Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

starbucks4ever (85.73)

Mises paper



July 09, 2009 – Comments (5)

Here is the paper that some think has "proved" the impossibility of central planning. A proof it is not. It offers some valid criticism and also some trivial nitpicking. Overall, the paper has left me unimpressed. When push comes to shove, Mises fails to address the real problem with socialist planning, and launches a hopeless attack against the enemy's strongest point. 


5 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 09, 2009 at 7:51 PM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:


Report this comment
#2) On July 09, 2009 at 8:08 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


Now you're in my ballpark. Did Mises prove that Socialism is impossible, as he claimed?  No, people will always try to make Socialism work.  What he proved was that Socialism, with the definition being "State ownership of the means of production", will eventually lead to ruin and chaos.  Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent people from trying it and implementing it, which by their very efforts proves that Socialism is possible.  Their failed efforts, however, prove that it doesn't work very well.  In reality, economic fascism has replaced most socialist institutions, but only temporarily.  When fascism fails, the government - looking to increase its power - normally resorts to outright ownership.  So Socialism will eventually make a comeback.  Oh well.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On July 09, 2009 at 8:35 PM, starbucks4ever (85.73) wrote:

You are right, that's what I meant. Of course Mises intended to "prove" that ruin and chaos will be the OUTCOME but he did not assert the IMPOSSIBILITY of ruin and chaos. I should have been more careful with my wording.

Report this comment
#4) On July 09, 2009 at 8:37 PM, starbucks4ever (85.73) wrote:

So let's put it that way: Here is the paper that some think has "proved" the impossibility of EFFICIENT central planning.

Report this comment
#5) On July 09, 2009 at 9:11 PM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

Ok. Well the whole history of politics is fascism. Of course it's one of the primary goals of fascism to call itself anything else, and it usually succeeds.

   But what we should realize, and mostly don't is that all politics is blended from political ideologies. In America they claim to be democratic, and capitalist, but there are many elements such as:

Oligarchy; in the inheritance laws (which is fascist)
Socialism: like food stamps
Communism: roads
Republicanism: No dictator, and access to the power for the people, but unequal access
Democracy: Voting
Anarchy: Everybody trying to get their own way
Feudalism: Parts of the Oligarchy joining loyalties against other nodes

As for Misus' paper. It is a good work to get started, but it is so full of holes that this forum is probably not the best way to expound them. The biggest hole though is theorists constant attempt to distill political systems into illusionary purities, and that lack of acknowedgment of reality WILL insure the eventual downfall of any political system that falls for it (which is pretty much all of them)


Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners