![[Review] Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (Ludwig von Mises) Summarized](https://episodes.castos.com/660078c6833215-59505987/images/2319759/c1a-085k3-ww7mw0mwhro3-0imrgk.jpg)
Show Notes
Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (Ludwig von Mises)
- Amazon USA Store: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610165500?tag=9natree-20
- Amazon Worldwide Store: https://global.buys.trade/Economic-Calculation-in-the-Socialist-Commonwealth-Ludwig-von-Mises.html
- Apple Books: https://books.apple.com/us/audiobook/25-the-collected-works-of-vladimir-lenin/id1735296266?itsct=books_box_link&itscg=30200&ls=1&at=1001l3bAw&ct=9natree
- eBay: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Economic+Calculation+in+the+Socialist+Commonwealth+Ludwig+von+Mises+&mkcid=1&mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&siteid=0&campid=5339060787&customid=9natree&toolid=10001&mkevt=1
- Read more: https://mybook.top/read/1610165500/
#economiccalculation #socialismdebate #pricesystem #centralplanning #Austrianeconomics #EconomicCalculationintheSocialistCommonwealth
These are takeaways from this book.
Firstly, Why Economic Calculation Depends on Private Property, Mises begins from a simple but far reaching premise: rational allocation requires a way to calculate. In market societies, calculation is made possible by private ownership of the means of production, because ownership enables exchange, and exchange generates prices. Those prices are not mere labels; they condense countless judgments about scarcity, time, risk, and alternative uses. When factories, machines, raw materials, and land are privately owned, entrepreneurs must bid for them, bearing the cost of mistakes and seeking gains from correct forecasts. In a socialist commonwealth where such assets are collectively owned, there is no genuine market for capital goods. If there is no buying and selling of those goods, there are no real money prices for them. Without those prices, planners cannot perform monetary calculation across heterogeneous inputs. They can list quantities in physical terms, but they cannot easily decide whether steel should go to rail lines, bridges, or machine tools when each option consumes different mixes of labor, materials, and time. Mises frames this not as a complaint about insufficient goodwill but as a structural barrier: the disappearance of private property in productive assets removes the institutional foundation that makes calculation possible in the first place.
Secondly, The Price System as a Practical Information Tool, A core topic is the practical role of prices in coordinating knowledge dispersed across society. In Mises view, no single authority can directly know the best uses of every input, because production decisions require continuously updated comparisons among countless alternatives. Market prices provide a common unit that allows decision makers to compare projects that are otherwise incommensurable. A firm can ask whether building one plant instead of another is worthwhile, whether to switch a process, or whether to conserve a resource, because price relationships translate many local facts into actionable signals. Mises emphasizes that this is not only about consumer goods but especially about capital goods and intermediate inputs. Prices in these areas enable the mapping of complex production chains and tradeoffs over time. In a planned economy, administrators may attempt to imitate markets by setting accounting values or issuing directives, but if those values are not formed through competitive bidding and exchange, they lack the same grounding in opportunity cost. The result is not merely inefficiency at the margins but a deeper inability to tell whether a chosen method is economical relative to alternatives. For Mises, the price system is a social technology for solving coordination problems, and removing it breaks the feedback loop that guides adjustments.
Thirdly, Why Engineering Planning Cannot Replace Monetary Calculation, Mises distinguishes between technical feasibility and economic rationality. An engineer can identify methods that work physically and can even rank them by particular technical criteria, such as energy use, material strength, or output per machine hour. But economic planning requires more than technical optimization within a narrow constraint. It requires comparing disparate ends and scarce means across an entire economy: housing versus hospitals, freight capacity versus consumer goods, present consumption versus future investment. These comparisons depend on a common denominator that reflects relative scarcity and alternative uses. Monetary calculation using market prices provides that denominator by translating resource choices into comparable costs. Under socialism, planners may attempt calculation in kind, tallying tons, kilowatts, or labor hours. Mises argues that such measures fail because goods differ in quality and context, and because production uses complex combinations that change constantly. A labor hour is not uniform; a ton of material differs by grade and location; time and uncertainty complicate every plan. Without market prices for capital goods, planners cannot determine which technical plan is the least costly in terms of foregone alternatives. The economy might still produce outputs, but choices become arbitrary or politically driven rather than systematically economical. Mises thus treats engineering rationality as necessary but insufficient, unable to substitute for economic calculation.
Fourthly, Capital Goods Markets, Profit and Loss, and the Discovery Process, Another major theme is how markets for capital goods create a discovery process through profit and loss. In Mises framework, entrepreneurs do not simply follow given data; they interpret uncertain future conditions and coordinate resources accordingly. Profit and loss serve as continuous tests of whether resources are being directed toward valued ends and away from waste. Crucially, these tests rely on money prices for capital and intermediate goods, because only then can firms calculate whether outputs are worth more than the inputs consumed. Under socialism, even if consumer goods were distributed and even if administrators tracked inventories, the absence of capital markets prevents this entrepreneurial test from operating. Decisions about expanding one industry, retiring equipment, or adopting new techniques cannot be assessed with the same clarity, because input valuations are not anchored in exchange. Mises suggests that central authorities would lack a reliable way to distinguish genuine productivity improvements from mere rearrangements that look impressive physically but cost too much in sacrificed alternatives. Over time, misallocations would accumulate, and planners would face chronic difficulty determining which lines of production should grow, shrink, or disappear. The topic highlights that coordination is not a one time design problem but an ongoing adaptive process. Markets generate learning through rivalry, pricing, and accounting, whereas a single planning agency must rely on administrative judgment without the same corrective mechanism.
Lastly, Implications for Socialist Models and Mixed Economic Arrangements, Mises argument has broad implications for different forms of socialism and for partially planned systems. He targets comprehensive socialism where the means of production are collectively owned, but the logic raises questions for any arrangement that suppresses markets for capital goods or constrains price formation. If planners allow consumer markets while nationalizing major industries, the remaining price signals may still be too weak to guide investment and production structure, because the most consequential choices involve capital allocation, technology selection, and intertemporal tradeoffs. Mises also anticipates proposals for simulated pricing, where administrators attempt to set shadow prices or use accounting rules to mimic markets. His critique suggests that imitation lacks the institutional foundation of private ownership, competitive bidding, and responsibility for losses. The issue is not only computation but the origin and meaning of the numbers used in calculation. At the same time, the essay invites reflection on mixed economies, where regulation, subsidies, and state enterprises coexist with private firms. Readers can use Mises framework to ask where calculation remains reliable and where interventions distort the signals needed for rational planning. The topic is less a policy checklist than an analytic lens: it clarifies why certain decisions are best disciplined by market prices and why removing or blunting those prices risks systematic misallocation. This makes the work relevant to debates about industrial policy, public ownership, and large scale economic coordination.
- Amazon USA Store: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610165500?tag=9natree-20
- Amazon Worldwide Store: https://global.buys.trade/Economic-Calculation-in-the-Socialist-Commonwealth-Ludwig-von-Mises.html
- Apple Books: https://books.apple.com/us/audiobook/25-the-collected-works-of-vladimir-lenin/id1735296266?itsct=books_box_link&itscg=30200&ls=1&at=1001l3bAw&ct=9natree
- eBay: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Economic+Calculation+in+the+Socialist+Commonwealth+Ludwig+von+Mises+&mkcid=1&mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&siteid=0&campid=5339060787&customid=9natree&toolid=10001&mkevt=1
- Read more: https://mybook.top/read/1610165500/
#economiccalculation #socialismdebate #pricesystem #centralplanning #Austrianeconomics #EconomicCalculationintheSocialistCommonwealth
These are takeaways from this book.
Firstly, Why Economic Calculation Depends on Private Property, Mises begins from a simple but far reaching premise: rational allocation requires a way to calculate. In market societies, calculation is made possible by private ownership of the means of production, because ownership enables exchange, and exchange generates prices. Those prices are not mere labels; they condense countless judgments about scarcity, time, risk, and alternative uses. When factories, machines, raw materials, and land are privately owned, entrepreneurs must bid for them, bearing the cost of mistakes and seeking gains from correct forecasts. In a socialist commonwealth where such assets are collectively owned, there is no genuine market for capital goods. If there is no buying and selling of those goods, there are no real money prices for them. Without those prices, planners cannot perform monetary calculation across heterogeneous inputs. They can list quantities in physical terms, but they cannot easily decide whether steel should go to rail lines, bridges, or machine tools when each option consumes different mixes of labor, materials, and time. Mises frames this not as a complaint about insufficient goodwill but as a structural barrier: the disappearance of private property in productive assets removes the institutional foundation that makes calculation possible in the first place.
Secondly, The Price System as a Practical Information Tool, A core topic is the practical role of prices in coordinating knowledge dispersed across society. In Mises view, no single authority can directly know the best uses of every input, because production decisions require continuously updated comparisons among countless alternatives. Market prices provide a common unit that allows decision makers to compare projects that are otherwise incommensurable. A firm can ask whether building one plant instead of another is worthwhile, whether to switch a process, or whether to conserve a resource, because price relationships translate many local facts into actionable signals. Mises emphasizes that this is not only about consumer goods but especially about capital goods and intermediate inputs. Prices in these areas enable the mapping of complex production chains and tradeoffs over time. In a planned economy, administrators may attempt to imitate markets by setting accounting values or issuing directives, but if those values are not formed through competitive bidding and exchange, they lack the same grounding in opportunity cost. The result is not merely inefficiency at the margins but a deeper inability to tell whether a chosen method is economical relative to alternatives. For Mises, the price system is a social technology for solving coordination problems, and removing it breaks the feedback loop that guides adjustments.
Thirdly, Why Engineering Planning Cannot Replace Monetary Calculation, Mises distinguishes between technical feasibility and economic rationality. An engineer can identify methods that work physically and can even rank them by particular technical criteria, such as energy use, material strength, or output per machine hour. But economic planning requires more than technical optimization within a narrow constraint. It requires comparing disparate ends and scarce means across an entire economy: housing versus hospitals, freight capacity versus consumer goods, present consumption versus future investment. These comparisons depend on a common denominator that reflects relative scarcity and alternative uses. Monetary calculation using market prices provides that denominator by translating resource choices into comparable costs. Under socialism, planners may attempt calculation in kind, tallying tons, kilowatts, or labor hours. Mises argues that such measures fail because goods differ in quality and context, and because production uses complex combinations that change constantly. A labor hour is not uniform; a ton of material differs by grade and location; time and uncertainty complicate every plan. Without market prices for capital goods, planners cannot determine which technical plan is the least costly in terms of foregone alternatives. The economy might still produce outputs, but choices become arbitrary or politically driven rather than systematically economical. Mises thus treats engineering rationality as necessary but insufficient, unable to substitute for economic calculation.
Fourthly, Capital Goods Markets, Profit and Loss, and the Discovery Process, Another major theme is how markets for capital goods create a discovery process through profit and loss. In Mises framework, entrepreneurs do not simply follow given data; they interpret uncertain future conditions and coordinate resources accordingly. Profit and loss serve as continuous tests of whether resources are being directed toward valued ends and away from waste. Crucially, these tests rely on money prices for capital and intermediate goods, because only then can firms calculate whether outputs are worth more than the inputs consumed. Under socialism, even if consumer goods were distributed and even if administrators tracked inventories, the absence of capital markets prevents this entrepreneurial test from operating. Decisions about expanding one industry, retiring equipment, or adopting new techniques cannot be assessed with the same clarity, because input valuations are not anchored in exchange. Mises suggests that central authorities would lack a reliable way to distinguish genuine productivity improvements from mere rearrangements that look impressive physically but cost too much in sacrificed alternatives. Over time, misallocations would accumulate, and planners would face chronic difficulty determining which lines of production should grow, shrink, or disappear. The topic highlights that coordination is not a one time design problem but an ongoing adaptive process. Markets generate learning through rivalry, pricing, and accounting, whereas a single planning agency must rely on administrative judgment without the same corrective mechanism.
Lastly, Implications for Socialist Models and Mixed Economic Arrangements, Mises argument has broad implications for different forms of socialism and for partially planned systems. He targets comprehensive socialism where the means of production are collectively owned, but the logic raises questions for any arrangement that suppresses markets for capital goods or constrains price formation. If planners allow consumer markets while nationalizing major industries, the remaining price signals may still be too weak to guide investment and production structure, because the most consequential choices involve capital allocation, technology selection, and intertemporal tradeoffs. Mises also anticipates proposals for simulated pricing, where administrators attempt to set shadow prices or use accounting rules to mimic markets. His critique suggests that imitation lacks the institutional foundation of private ownership, competitive bidding, and responsibility for losses. The issue is not only computation but the origin and meaning of the numbers used in calculation. At the same time, the essay invites reflection on mixed economies, where regulation, subsidies, and state enterprises coexist with private firms. Readers can use Mises framework to ask where calculation remains reliable and where interventions distort the signals needed for rational planning. The topic is less a policy checklist than an analytic lens: it clarifies why certain decisions are best disciplined by market prices and why removing or blunting those prices risks systematic misallocation. This makes the work relevant to debates about industrial policy, public ownership, and large scale economic coordination.
