Pricing is about effluence in the root sense of not wasting resources. If stuff, including labor, is priced to high, people will use less of it than they should get get the results they want, which means hoarding, bottlenecks of resources, systematic lying about capacities and needs, and overwork. If things are priced too low, people will use too much that could be used for other things, hoarding will be encouraged against times of higher prices, lies about needs and capacities will proliferate, and people's time will be wasted having more people than necessary working more on jobs that require less work and less time. Getting the prices rightbisvthevrootbof economic rationality.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 12, 2012, at 5:27 PM, andie_nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I didn't say anything about growth, I was talking,bad was Hayek, about reducing waste, first of all of human effort.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 2:21 PM, "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>> The continued existence of human order depends on stopping growth. Growth
>> and human freedom, even human survival, are incompatible.
>>
>> How can a rational pricing system, or any pricing whatever, stop growth?
>>
>> Carrol
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
>> On
>>> Behalf Of andie_nachgeborenen
>>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:10 PM
>>> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Hayek, was Re: Stalinism (was Eric Hobsbawm)
>>>
>>> Exactly. Life is hard, commodity fetishism is the cost of rational pricing
>> and
>>> reasonable prosperity. Live with it. As Mises put it in his first paper in
>> 1920 laying
>>> out the idea, you could choose to dispense with rational pricing (sensible
>> use of
>>> resources), embrace waste of resources and record, and live in poverty.
>> That's not
>>> an attractive option.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My objection to Hayek is that he wants to use markets to provide
>>>> information, therefore reinstituting commodity fetishism. It's no use
>>>> getting rid of capitalism if the labor of one person continues to be
>> equated
>>>> (implicitly or explicitly) to the labor of others. Pre-capitalist
>> markets
>>>> exerted no tyranny: the labor of one nation was not cheapened by the
>> labor
>>>> of another. Hayek's markets are specifically defined to exercise that
>>>> tyranny.
>>>>
>>>> In other words the core objection to Hayek is precisely what Andie cites
>> as
>>>> the core advantage -- the use of markets to convey information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carrol
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
>> [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
>>>> On
>>>>> Behalf Of andie_nachgeborenen
>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:01 AM
>>>>> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Hayek, was Re: Stalinism (was Eric Hobsbawm)
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing in Hayek requires private ownership, a point I have made to
>>>> generations
>>>>> of spluttering libertarians. Hayek's problem is with planning, not
>>>> ownership. His
>>>>> attempted save by appeal to the need for entrepreneurship, with which I
>>>> agree
>>>>> heartily, fails because nothing in Hayek's argument requires the
>>>> entrepreneurs be
>>>>> individual private owners rather than employees of a cooperative,
>>>> regardless of
>>>>> where title lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Multiple equilibria are irrelevant. The problem is a model that makes
>>>> equilibrium a
>>>>> goal based on false premises. Hayek, like Marx, is great in part
>> because
>>>> he tried to
>>>>> capture the laws of motion of real economic systems, not axiomatic
>> models
>>>> with
>>>>> demonstrably false premises.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lange's reply that they never tried what I advocated is ridiculously
>> weak
>>>> given
>>>>> what they did try produced every problem Hayek observed/predicted in
>>>> spades.
>>>>> You can believe that pigs will fly if you like. I will continue to
>> insist
>>>> with Heyek that
>>>>> they have no wings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 12, 2012, at 7:39 AM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
>>>>>> Thu Oct 11 07:51:12 PDT 2012
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [WS:] The existence of the mythical equilibrium is a red herring here,
>>>>>> since as Ormerod demonstrated in his book "Death of Economics"
>>>>>> multiple equilibria can be calculated in sufficiently complex system.
>>>>>> The crux of Lange's argument was that planners do not need to know
>>>>>> more than private capitalists, as both in real life proceed through
>>>>>> the process of trials and errors to adjust their prices. So that
>>>>>> undercuts the supposed omniscience required in planning but not
>>>>>> private capitalism - in fact neither requires it to improve
>>>>>> efficienc
>>>>>> Lange argued that both planning and capitalism are on equal footing in
>>>>>> this respect. What makes planning superior is the planning ability to
>>>>>> overcome constraints imposed by private ownership of property, which
>>>>>> leads to either periodical crises or equilibria skewed away from
>>>>>> optimum toward consumption of the rich. I do not think that this
>>>>>> argument can be dismissed that easily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as the price mechanisms under planning postulated by Lange -
>>>>>> they were either not implemented or if they were, they were later
>>>>>> circumvented by political and social mechanisms (informal economy,
>>>>>> etc.) So as Lange aptly observed, the reasons of the central planning
>>>>>> "failure" lie not in planning but in sociology and politics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alas, there is one thing that is not considered in these arguments -
>>>>>> the capacity to externalize costs. That capacity is much greater in
>>>>>> capitalism - under which private firms can not only dump costs on they
>>>>>> public sector in their own countries, but also on other countries
>>>>>> thanks to imperialism. In planning systems, the capacity for cost
>>>>>> externalization was pretty much non-existent. First, the public
>>>>>> ownership of the means of production meant that public sector would
>>>>>> have to externalize to itself, which defeats the purpose. Second, the
>>>>>> planned economies lacked the capacity to externalize on other
>>>>>> countries because they were not imperialist (EE) or because their
>>>>>> imperialism had strategic rather than economic nature - i.e. its goal
>>>>>> was to maintain political influence against the west, rather than
>>>>>> economic exploitation. In other words, while western imperialists
>>>>>> externalized their costs on their satellites, Russian imperialists
>>>>>> absorbed the costs of satellites to maintain their allegiance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Wojtek
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^
>>>>>> CB: I would to identify with Comrade Wojtek's remarks . Soviet Union
>>>>>> far from an evil empire was an anti-imperialist system
>>>>>> ___________________________________
>>>>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>>>
>>>>> ___________________________________
>>>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>>
>>>> ___________________________________
>>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk