists countries need to trade with the filthy capitalist west?

>>21782404
Because a country can't produce everything on its own.

>>21782529
But aren't communists on an ideological war against capitalists? Why would they expect capitalist countries to trade with them?

>>21767581
Remove ze weiner and be happy

>>21781235
the bourgeois ideology industry has discarded Rothbard, what he says is completely irrelevant

>>21782181
My point was obvious...that cost and labor are meaningless if no one wants to buy it.
>>21781967
>Owners do literally nothing but own a company
Oh, dear God.
Just remove yourself from the Internet and never show your face again.
That may be the single most clueless statement I've ever seen anyone post.

>>21781744
>Just imagine an entire economy run by one corporation with every citizen also being the shareholder of the profit.
There's a sovereign wealth fund in Alaska that distributes part of its petroleum revenues as a dividend to its residents. At one point something like 80% of their economy was petroleum so pretty close to what you're describing (not validating or saying this model can work in other contexts though)

>>21782716
if no one wants to buy it, then there are no cost and labour in the first place, because it isn't produced
also you don't know what "owner" means. if someone is an owner, then it's in so far as they own something, and that's it. they don't need to do anything else, and if they do, they are separate from being an owner, because being an owner is simply about owning or not owning.

>>21782529
Communist countries can only offer raw materials. The moderately free world has absolutely no reason to trade with nonproductive prison states. China realized this and went fascist because communism simply does not function in reality because communism is anti-reality.

>>21782879
Bro, unlike fascists the Chinese don't give a slightest fuck about what millions of their small business owners are doing. Not only they don't have to pay any taxes (if a family runs some "business" in their home - or a street-stand - then what profits do you expect they are generating and how much can you really milk them? exactly..) but they don't even fucking need any bureaucratic registration of their activity. China is much closer to a libertarian ideal than to any bureaucratic totalitarianism like gommies or fascists.
Their gaberment controls their "strategic" decisions but it's a tip of the iceberg of a normal, thriving economy.

>>21782716
>My point was obvious...that cost and labor are meaningless if no one wants to buy it.
...which Marx acknowledges by beginning Capital with use value.

>>21782879
What about the USSR producing rockets that can land on the moon? Doesn't seem so raw to me.

>>21763592
>Planned economies can't coordinate economic inform--ACK *dies in a bank run*

>>21782391
>This mindset explains a lot about why communist countries fail.
The people who own companies usually have CEO's to run them. They do not run them themselves. If you ask me whether I'd rather be a board member or a CEO I'd be a board member every time.

>>21782384
>if that is easy why do people complain about not having enough money
What?

>>21782716
>My point was obvious...that cost and labor are meaningless if no one wants to buy it.
Marx's explicitly talks about this when he introduced the concept. The labor theory of value explains how goods that people desire get their value. Goods which people do not desire do not meet the basic qualification of being talked about in relation to LToV.

>Oh, dear God.
I'm correct. Owners can work if they choose but need not to. If I give my money to an investment manager I'm not required to work for any of the companies I invest in.

>>21782765
There were lots of third world countries that did something similar. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Indonesia, etc.

Approximately 0.03 seconds after the policies were put into place the US started plans to either fund, supply, and train coups against their democratically elected leaders or just invade them outright.

>>21764031
Holy cope

>>21783112
>bank run
You mean when the state props up the banks with monetary policy and makes it possible for them to even exist as runnable institutions? That sure is some free market failure that there

>>21783518
The capitalist state protects capitalist institutions and has done so since it's inception. Doing otherwise is not in it's interest.

>>21783518
no, the opposite. if states didn't set up regulation systems to prevent bank run chain reactions, then capitalism would've been killed by bank runs more than a century ago

>>21784186
If government would stop bailing banks using the taxpayers money, in other terms if there were free market, bank runs would've killed fractional reserve banking not capitalism. Banks are part of the market not market themselves, if the state didn't stunt the development of money we would get to experiment with banks issuing their own "bank"notes and trying alternative methods of making profit other than lending money away that they are expected to hold onto, ones that failed would've went bankrupt. But today, why would they do it? It is easier to just keep lending out money they din't have. State will save them every single time. State allows the parts that are sinking the economy down to continue existing.

>>21784310
fantasy world where a small disturbance in one bank can't create a chain reaction that results in a worldwide crisis

>>21783126
>The people who own companies usually have CEO's to run them
You're thinking of big corporations, which are usually public, and anyone can buy shares. But for most businesses, the owner is taking all the risk, so he must do a lot more than nothing to make sure his business doesn't go bankrupt.

>>21764031
>communist countries would be successful if they were allowed to participate in the global free market

>>21784744
You are the one who is living in fantasy world who thinks "disturbances" in banks will lead to a global catastrophy. You are ignorant and believe in your baseless dream everything would collapse without the government. Everything survives even with government's ceaseless attemps to ruin everything.

>>21764026
Thanks for the rec

>>21784841
Well, yes?

>>21784853
you're certified 50 iq if you don't understand chain reactions

>>21784744
>fantasy world
Historical world. That's how it was before the federal reserve saw the power they could wield centralizing the banking system under the excuse of stopping the constant bank runs caused by their nascent money printing system.

>>21764026
> Walmart proves central-planning works!
Really, commies? This is the best you can come up with? this? So much for theory...

>>21783556
> Capitalism is when the state does things. The more things the state does, the more capitalister it is.
Fucking kill yourself, retard.

>>21784744
> Fractional reserve banking is the only kind of banking.

>>21784999
financial regulations were directly caused by actual banking panics
>>21785008
>>21785019
>>21785026
I take it reddit is still down?

>>21785065
Are you illiterate? I never denied that panics caused regulations.
Panics happened often. Oftener when government meddled with the currency and the more they happened the more the government found an excuse to increase it's own power.

I forget where i read it but soviets or chinese used to say "we don't need a market for prices, we just need sompleace like hong kong to exist so we can copy their prices"

>>21784310
>if there were free market, bank runs would've killed fractional reserve banking not capitalism
Every example of full reserve banking in history was the result of government regulation. Without government butting in to stop competition full reserve banks can't compete against the competition.

>if the state didn't stunt the development of money we would get to experiment with banks issuing their own "bank"notes and trying alternative methods of making profit other than lending money away that they are expected to hold onto, ones that failed would've went bankrupt
...that's literally cryptocurrencies, hundreds exist right now.

> It is easier to just keep lending out money they din't have.
Inventing money is very simple, anyone can do it in theory. Getting people to use or trust your scrip is the problem.

>State will save them every single time. State allows the parts that are sinking the economy down to continue existing.
It's almost like there's a symbiotic relationship between private finance and state.

Kids, never forget. Any discussion with communists is useless. Language is a tool for dominance, not for finding truth, with them.
Doesn't matter if your talking to a peddler or a believer, they want you dead but will settle for your submission.

>>21785065
see >>21785026

>>21785122
The Soviets copied the prices of west Germany for a while, if I'm not mistaken. Eventually even that was too inefficient and they opened their market.

>>21782834
Er, no.
Owners, even partial owners like stock holders, vote on board proposals in proportion to their stock.
Ugh...I'm not going to waste my time explaining real life to someone whose head is shoved up their arse.
>>21782926
>China is much closer to a libertarian ideal
Head looped twice up the arse.
>>21783086
The U.S. got there first.
>>21783112
In case you're not keeping up with current events, the Fed literally targeted SVB in order to strike a blow against cryptocurrency.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/another-scandal-biden-admin-radicals-blocked-svb-sale-nationalized-it-then-blamed-trump
They thought they were making a surgical strike, but ended up knocking over a bunch of dominoes.
It's literally the result of the Biden Administration attempting to plan the economy.
>>21784310
>banks issuing their own "bank" notes
i.e. cryptocurrency, like >>21785137 said
>>21784943
Er, but communist countries are philosophically opposed to the global free market?
Did you miss that subtle point?
>>21785221
Indeed. It's no mistake that every socialist/communist government goes totalitarian.

>>21785761
>Head looped twice up the arse.
You may have heard about the term "minarchism". The state is very strong but undertakes very limited responsibilities. It surely isn't libertarianism nor anarchocapitalism but it's something we would choose if we can't get nothing better right now.
Fucking mongoloid.
The Chinks don't even have state pensions; children just have legal obligation to care for their parents.

>>21785137
every example of fractional reserve banking was a result of government regulation which allowed it, see for example bank of england history. FRB would never survive on free market, it requires laws that protect when clients want to get their own money and it benefits governments by "creating" money

>>21785761
>Er, no. Owners, even partial owners like stock holders, vote on board proposals in proportion to their stock.
er no, that's specifically owners of voting shares, not owners as such.

>>21786734
>children just have legal obligation to care for their parents
Which is one big reason why their birth rate has plummeted; people of child-bearing age have enough on their plate caring for their elders.
>>21787379
Eh? Stock holders are fractional owners.
Give an actual example of an owner that just owns & does no work to run the business. I think you've created a strawman.

>>21787462
>Eh? Stock holders are fractional owners.
stock holders are a subset of owners. the fact that oranges are orange doesn't prove that orangeness belongs to the essence of the category fruit. oranges are orange in so far as they're oranges, not in so far as they're fruit. and in the same way voting owners are voting owners in so far as they own voting shares specifically, for example, and not simply because they're owners.
>Give an actual example of an owner that just owns & does no work to run the business
any sizeable stockholder with non-voting rights, or one with voting rights who waives those rights
> I think you've created a strawman.
or you might just be a little dumb. Bill Gates has equity in hundreds of companies. do you really think he's engaged in running all of them or something?

>>21764070
Thread should have ended here.

>>21772637
Wtf am I looking at?
Is that a 'beetus pump? And what's with the weird pale pinkish hue? Post-skin flap removal bruising (if that is indeed a 'beetus pump)?

>>21763742
Everyone works to build AGI as quickly as possible to convert as much of the future lightcone into paperclips as possible.
That would be very efficient.

>>21784829
>You're thinking of big corporations, which are usually public, and anyone can buy shares.

That's certainly the case for big corporations but not only them. I worked in a tech support company that was fairly small. Maybe employing around 50 people at a time and definitely not publicly traded. The owner's father started it as a typewriter repair service or something like that which got big and they eventually pivoted into networking. However, the current owner was like 60 something and literally didn't even know how to open an email. 100% of the operation was done by employees and yet he was living in the lap of luxury.

>But for most businesses, the owner is taking all the risk, so he must do a lot more than nothing to make sure his business doesn't go bankrupt.

When a business is small the owner may also act as CEO but then they're just doing the normal job responsibilities of a CEO.
Also the idea of "risk" is really dependent on your level of wealth. An incredibly wealthy person could start a business, hire a competent CEO from day 1, and basically never touch anything besides putting the money up front. On the other hand if a person is not wealthy they usually have to find wealthy people and make them co-owners for a certain amount of startup cash. Meaning in both cases there are owners who do no work.

>>21787568
>any sizeable stockholder with non-voting rights, or one with voting rights who waives those rights
Just the idea that voting on business decisions is "work" is fairly ridiculous to anyone who's done actual work in their life. I knew a guy that got a huge settlement from getting hit by a drunk driver and used his winnings to buy out a sizable voting share in a Japanese fishing company (based on America). He would show up to board meeting in swim trunks and a tank top (horrifying everyone involved), kicked his feet up on the desk, listened to the board meetings, and just voted how he felt like. By his own admission he had never had to do a real day's work since.

>>21783086
>he thinks anyone has gone to the moon
Have you been in a fucking 1969 ford, let alone a Lada? There is 0% chance any of them got to the moon back then.

>>21767581
Tranny faggot

>>21787954
do you know how cheap a ford and lada were? Are ww2 aircraft carriers fake too? I mean, look at even a Cadillac, no way anybody could make something so big, WW2 obviously fake

>>21764289
lysenkovism is modified lamarkianism, lamarkianism is a repudiation of the now-dominant neo-darwinist paradigm of speciation and genetics

>>21766627
>kek house
I once spoke to this guy on facebook - not a big fan of bordiga apparently

>>21787132
>every example of fractional reserve banking was a result of government regulation which allowed it
Like I said, every example of full reserve banking being a norm was the result of government legislation. The second government gets out of the picture financial innovations occur.

>see for example bank of england history.
Why? Look at the history of private commercial banks going back to the begining. Central banks are modern creatures.

>FRB would never survive on free market,
Except it did obviously because bank users don't want to pay the costs of full reserve banking and it's not stable outside of a theoretical monopoly situation.

>it requires laws that protect when clients want to get their own money
Deposit insurance is very modern, it didn't exist in America until the great depression. Historically when a bank failed people just lost everything.

>and it benefits governments by "creating" money
Throughout most of western history money was gold and governments got that through war and taxes in coin

>>21788450
Well he is a stalinist