In so far as Mises' perspective on the economic calculation problem differs from Hayek's, how would you re-frame your argument on that point? It would be comfy to wrap up the ECP and have tidy responses to any potential austrian Econ interlocutor. If you feel that you've already demolished Mises, please elaborate for me. Or else if I am missing something, let me know. I really want to completely move beyond liberal economics into a new system. The problem of economic calculation and the method by which exchange creates quantifiable and uniform ratios of costs just seems really tough to dispense with entirely. I'd at least like to have clean way of contextualizing it into a greater formalist/absolutist framework. Tbf to Mises, his arguments are mostly severed from liberal anthropology from what I can tell. He believes it's possible to have a society without economic calculation, he just thinks it would be regimented and simplistic in terms of its complexity of production. But then, may
If there is, and must be, an unsupervised arena within a broader supervisory frame, then within that arena there is exchange and the reciprocal assessment of value. Even in a Soviet prison camp, prisoners can exchange favors, personal articles, utensils, etc., and some kind of currency might be used; at the very least, you'd know you need 5 cigarettes to get a spoon, or whatever. Such economies can be left alone and allowed to flourish within the broader supervisory framework. Some decisions need to be made under very close supervision, or according to strict enforced rules; other decisions can be left to the agents to work out on their own. It is among the latter that markets will emerge, and it is at the discretion of the central authority to allow as much scope for those arenas as they like. And within those markets, I think the various economic "laws" would be operative (there would be supply and demand, etc.). The point is that is is not sociality as such--it is always a subordinate region of the social order.