4 ms·

What von Mises has proven logically in 1920 (and the practical experience has confirmed it later over the course of 20th century - repeatedly, dozens of times,

What von Mises has proven logically in 1920 (and the practical experience has confirmed it later over the course of 20th century - repeatedly, dozens of times, in different countries, with different cultures) is that a centrally planned (i.e. socialist) economy ALWAYS SELF-DESTRUCTS. It has nothing to do with computers and collection of information and planning algorithms. The issue (completely misunderstood by the author of the article discussed) is that the very fact of coercing people destroys information about their subjective utility functions which could only be gleaned by observing FREE exchange. No amount of fancy software or social engineering will fix it. Garbage in - garbage out. Socialism is a very bad idea. No ifs and no buts about it. And, yes, Marx was a kook. His entire economic and social theory is a humongous monument to the principle of logical explosion: if you start with nonsense (labor theory of value), you end up being able to derive anything from it. (The fact that labor theory of value is nonsense is easily established by observing "value" created by someone digging a hole and filling it in - any number of times, so as to put in arbitrarily large amount of labor).

fouc 8y ago
It may not matter if you start from good first principles or bad ones. Deriving a system from logical reasoning seems to always fall short in reality. (At least for natural languages as opposed to something like mathematics).
- averros 8y ago
  Ghm. Mathematics and sciences are rather successful in reality. Natural language can be used in a rather rigid and formal manner - and mathematical language can be used carelessly and in error. (In fact, using natural language carefully may be preferable to playing with formal symbols - as it makes gaffes and logical gaps more visible to the readers.)
claudiawerner 8y ago
Not to speak for or against Marx's law of value, >The fact that labor theory of value is nonsense is easily established by observing "value" created by someone digging a hole and filling it in - any number of times, so as to put in arbitrarily large amount of labor Is rubbish. In fact, if you read less than the first chapter of Capital Vol. 1, Marx specifically rebuts this argument on the third page, in which he restricts himself to 'socially useful' labour performed at the rate necessary to complete it. Not even anti-Marxists use this argument any more because it simply doesn't hold for Marx's theory, nor even Smith and Ricardo's. Mises himself doesn't use this argument.
- julienreszka 8y ago
  It would be socially useful that you shut the uck up you disgusting commie apologist piece of shi
  - sctb 8y ago
    We've banned this account because you post like this a lot. If you'd like to stop doing that and start following the guidelines, please send us an email at hn@ycombinator.com. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- averros 8y ago
  Of course, anyone who is friends with logic will immediately spot that "socially useful" cannot be defined in any way which does not depend on (drumroll) value to the people. In other words, all Marx said is that value is created when labor creates value. Duh. Circular reasoning of this sort is a hallmark of kookery, and it takes a rather brainwashed mind (or absence thereof) to miss this obvious logical fallacy. There are other ways to demonstrate the idiocy of the labor theory of value: for example by constructing a realistic scenario when clearly "socially useful" labor (for example, work at a factory) destroys value of a "free for all" resource which wasn't created by labor at all - i.e. by polluting the air). Incidentally, Soviet Union was full of grossly polluting factories. I think a personal anecdote is in order: unlike Western Marx fanboys I happen to be formally educated in Marxism, at the top university in the USSR, no less, (this was mandatory, I wouldn't poison my mind with that junk willingly). The professor reading the course of Political Economy was the well-known Marxist/Leninist textbook author and certainly was quite smart. So after his first or second lecture (I don't remember exactly which, it was 30 years ago), I asked him to clarify exactly the point above: how to define which labor is useful and which it is not. He called me into his office and told me in no uncertain terms to never ask questions like that again if I wanted to stay out of trouble (didn't help), and that the best answer was "whatever Party directs us to work on". This pretty much clarified everything regarding Marxism to me, and I took his advice to heart, so I still have my transcript from MSU with "with distinction" ("отлично") marks for Marxist/Leninist Philosophy, Political Economy, and Scientific Communism. I guess I should thank him for a sound advice on surviving cult indoctrination.

fouc 8y ago

It may not matter if you start from good first principles or bad ones. Deriving a system from logical reasoning seems to always fall short in reality. (At least for natural languages as opposed to something like mathematics).

averros 8y ago
Ghm. Mathematics and sciences are rather successful in reality. Natural language can be used in a rather rigid and formal manner - and mathematical language can be used carelessly and in error. (In fact, using natural language carefully may be preferable to playing with formal symbols - as it makes gaffes and logical gaps more visible to the readers.)

claudiawerner 8y ago

Not to speak for or against Marx's law of value, >The fact that labor theory of value is nonsense is easily established by observing "value" created by someone digging a hole and filling it in - any number of times, so as to put in arbitrarily large amount of labor Is rubbish. In fact, if you read less than the first chapter of Capital Vol. 1, Marx specifically rebuts this argument on the third page, in which he restricts himself to 'socially useful' labour performed at the rate necessary to complete it. Not even anti-Marxists use this argument any more because it simply doesn't hold for Marx's theory, nor even Smith and Ricardo's. Mises himself doesn't use this argument.

julienreszka 8y ago
It would be socially useful that you shut the uck up you disgusting commie apologist piece of shi
- sctb 8y ago
  We've banned this account because you post like this a lot. If you'd like to stop doing that and start following the guidelines, please send us an email at hn@ycombinator.com. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
averros 8y ago
Of course, anyone who is friends with logic will immediately spot that "socially useful" cannot be defined in any way which does not depend on (drumroll) value to the people. In other words, all Marx said is that value is created when labor creates value. Duh. Circular reasoning of this sort is a hallmark of kookery, and it takes a rather brainwashed mind (or absence thereof) to miss this obvious logical fallacy. There are other ways to demonstrate the idiocy of the labor theory of value: for example by constructing a realistic scenario when clearly "socially useful" labor (for example, work at a factory) destroys value of a "free for all" resource which wasn't created by labor at all - i.e. by polluting the air). Incidentally, Soviet Union was full of grossly polluting factories. I think a personal anecdote is in order: unlike Western Marx fanboys I happen to be formally educated in Marxism, at the top university in the USSR, no less, (this was mandatory, I wouldn't poison my mind with that junk willingly). The professor reading the course of Political Economy was the well-known Marxist/Leninist textbook author and certainly was quite smart. So after his first or second lecture (I don't remember exactly which, it was 30 years ago), I asked him to clarify exactly the point above: how to define which labor is useful and which it is not. He called me into his office and told me in no uncertain terms to never ask questions like that again if I wanted to stay out of trouble (didn't help), and that the best answer was "whatever Party directs us to work on". This pretty much clarified everything regarding Marxism to me, and I took his advice to heart, so I still have my transcript from MSU with "with distinction" ("отлично") marks for Marxist/Leninist Philosophy, Political Economy, and Scientific Communism. I guess I should thank him for a sound advice on surviving cult indoctrination.