Get ready folks, this is going to be a long one. But, since there are those who say we haven't adequately answered the question, it begs the length and girth.
Okay, admittedly, I essentially cheated... rather than reading what Mises actually had to say on the subject, I referred to what is basically the Cliff's notes of the internet age... I went to wikipedia on the matter. Here is what I found.
Mises projected that without a market economy there would be no functional price system, which he held essential for achieving rational and efficient allocation of capital goods to their most productive use.
This is a BS answer. Any sane, rational person can quickly and easily see that this is a BS answer without even having to sniff at it for a bit. In fact, this is such a BS answer that it hardly counts as an answer. The only reason it has been accepted as an answer is because it supports the existing system, and doesn't require the truly lazy people to do anything.
Remember, that the argument isn't simply that a fully automated moneyless system won't work, but that it will create lazy people. But I would say it is truly lazy to come up with a cop out answer like this one.
So, let's not be lazy, and let's take the time to examine this answer for a bit to see what fits and what doesn't, and to see if my assertions are the least bit correct.
No market system = No Pricing system = No rational and efficient allocation of capital goods to their most productive use?
I know, let's define our terms first.
ra·tion·al
/ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl]
-adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
7. Mathematics .
a. capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers.
b. (of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.
8. Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.
–noun
9. Mathematics . rational number.
ef·fi·cient
/ɪˈfɪʃənt/ Show Spelled[ih-fish-uhnt]
–adjective
1. performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.
2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.
3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.
4. utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.
capital goods
–plural noun Economics .
machines and tools used in the production of other goods ( contrasted with consumer goods).
wikipedia:
A capital good, or simply capital in economics, is saved-up wealth or a manufactured means of production.[1]
Individuals, organizations and governments use capital goods in the production of other goods or commodities. Capital goods include factories, machinery, tools, equipment, and various buildings which are used to produce other products for consumption.
pro·duc·tive
/prəˈdʌktɪv/ Show Spelled[pruh-duhk-tiv]
–adjective
1. having the power of producing; generative; creative: a productive effort.
2. producing readily or abundantly; fertile: a productive vineyard.
3. causing; bringing about (usually followed by of ): conditions productive of crime and sin.
4. Economics . producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value.
5. Grammar . (of derivational affixes or patterns) readily used in forming new words, as the suffix -ness.
6. (in language learning) of or pertaining to the language skills of speaking and writing ( opposed to receptive).
All of my terms are as defined by this site: dictionary.reference.com except where otherwise noted.
There are really only two best fits for definitions I can find within these sources as to the suggestion at hand. The first looks a little like this:
No market system = No Pricing system = No rational(1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.) and efficient(2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.) allocation of capital goods(Capital goods include factories, machinery, tools, equipment, and various buildings(and raw materials, resources) which are used to produce other products for consumption.) to their most productive(2. producing readily or abundantly; fertile: a productive vineyard.) use.
The other looks more like this:
No market system = No Pricing system = No rational(8. Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.) and efficient(3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.) allocation of capital goods(or simply capital in economics, is saved-up wealth) to their most productive(4. Economics . producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value.) use.
Now, since Mises was a market economist, and since he earned his money defending such a system, one can only assume he meant the latter of these options. This becomes quite obvious when one takes in to account the fact he calls it a "calculation" problem. This is further supported by the fact that Mises suggested that in order to have a true economy, it had to be measured in numbers, and lend itself well to mathematics.
Obviously he considered a system more productive if it gained a net profit for its investors, regardless of any other net result, such as waste, pollution, environmental degradation, or loss of lives. The assumption seems to be one of two things... Either resources are infinite, and thus we can afford infinite growth, as Mises' model is designed to accomplish, which, by the way, would be that efficient effect he was apparently looking for, or by the time all the resources are used up and the planet is depleted of anything useful we would be able to build rocket ships into outer space to find another planet to rape, the way we have with this one.
What this latter suggestion fails to realize, and make no mistakes... even if this wasn't Mises' idea, there have been plenty out there who have suggested this very thing, is that once the materials are depleted, there are no resources left from which to build that great rocket ship, and it certainly wouldn't fit the large population such a system inherently generates.
Had he asked the first question, I seriously doubt he would have supported the money-market system of trade. Remember folks, the answer is often determined by how you phrase and contextualize the question.
I would argue that the only way to answer the question, as contextualized in the first instance would be without money or market systems. Thus, we have an answer to the same question based on context.
So, let's examine the effects of these questions as framed within the two contexts.
In the first context, we have asked that some reason, logic and rational be invested into our decision making processes. In other words, we have advocated the use of the scientific method for social concern within a systems theory approach. With which we can study the effects of efficiency in production and distribution of resources to the benefit, or detriment of all. We can maximize the intelligent management of our resources economically, and ecologically, by minimizing waste production, and maximizing efficient use of those resources in their allocations, by use of intelligent recycling and design for reuse. And we can produce abundantly to provide for all humans within that society.
In Mises framework, materials and resources and their use are rationalized as a set of integers, for mathematical equations, which are then reduced to dollar signs, which have no logical referent to the physical world, and thus do not generate a truly sensible approach. His system is only efficient in that it efficiently generates a lot of pollution, and efficiently uses up resources to the point of depletion. It holds capital goods in the form of capital gains, and profits for a vast minority, while forcing the larger majority to suffer under an oppressive dictatorship of the tyranny of trade. All for the sake of being able to add a few numbers together which do not actually measure anything but the amount of suffering in the world, for every time the GDP goes up people are slaving away, and when it goes down, they are starving. Meanwhile, the people at the top of this ponzi/pyramid are getting fatter and lazier.
In short, the answer to the calculation problem is in how you frame the question.
No comments:
Post a Comment