"You have wrongly accused me of assuming that the difference between a barter economy and a money economy is not "minor"."

Sorry, my mistake, I meant to say that you have wrongly assumed that the difference between a barter economy and a money economy is minor. However like you I am not really concerned about barter issues.

If you will actually *think* about it for once, you will see that the economic calculation problem cannot only apply where central planning completely replaces markets, because if it did, that would mean that the existence of, for example, one privately owned farm in the whole of Soviet Russia, would negate the economic calculation problem.

"The ECP is indeed "only significant where central planning completely replaces markets" because otherwise it is solved by markets."

Yes, solved by *markets*, not solved nor solvable by central planning, which by its very existence, displaces markets.

So it is common ground that
a) central planning completely replacing markets would be a disaster, and
b) some partial central planning will definitely be worse than no government intervention at all.

Your challenge is to show, by some *rational* standard, how you know that any given category of government intervention will necessarily *not* fall into category b) above.

All you've done so far is assert perfectly arbitrary opinions - "adequate" this, "a lot" that, "a bit" of the other, "sensible reason" something else. These facile expressions only beg the question.

I say that the reason you're not proving by any objective standard, is because you can't do it, because of the economic calculation problem.

On the other hand, you're
1. admitting that you can't do it,
2. denying that you can't do it,
3. denying that it's because of the ECP, but then
4. giving no coherent theoretical reason why you either can do it or can't do it.

If you can do it, then let's see your calculations! Show your account of values for all those who would have decided otherwise, absent the intervention.

And if you can't, then admit you've got the ECP problem!

Jardine K. Jardine, if you have ever debated a fundamentalist Christian on their claims about God, you will notice that your intellectual method is exactly the same as theirs. You simply assume before the discussion's outset, without any explanation or definition or proof, the existence of an all-knowing well-intentioned moral and pragmatic super-being called The Invisible Hand of the Market aka your God.

Then when challenged to prove your mythical beliefs, you simply retort the same circular basal assumption in your own favour. Endlessly. Thus you hold your circular beliefs as complete proof and immunity against any critical inquiry.

Economics is a Religion not a Science. You appear to be one of her High Priests, or a Cardinal. Given your pseudonym of Jardine K. Jardine, it's speaks a plenty of where your head's at, ay me Lord?

Now if you can’t see, or don’t care, that that’s illogical, that’s your problem. All I have to do is say 'Invisible Hand' to prove, according to your own standard, that you are “100% Hypocritical”. It’s superstitious because it’s obviously illogical and excessively credulous.

It’s creationist because, like the fundamentalist Christians, you believe that this process explains and prescribes the production of benefits for society. Your argument boils down to only, It is because it is, and It must be so because it must be so.

You simply refuse to even consider the possibility that Adam Smith has been hijacked and taken hostage. That overplayed Hand of the Market does not have the power that you assume it does.

It is not an ad hominem argument for me to say you are proselytizing a creationist superstition. It is mere description of what you are doing, based on the reasons and evidence – your own garbled double-talk. You're a sophist, a spin-meister, believer in magic and follower of a wholly discredited fake religious experience.

The State holds whatever Power the Government decides to give it. The Government is The People in whom the only true earthly Power resides.

Not has been drug dealers like the Jardines. Your religiously held myths are irrelevant.
-

TO'R

The economic goods produced by the market are not getting to you by religious myth.

On the other hand, if you wish to assert that the State is equally or better capable at economising anything - in terms of the ultimate human welfare criterion however you care to define it - you run into the economic calculation problem.

Either you must assert that full socialism is equally or more physically productive than capitalism, and better able to allocate scarce resources to human felt wants - in which case you must assert that mass starvation under totalitarianism better satisfies the human wants satisfied by capitalism.

Or you must resile from your major premise - assumption of governmental omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence - and you are then in the unanswered and unanswerable problem facing Aidan: by what objective standard do you know which economic interventions of government are detrimental, and which are beneficial? Your mere arbitrary opinion is not an objective criterion, not because I disagree with it, but because you have to account for the subjective human values and the alternative possible uses of resources that you have forcibly sacrificed to get the result you wanted at others' expense.

Go ahead: try. Prove how you know what is the right amount of stimulus and spending. Make sure you show in your workings how you calculated the subjective values of all those people affected positively and negatively, as against the counter-factual scenario, and how you know it.

The same problem does not confront the supply of goods and services by voluntary exchanges based on private property. No assumption of a supernatural superbeing is required to assume that people will exchange what they expect will make them better off, nor that voluntary exchange based on private property makes possible economic calculation.

By contrast, your firm belief in the super-economising super-ability of the State has no basis in reality or reason, which is why Aidan and you can’t defend your beliefs without instant resort to question-begging, non sequitur, misrepresentation, appeal to authority, ad hominem, and every species of fallacy.

(cont.) Furthermore you have simply ASSUMED that everyone else must be following the same jumbled illogical process of self-opinionated arbitrary guesswork as you are engaged in.

But I'm not.

I disprove your beliefs by the contradictions and illogic and errors in your argument, for example, your having conveniently ignored ethics and economic issues of the force and threats that you advocate.

You do not disprove my argument, but only ignore retort blind open-ended state-worship, without even understanding, let alone identifying or justifying the economic assumptions that you are making.

For example:
"The State holds whatever Power the Government decides to give it."

Pure stupid religiosity.

Does the State have the power to suspend the Second Law of Thermodynamic, does it?

Answer the question, fool.

Jardine (continued)
What you stupidly assume to be inconsistent application of some basal assumption that's logically inconsistent with my some of my other beliefs is actually an acknowledgement of the fact that dynamic problems require contextual responses!

"Which inflation rates" is a sensible question. I think the overall inflation rate (the CPI) is the most sensible one to use, but if you prefer some other measure then I'm happy to discuss it.

I could go on, but I think what you've written since then is far more relevant to the flaws in your argument and differences in our ways of thinking:

When I said:
...If the theory doesn't match the facts, what you "know in theory" you actually don't know at all...
You responded with "That assumes you know all the factual variables, you fool."
But you're the fool because I make no such assumptions. Indeed not knowing all the factual variables is a compelling reason NOT to accept your theory as a basis for decision making.

Regarding you claim that...
"If you will actually *think* about it for once, you will see that the economic calculation problem cannot only apply where central planning completely replaces markets, because if it did, that would mean that the existence of, for example, one privately owned farm in the whole of Soviet Russia, would negate the economic calculation problem"
...It's not a question of negating the problem, it's a question of solving it. One private farm in the whole of Soviet Russia would enable the problem to be crudely addressed; more private farms would enable a more comprehensive solution. And of course there's also international commodity prices, which were the actual basis of the USSR's solution to the ECP. Of course they still had many problems with economic calculation, but THE economic calculation problem was solved.

And it's simply untrue that central planning, by its very existence, displaces markets. Unless the central planning creates an such an abundance that everyone's desires are fulfilled (which seems unlikely) the market will not be displaced.

But that's a trivial point compared to your main error... (tbc)

@Jardine K. Jardine, I'm so sorry, I made a big mistake.

Here I was thinking you were probably and overly obsessive economics student lacking sleep, with very extreme ideological beliefs in Anarcho-Capitalism. http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Only to discover that you much more than that my dear friend and are clearly suffering from the after effects of a somewhat strained childhood that has led to profound narcissistic psychopathology.

Where your particular economics political bent is merely the ground upon which you have chosen to express your seriously disordered anti-social personality to harass and abuse everyone else you can find on social media venues.

Wonderful, great, well bully for you Jardine K. Jardine!

Maybe this may help others understand exactly what they are dealing with here.

Who are Pathological Narcissists and Emotional Manipulators?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7j2axIRja4
(a quick effective 5 minutes)

Pathological Narcissism, Psychosis, and Delusions
http://samvak.tripod.com/narcissistpsychotic.html

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), Self-love, Narcissism, Narcissists, Psychopaths, And Relationships with Abusers, Stalkers, and Bullies FAQ
http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq1.html

Narcissist: Psychotic? (6mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwgG2A0bHII

Bonus References

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-symptoms/

http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder

http://www.askdoctork.com/the-word-is-used-frequently-but-what-does-being-delusional-really-mean-201306084949

Exploring the Psychology of Wealth (quick 9 mins video)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsense_06-21/

On Wealth and Wrongdoing: How Social Class Influences Unethical Behavior
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/57x7n454

Global Economic Symposium (GES) 2013 - interview with George Lakoff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjNwXx2DwcQ

Professor George Lakoff on The Political Mind
http://library.fora.tv/2008/06/20/George_Lakoff_on_The_Political_Mind

Lakoff on Adam Smith, Taxes, Progressive Thought and the Conservative Rewriting of History and Adam Smith's Original Principles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCXxc_M9EmE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h6m55s

There is no Political Ideology of the Moderate. I am a Moderate. Moderation in all things including Moderation.

Ideology is a collection of Beliefs held by an individual, group or society.

Religion is a collection of Beliefs too. Funny that. :-)
-