â„–2968331[Quote]
Nophono
â„–2968343[Quote]
Very nophono
â„–2968364[Quote]
NO REPPEYS AFTER 5 MINUTES GEEEG
â„–2968369[Quote]
>>2968366Or maybe you are just a nigger
â„–2968395[Quote]
Is bibisi p*rn good because it emancipates POC over colonial power dynamics?
â„–2968413[Quote]
>>2968313 (OP)We are animals. Survival it-self is an instinct. If you reject your nature might as well reject your whole existence and kys.
â„–2968417[Quote]
tsmt and recommend me a lefty book
â„–2968424[Quote]
>>2968412Ohnono, commiecacas are slvts for bibisi to own the chuds?!
â„–2968429[Quote]
>>2968392How am I projecting? You saged my thread 4 times, kek.
>>2968413I never rejected survival. I reject tribalism, at least in the form of nationalism.
â„–2968440[Quote]
>>2968429>I never rejected survival. I reject tribalism, at least in the form of nationalism.You did so on the basis that it was an animal instinct and there fore le bad.
â„–2968445[Quote]
>>2968407The industrial revolution is when the bourgeoisie revolutions started happening across Europe, yes - and as a factor of that the respect for private property, rule of law etc. It's the reason everyone is getting riched now, after the fact and poverty is declinig around the whole world. You're of course free to return to to the primitives in Cuba or Laos et al…
â„–2968482[Quote]
Is the position here for or against the Industrial Revolution
â„–2968495[Quote]
>>2968464He's against communism you drooling retard.
>>2968482For? But that's beside the point, it's not what we're actually discussing.
â„–2968498[Quote]
>>2968470Didn't reply to my argument and just decided to leak out all your /r/communismmemes talking points at me
>why don't you go to the third world shithole placed in an economic siege by the rest of the world?Cuba is only sanctioned (embargo) by the US, retard. It literally trades with the EU. Which relevant sanctions is Laos under?
â„–2968527[Quote]
>>2968498Your argument is easily dismantled by the fact that the USSR had a separate industrial revolution of its own with no capitalist intervention. Call it tyrannical or inefficient or whatever insults you can throw at it, but it is true.
>Cuba is only sanctioned (embargo) by the US, retard. It literally trades with the EU. Which relevant sanctions is Laos under?Look up the Helms-Burton act. Laos is not really communist as they've been adopting free market policies similar to China and Vietnam, so this is irrelevant.
â„–2968530[Quote]
>>2968523Can this esl bulgaronigger try to type properly? Geg
â„–2968533[Quote]
Alunyafag I will argue with you if you argue with me without avatarfagging or using any image
â„–2968544[Quote]
>>2968495How is it unrelated?
â„–2968576[Quote]
>>2968377This.. So.. Much.. THIIIS!!!
â„–2968585[Quote]
>>2968569Everyone is special in their own unique ways doe
â„–2968592[Quote]
>>2968585Everyone is lame and should die doealbeit
â„–2968611[Quote]
>>2968569I just want to talk without you avatarfagging
â„–2968615[Quote]
>>2968527Besides the point that you literally somehow thought the whole word had an embargo on Cuba for some reason LOL.
>Your argument is easily dismantled by the fact that the USSR had a separate industrial revolution of its own with no capitalist intervention. Call it tyrannical or inefficient or whatever insults you can throw at it, but it is true.There are two offical historical "industrial revolutions" you dumb nigger. Nobody refers to the switch from feudalism to capitalism or socialism as an "industrial revolution" within a country. Countries just industrialize, you can do it through state planning or freer markets. The USSR's industrial policy was literally called "Americanization", the USA was also plainly industrializing the USSR, after the first famine. Fist by sending them aid and famine relief and later sending tractors, materials and literal American industry workers.
â„–2968622[Quote]
>arguing for socialism evendoe socialist economic calculation already got disproven automatically making socialism impossible
â„–2968623[Quote]
>>2968547Holy fucking cope
â„–2968633[Quote]
>>2968593I don't know.. but it's true. Think about it. Everyone is shaped by their own unique experiences, so Everyone is special and one of a kind
â„–2968668[Quote]
>>2968313 (OP)you just a mindless leftoid with no practical skills and a brain full of shit, it's why you're poor
â„–2968673[Quote]
>>2968615Almost every single country has industrialized by importing industrial goods and expertise from already industrialized countries. Even your hecking capitalist paradises. Very very few countries managed to industrialize on its own which basically amount to just Germany, England, France and Belgium (Not the US, btw). Every other country HAD to import the initial know-how. And, as time advances further from the initial industrial revolution, performing your own industrial revolution is harder and harder if you want to pretend to keep up with the rest of the world's technology.
>>2968623No economic system can magically make resources and knowledge appear from thin air. I think this is quite obvious.
â„–2968682[Quote]
nashinoleezim?
â„–2968693[Quote]
Diddyblvds say this.
â„–2968700[Quote]
ironically, 99% of men aren't the modern man, so we should keep nationalism until that 99% evolves, something that's not happening any time soon
â„–2968704[Quote]
>>2968622Shadow prices proved that the core proposition of the ECP (that you need a valuation system to compare two heterogeneous goods) is simply wrong. The other problems later proposed by Hayek and others are real and they do exist, but are in my opinion a worthwhile cost in exchange from being freed from the whims of the market.
Also, socialism does not imply the disappearance of the market, even if here I am not arguing in favor of such.
â„–2968708[Quote]
>>2968633>completely destroyed OP with facts and logique…Slavs won
â„–2968753[Quote]
Israel got where it is today because of Nationalism so I don't think it's that bad
â„–2968841[Quote]
>>2968830You look like this and say this after my trvthnvke btw
â„–2968860[Quote]
yes the "mindless" animal instinct that we naturally have and will never go away lmao
â„–2968861[Quote]
Whats your point again?
â„–2968868[Quote]
There is no reason to cooperate with biomass either they are literally cattle used to decrease worker wages and increase house prices
â„–2968872[Quote]
>>2968704>Shadow prices proved that the core proposition of the ECP (that you need a valuation system to compare two heterogeneous goods) is simply wrongMises never argued that planners aren't capable of attaching numbers to goods, obviously they can. The problem isn't arithmetic, but rather if those numbers correspond to economically meaningful opportunity costs. Under a capitalist system, prices for capital goods would emerge form competitive bidding among private owners who are risking their own property; entrepreneurs commit resources under uncertainty, and profit or loss reveals whether those were directed toward uses that consumers value more relative to alternatives, and the resulting prices reflect real trade offs made in a context where alternative production plans compete for scarce productive resources.
Shadow prices are derived from solving a math optimization problem, but such optimization presuposes a fully specified production structure, defined objetive function, known constrains and complete knowledge of relationships. The planner must already possess the information about feasible alternatives and relative scarcities that market competition constinuously discovers and updates, they're generated from assumed data; Market prices are outcomes of a process that generates and revises that data through the aforementioned bidding. Without private ownership, there is no genuine bidding for capital goods, scarcity will still exist, but there is no institutional mechanism through which ompeting plans contest alternative uses of the scarce resources. Shadow prices, do not, and have never refuted the ecp. You assume a structure of knowledge and coordination that, ina market economy, is itself the product of private exchange.
There are other ways to attack markets, but claiming that shadow pricing refutes ecp is insanely retarded.
>The other problems later proposed by Hayek and others are real and they do exist, but are in my opinion a worthwhile cost in exchange from being freed from the whims of the market.>socialism does not imply the disappearance of the market, even if here I am not arguing in favor of such.if socialism entails social ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private capital markets, then they do vanish.
â„–2968877[Quote]
>>2968872inb4 "i didnt even read it honestly"
â„–2968879[Quote]
>>2968858I won. Slavdom won. Christ won for ever and always.
â„–2968900[Quote]
>>2968882ohnonono are communists really illiterate
â„–2968910[Quote]
>>2968313 (OP)Alunyaman! You're back!
â„–2968918[Quote]
>>>2968704
>>Shadow prices proved that the core proposition of the ECP (that you need a valuation system to compare two heterogeneous goods) is simply wrong
>Mises never argued that planners aren't capable of attaching numbers to goods, obviously they can. The problem isn't arithmetic, but rather if those numbers correspond to economically meaningful opportunity costs. Under a capitalist system, prices for capital goods would emerge form competitive bidding among private owners who are risking their own property; entrepreneurs commit resources under uncertainty, and profit or loss reveals whether those were directed toward uses that consumers value more relative to alternatives, and the resulting prices reflect real trade offs made in a context where alternative production plans compete for scarce productive resources.
>Shadow prices are derived from solving a math optimization problem, but such optimization presuposes a fully specified production structure, defined objetive function, known constrains and complete knowledge of relationships. The planner must already possess the information about feasible alternatives and relative scarcities that market competition constinuously discovers and updates, they're generated from assumed data; Market prices are outcomes of a process that generates and revises that data through the aforementioned bidding. Without private ownership, there is no genuine bidding for capital goods, scarcity will still exist, but there is no institutional mechanism through which ompeting plans contest alternative uses of the scarce resources. Shadow prices, do not, and have never refuted the ecp. You assume a structure of knowledge and coordination that, ina market economy, is itself the product of private exchange.
>There are other ways to attack markets, but claiming that shadow pricing refutes ecp is insanely retarded.
>>The other problems later proposed by Hayek and others are real and they do exist, but are in my opinion a worthwhile cost in exchange from being freed from the whims of the market.
>>socialism does not imply the disappearance of the market, even if here I am not arguing in favor of such.
>if socialism entails social ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private capital markets, then they do vanish.
â„–2968922[Quote]
>>2968429Nationalism is the most natural form of class consciousness and anyone who rejects it is a bourgeois
â„–2968925[Quote]
Forgot flag
â„–2968934[Quote]
>>>>2968704
>>>Shadow prices proved that the core proposition of the ECP (that you need a valuation system to compare two heterogeneous goods) is simply wrong
>>Mises never argued that planners aren't capable of attaching numbers to goods, obviously they can. The problem isn't arithmetic, but rather if those numbers correspond to economically meaningful opportunity costs. Under a capitalist system, prices for capital goods would emerge form competitive bidding among private owners who are risking their own property; entrepreneurs commit resources under uncertainty, and profit or loss reveals whether those were directed toward uses that consumers value more relative to alternatives, and the resulting prices reflect real trade offs made in a context where alternative production plans compete for scarce productive resources.
>>Shadow prices are derived from solving a math optimization problem, but such optimization presuposes a fully specified production structure, defined objetive function, known constrains and complete knowledge of relationships. The planner must already possess the information about feasible alternatives and relative scarcities that market competition constinuously discovers and updates, they're generated from assumed data; Market prices are outcomes of a process that generates and revises that data through the aforementioned bidding. Without private ownership, there is no genuine bidding for capital goods, scarcity will still exist, but there is no institutional mechanism through which ompeting plans contest alternative uses of the scarce resources. Shadow prices, do not, and have never refuted the ecp. You assume a structure of knowledge and coordination that, ina market economy, is itself the product of private exchange.
>>There are other ways to attack markets, but claiming that shadow pricing refutes ecp is insanely retarded.
>>>The other problems later proposed by Hayek and others are real and they do exist, but are in my opinion a worthwhile cost in exchange from being freed from the whims of the market.
>>>socialism does not imply the disappearance of the market, even if here I am not arguing in favor of such.
>>if socialism entails social ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private capital markets, then they do vanish.
â„–2968949[Quote]
>>2968934why isnt there a gigachad of ts yet?
â„–2969176[Quote]
>>2968872Ok, I skimmed over your block of text, so here is my reply. Competition would still be possible in a planned economy, either by arithmetic simulation or by experimental factories/farms/whatever. These experiments would then allow us to select the most succesful one (by total units produced, or least waste, etc) and apply it on a massive scale.
About shadow prices. First, we're talking socialism and not communism here, so private ownership and money still exist at the consumer level, even if the means of production are socially or state owned, which would introduce bidding for the consumer sector, although it is true the industries would be left to the state's whim. It is true that markets can collect knowledge in a way that central planning can't, and I indeed admitted this earlier, but the constraints can be simplified which then allows the planner to perform the calculations. This is made easier by the advance in informatics, which would allow a much larger volume of information to be passed up to the planner. Also, you talk of price signals as if they were a perfect indicator of the state of the market at all times, when in reality they always lag behind even a bit, and also price signals do not directly refer the will of the buyer to acquire something or the other, but rather what they can afford and not what they actually want.
>if socialism entails social ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private capital markets, then they do vanish.Are you referring to the market or the problems I was referring to? I'd think you're talking about the market but you wrote in plural so apparently you're referring to the problems?