[nosuchthing]

>[ https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem ] is a problem of mathematics, not of ideology.

Well yes it involves math, but ultimately it involves decisions by people on what to do with natural resources and consumption.

We're starting to see countries with %20+ unemployment and simply describing that as an issue of mathematics would seem inadequate.

[angrymonk]

It is not a problem of mathematics. Most people confuse Mises's calculation problem with Hayek's knowledge problem (which is a mathematical issue). They are related but different. Hayek conceded that knowledge problem can be worked around by a supercomputer which can solve simultaneous differential equations to simulate the "artificial market". Mises never did that because that was not his main point. The ability of government to collect data (local knowledge) is not just what he calls into question. He calls into question the ability of government to reconcile individual preferences with scarcity. "The subjective use value of each is not immediately comparable as a purely individual phe- nomenon with the subjective use value of other men. It only becomes so in exchange value, which arises out of the interplay of the subjective valuations of all who take part in exchange."

[duncan_bayne]

Well yes it involves math, but ultimately it involves decisions by people on what to do with natural resources and consumption.

Yes. And both theory and history have shown that there is only one way to compute a chaotic system: let it run :)

That is, the only way to effectively allocate natural resources and consumption at the scale of a modern industrial economy is based upon market prices.

Austrian Economics has provided the theory of why this is so, and several large-scale experiments (including North Korea and the USSR) have demonstrated that the theory is correct.

We're starting to see countries with %20+ unemployment and simply describing that as an issue of mathematics would seem inadequate.

I didn't - or at least, I didn't mean to. What I meant to say was that socialism is fundamentally, theoretically, and practically broken.

If you're going to try to fix issues like 20% unemployment, unaffordable healthcare, horrendous pollution, and unaffordable housing, then you need to pick a mechanism that actually works :)

[TFYS]

I think what you mean to say is that a planned economy is fundamentally, theoretically, and practically broken. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean a planned economy, there can be socialism with a market economy. Although I think some more economic planning is clearly necessary, just look at the environmental problems the "let it run" way of thinking has caused.

I think socialism is something that we need to transition into as our technology improves and does more work for us. What other option is there? If we don't have enough jobs for everyone, the only two options that I see are 1. We create new useless bullshit jobs just so we can continue using the current system of resource allocation, or 2. We create a system in which the means of production are at least partly owned by the society as a whole so the benefits of automation are more evenly distributed.