[Mises, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth"](https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth) Some selected quotes I think are worth recollection (pg. 13-18 of pdf): >Monetary calculation *only has meaning within* the sphere of economic organization. It is a system whereby the rules of economics may be applied in the disposition of economic goods. Economic goods only have part in this system in proportion to the extent to which they may be exchanged for money. Any extension of the sphere of monetary calculation causes misunderstanding. It can-not be regarded as constituting a kind of yardstick for the valuation of goods, and cannot be so treated in historical investigations into the development of social relationships; it cannot be used as a criterion of national wealth and in-come, nor as a means of gauging the value of goods which stand outside the sphere of exchange, as who should seek to estimate th
Thanks. Yes, this is the argument I would need to counter or incorporate. I start from the assumption that the market could--and necessarily is--dialed up or down in accord with state imperatives, so I want to ask the question: how low could it be dialed down? I want to try to formulate the answer "all the way," but on terms as voluntary as possible so as to frame the market as derogation of power--possibly necessary, possible beneficial, but still a derogation that needs to be accounted for. So, "all the way" is not necessarily a final answer--it's more of a thought experiment to bring out what the features of this more intentional form of cooperation would have to look like. But the way you speak about it here fits what I'm trying to think through: the ruler might set up a market for a certain purpose, or allow for a circumscribed market for certain sectors where it has proved beneficial. Exactly how much calculation must be done in money--can we calculate *that*? What other "variables" are held constant as we do? And, of course, we'd have to talk about monopolies. We need a consistent way of speaking about economics, and I hope what I have here is a step toward it,, even if through some "falsification." I don't want to take anything for granted.
I'm on board with the thought-experimentation. Apologies if I made the impression that I was trying to shut you down; wrote it as I was rushing to jump into bed. >Exactly how much calculation must be done in money--can we calculate that? A question I ponder quite a bit. It's a variant of a topic that is pondered and solved in board rooms and government offices everyday. We might take the tactic, which I think has been profitably utilized by this community a number of times, of simply researching how practical men in business and government already solve this issue for their own institutions. They may already have a name for this sort of calculation and its methods and best practices. Preliminary search terms we might use: vertical integration, outsourcing process, mergers and acquisitions, economies of scale, etc. There is probably some standard or popular set of methods for how institutions decide if production is more desirable to be in house rather than contracted out. And while M
No, I didn't get that impression--your response was very welcome.
Hopefully, we'll get more people with business knowledge and experience interested in what we're doing and they'll help us out with the specifics. (Maybe you're one of those people,) Or maybe a new journal will come along that's interested in these questions--I thought that might be *American Affairs* for awhile, but they seem to have gotten interested in other things. As a theorist, I'm content to have the question, and to know what kind of a question is for us. That allows for a kind of dialectic with liberal economics, and we'll learn from that. It also provides an opening to address something liberal economic really can't: what would be possible in a well-ordered society, in which adherence to the center is a given, that wouldn't be possible in more centrifugal settings? Social order and de-pathologization must count for something, economically.