I was discussing the calculation problem in the planned economy with someone and now I'm stumped. I'm not sure if I've maneuvered myself into the situation by arguing wrongly or if my opponent is unwilling to admit a defeat, so please help me out.Background: planned economy, planner X has control over all resources, consumer wishes are found out by a sophisticated electronic polling system without prices (we'll assume for the sake of the argument that this actually works).Me: People can tell you what they would like to have, but without a pricing system, how do they coordinate their wishes? I.e., why should they not demand a racing car as urgently as a washing machine?X: People will add preferences, i.e. "Most importantly, I need food, then a washing machine, then a racing car". My polling system will demand this.Me: Granted that it's possible to accurately discriminate between goods of different utility, what is keeping people from demanding the best, most expensive, most lavish in every single utility field? I.e., a Lamborghini instead of a Camry? Caviar instead of potatoes? There's no penalty for demanding the best because there are no prices to distinguish them.X: They will have to add alternatives. If they don't add proper alternatives, they may get nothing at all.Me: So who decides whom to give what kind of quality product? By what standard?X: Me, by my own.Me: So you're just acting arbitrarily and randomly, just like every central planner before you. You don't have a concept for distributing resources at all. You just admitted my point.X: You tried to prove that prices are necessary, not that my distribution system is bad. You failed.Any ideas? Thank you in advance.
I'm pretty sure that the problem in this scenario is not insurmountable for the central planner. If he discovers the ratio of A to B or B to A that the aggregate of consumers prefer (perhaps through a consumer goods market), then he can simply impute it back to producer goods according to the technological recipes used to create the consumer goods and lower order producer goods. But anyway...
Which producer goods to use seeing as they're not priced? All one has done is established which consumers' goods to produce.
Look, assuming an ERE and a fixed set of technological recipes, it is in fact possible to allocate capital goods efficiently
Without their being priced? No.
To darkness I condemn you...
nir:the central planner is not doing what he said he would do, allocate all the resources.
nir:an entrepeneur decides to allocate only some of the factors in the economy, other entrepeneurs do others.the claim is that the central planner will replace all of them
stephen:I'm sorry. I don't understand how the implications of your last point prove your original objection.
the point is, all entrepreneurs as a 'collection' have determined how to allocate all the factors. no one entrepreneur does this, and every entrepreneur leaves the vast quantity of factors relative to him as a given that he will not be allocating. (others allocate). If a central planner takes the same attitude he is not allocating all the factors. if he doesn't (take that attitude) and rises to the challenge of allocating all factors (as the original premise was) then MPP conceptualizing isn't going to be of help to him. that's how it seems to me.
Stephen:Economic efficiency is the production of goods at minimal cost.
what is the cost of a shoe making machine of a certain type and model, made to a certain level of craftmanship? the question is incoherent with us having assumed away the market for factors.... or isn't it?
Stephen:The central planner could distribute ration certificates to the consumers for good A prior to any actual production. Then, an auction could be set up where the consumers can bid (the maximum they are willing to pay) for units of good B with their ration certificates(play money). The central planner can then use those bids to construct minimum selling bids as a ratio of the tradeoff between the two goods on the production possibilities frontier. The sets of bids and offers can be used to construct a price reflects consumer demand given the range of possibilities available to them.
this does not even begin to address the challenge of economic calculation. you have here a recipe for figuring out what consumers say they like lots of. and because there is a market for the produced goods, that market will clear, every good will leave every shelf at whatever price it takes to do that. *assuming none of the items are economic bads, or are economic goods worth less than the transaction cost of bidding for them and using them". , still I fail to see how it could possibly lead you to a rational calculation of how to structure the next round of production. so the 5000 shoes cleared at 5fiat paper units each, and 30000 beef sandwiches cleared at 3 fiat paper units each. how is that going to help rationally structure production without a factor market?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Where are the goods coming from in the first place?
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
Sphairon:X: You tried to prove that prices aren't necessary, not that my distribution system is bad. You failed.
Am I reading this wrong?
Angurse: Where are the goods coming from in the first place?
From factories which will be built after the demand structure is clear. I know that Mises made a point about calculation problems also affecting capital goods, but this fellow claims that his sophisticated computers can accurately determine the most efficient way to produce things, so I found the point to be rather moot.
Tex2002ans: Sphairon:X: You tried to prove that prices aren't necessary, not that my distribution system is bad. You failed. Am I reading this wrong?
Sorry, my error, fixed it.
Sphairon:From factories which will be built after the demand structure is clear. I know that Mises made a point about calculation problems also affecting capital goods, but this fellow claims that his sophisticated computers can accurately determine the most efficient way to produce things, so I found the point to be rather moot.
How does the planner know the best way to build factories? How does he know how to program the computers to determine this?
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
forgetting the calculation debate for a minute.
why the fuck does the planner with all this earthly power give two shits about giving his public a prosperous lifestyle.
oh yeah. he is a saint. a saint with a gun that will kill you if you engage in a consenting capitalist act.
Sphairon: From factories which will be built after the demand structure is clear. I know that Mises made a point about calculation problems also affecting capital goods, but this fellow claims that his sophisticated computers can accurately determine the most efficient way to produce things, so I found the point to be rather moot.
So, I write "Most importantly, I need my youth back" and up will spring a time machine factory? What are the factories to be made of? What about the computers? Where will the builders come from? The programmers? Capital goods are a crucial aspect of the Calculation debate.
Further, what were the terms of the debate? As prices are necessary to rationally allocate resources, the fact that he's admitted his system was bad seems to concede the point.
this stuff helps : http://mises.org/story/2401#3
Sphairon:electronic polling system
Impossible to work correctly. When polling people make decisions that effect people other then themselves. A polling system won't work for the same reason democracy doesn't work. People's decision making systems alter when they are allowed to use coercion. When purchasing general goods with a pricing system people's decisions directly effect their own persons. They bear the consequences for any mistakes they make. In polling this is not the case. Therefore people cannot make rational decisions as to what resources they need most.
Sphairon:X: People will add preferences, i.e. "Most importantly, I need food, then a washing machine, then a racing car". My polling system will demand this.
People don't buy Ferrari's because there are less of them and as such they cost a great deal more. When if the population placed Ferrari's above everything else? Overproducing Ferrari's does not make society as a whole wealthier, it makes them poorer by taking away other things they need to compensate in resources to build Ferrari's.
Sphairon:X: They will have to add alternatives. If they don't add proper alternatives, they may get nothing at all.
The number one complaint of capitalism is the supposed exploitation of the poor and the hungry, So his justification here seems counter-productive to his argument. He's just justified starvation.
Sphairon: Me, by my own.
Lawl
Sphairon:X: You tried to prove that prices are necessary, not that my distribution system is bad. You failed.
1. Not only are they necessary. Even with a polling system if he were to attempt to allocate resources to the masses he would only do so in lengthy delay. There will be surplus's of some things and shortages of others.
2. He would have no way of knowing what the most efficient way possible is of producing and delivering the resources people claim they want. And since people are voting for the masses(others) and not themselves demand for consumer goods will likely be scewed. For example, in the US people think they need healthcare to live. They think healthcare is a need just as oxygen is a need.
3. There will also be no innovation. As Billy Bob devices a new invention and marks on his ballet as an alternative "I want this invention". Sicne he is the only one who votes his invention will never get realized and if he markets his invention and sells it he would be breaking the law. Likewise without prices there would be no way of telling if the masses actually want the invention in the first place.
Statism is a religion.
Sphairon:Any ideas? Thank you in advance.
Yeah
Sphairon:You tried to prove that prices are necessary, not that my distribution system is bad. You failed.
You proved prices are necessary, because his arbitrary decision making is a form of pricing. He sets the prices, and has nothing to test it against. Hence, it fails economic calculation. Remember, the calculation arguments is about calculating rational prices, not arbitrary prices.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Thanks for all of your responses. I will focus on some points that I consider the most pressing:How does the planner know the best way to build factories? How does he know how to program the computers to determine this? What are the factories to be made of? What about the computers? Where will the builders come from? The programmers? Capital goods are a crucial aspect of the Calculation debateHe has control over all the resources, so he just orders those computers to be built. He also has, for some reason, access to this very sophisticated planning technology. The scenario is pretty hilarious, but not necessarily impossible. And so, to avoid being called backwards, I tried to beat him on his own futuristic grounds.Capital goods / Efficiency of production / Entrepreneurial innovationThis is a thing about the calculation debate I've never really understood. I've read at least parts of Nir's article before, and still I don't get why capital goods are supposed to be the silver bullet in the calculation debate.After all, if I know what I want to produce, I can also come up with a way on how to build a factory. Even if I can't, I can hire people to advise me, and then I'll go for the best proposal. In the scenario above, after polling people for, say, a week, the planner has a set of data and plans the structure of production accordingly. While it may be improbable that this will lead to a desirable result, it is by no means impossible and we cannot a priori define the result of this planning process to be worse than what would have happened on a capitalist market - after all, if lots of mini-planners in a capitalist system assess a situation wrongly, they'll fail just as much.I don't think my opponent was arguing against the position that central planning is unlikely to succeed, but against the a priori assumption that it must lead to chaos. And indeed, I don't think I proved this by any means.As for innovation, you know, he has his software technology that is able to predict the results of changes in the process of production, and so if someone comes up with a new idea or invention, he just types in the new variables, watches the result and plans accordingly. It may be far-fetched, but not impossible. And since I remembered that Misesians consider the planned economy to be impossible under any circumstances, I figured I might be able to cope with this scenario, too.You proved prices are necessary, because his arbitrary decision making is a form of pricing.We defined pricing as the capitalist method of pricing. While I pointed out that he was just acting arbitrarily, he said that still, he can run an economy that way, without any pricing. And as I pointed out above, I couldn't prove to him a priori that this is destined to fail, only that it is arbitrary and may be prone to failure.
Sphairon: Angurse: Where are the goods coming from in the first place? From factories which will be built after the demand structure is clear. I know that Mises made a point about calculation problems also affecting capital goods, but this fellow claims that his sophisticated computers can accurately determine the most efficient way to produce things, so I found the point to be rather moot.
I think there are 2 key things to take into consideration.
First, as Mises states on pg 207-208 of Human Action, utilisation of the quantitive relations between means and ends is ONLY feasible for calculation (called "calculation in kind"), when:
1.The means are absolutely specific. Hence only 1 means can produce each end.
2.The means are perfectly substitutable for one another, although according to different ratios possibly.
Neither of the above conditions is present in the real world, where we find the means may largely be specific and substitutable to an extent.
Hence the abandonment of one production process must take into account all the foregone production possibillities given the abandonment of other plans, and these plans may themselves have to take into account they may produce on the production of other goods etc, etc. Hence, the point is the optimisation problem in which to organise production is not trivial, and this is without even taking into account several stage production processes.
With those, we may find an nth order means to also be an end, an n-1th order end, n-2th order end...etc. Hence we find even further permutations, and our model starts to experience feedback, introducing time into our optimisation problem in the sense of causing us to consider the paths we may take for equilibration along several stages. This makes the problem far from trivial, indeed even without several stages of production we get an astronomical number of production possibillities to compare and consider for equilibration. I believe one person is currently investigating if the problem is NP complete.
However, the problem is still unrealistic. In the real world we have class probabillity, or "knightian uncertainty."
What this does is to permute and distort production processes along any production path requiring optimisation under such an equilibrium seeking procedure. Capital structures could largely collapse and be useless a few stages along the line, introducing further complications along how the economy needs to be redirected, with the further uncertainty and instabillity on whether this new structure of production can survive and be relevant.
This may make one wonder how the problem is solved at all. The solution, is that the market does not solve the production problem like an equilibrium optimisation, and succeeds precisely because it guides by incentivisation via profit and loss entrepreneurs who are rewarded precisely because they perceive and deal with uncertainty well, expanding the structure of production accordingly. Action is truly a lever of change in this framework, and rather than suffering and having to respond to the disturbances of uncertainty, capitalising on uncertainty is the very driving factor of the market, enabling its success, allowing for the only feasible method for the production of a sustainable structure of production. That is basically the thesis of a recent paper of mine on Economic Calculation I will be presenting soon. I may send it to you soon if you like.
Sphairon:We defined pricing as the capitalist method of pricing. While I pointed out that he was just acting arbitrarily, he said that still, he can run an economy that way, without any pricing.
So you said, "You can't make a peanut butter sandwich without bread" and he said, "Sure I can, I will use crackers and call it a peanut butter sandwich".
If he can define "running the economy" any way, then he can't lose the argument.
Sphairon:And as I pointed out above, I couldn't prove to him a priori that this is destined to fail, only that it is arbitrary and may be prone to failure.
Well, the calculation argument is that without prices there is no way to rationally allocate goods. He has given you this point, because he admits he will arbitrarily allocate goods.
Let's say he faces a situation where you and I come to him and say we need all of the (insert any scarce good here) in the world. He has to choose to give it to one, the other or neither. Either way, he will use prices, as he will assign values to his three choices.
As long as he acts rationally (towards a purpose) then he can't argue against prices, unless he wants to call crackers bread. In which case, stop talking to him, he's wasting your precious time.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap