I believe that Mises may be your own personal God, Peter Hume.

It is either "believe in me, or be cast into the hellfire".

My own view is that there is no such thing as a "middle way", if only because it allows you to be shot at from both sides. (I'll ignore for the moment the option of ducking, so they hit each other)

But there must be a case for "horses for courses", which is, I believe, what GilbertHolmes was taking great pains to point out.

Capitalism in its rawest, no-government-intervention form is, for example, absolutely lousy at providing basic facilities for the elderly. Stern (in his former guise) and I have had this discussion before, on the topic of the disappearance of the bus service that allowed my mother, now getting close to ninety, to get to the local library.

The stark reality is that my mother has lost all her economic power, at the same time as her legs are less able to carry her about. Nobody is going to establish a commercially-viable bus service for her demographic - and, according to you, nor should the taxpayer be allowed to do so.

I believe that this is a very short-sighted view.

(Unless of course, you are Dick Smith, one of our leading capitalists, who would also like to see a reduction in our population. Rushing a few more old ladies to an early grave might fit the bill nicely.)

There is certainly more than a touch of religion in this, isn't there Peter Hume? No room for doubt, no room for wavering from the cause, no room to accommodate ideas that do not fit neatly within the tightly-laced corsets of your favourite theory. Eh?

Relax a little. Too much dry economics makes Jack a very dull boy indeed.

Peter
Both you and Mises incorrectly assert that all socialism is centralised and authoritarian. This may stand for Marxist/Leninist socialism but is a total anathema to large parts of the left. Socialist ideas are not limited to Marxian Social Democracy, and so von Mises ignores far more socialistic ideas than he attacks.

Prices are not used to calculate the most efficient way of doing things only the cheapest. Prices hide the actual costs that production involved for the individual, society, and the environment, and instead boils everything down into one factor, namely price.

Indeed, prices often mis-value goods as companies can gain a competitive advantage by passing costs onto society (in the form of pollution, for example, or de-skilling workers, increasing job insecurity, and so on). This externalisation of costs is actually rewarded in the market as consumers seek the lowest prices, unaware of the reasons why it is lower (such information cannot be gathered from looking at the price).
Using prices, to the exclusion of all other considerations, means basing all decision making on one criterion and ignoring all others. This has seriously irrational effects, because the managers of capitalist enterprises are obliged to choose technical means of production which produce the cheapest results. All other considerations are subordinate, in particular the health and welfare of the producers and the effects on the environment.

Once again Peter go here to see why and how Mises was wrong.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI1#seci11

Stern
<<Ego and other human emotions drive people with access to power to see themselves as an all-knowing, all powerful authority. They then insinuate themselves into an ever increasing range of human activities, dominating private choices to education, healthcare, regulating more and more aspects of everyday life>>

But only for socialists right? Capitalists with access to power never fall prey to "ego and other human emotions" do they? The shallowness of your argument could not be more striking.

Pericles, I remember your old mum

My commuting costs fell to 30% of what they were previous (a drop of 70%) when Margaret Thatcher broke the UK rail monopoly on commuter travel into London.

It was the likes of me who were being financially violated to pay for your mums cheap bus fares.

as road users are financially abused to pay for the non-effectual mega-subsidised commuter rail network in Melbourne, along with the worst (state government selected) ticketing system ever implemented (at a price no private operator would have ever spent).

Mikk “But only for socialists right? Capitalists with access to power never fall prey to "ego and other human emotions" do they? The shallowness of your argument could not be more striking.”
(re my original comment “Ego and other human emotions drive people with access to power....”

My point Mikk, I am observing a common human frailty and common to all humans regardless of their political leanings

It is not that capitalists are less likely to abuse power than any socialists,

It is that capitalism devolves power and does not rely, like collectivist models of organisation, on the concentration of authority and thus “power” in one place.

The “human frailty” issue means the potential for catastrophic consequences from any “centralised system” of control is far more damaging than where control is devolved.

Example –

If you rely on central heating and the switch on the power supply fails, you lose all the heating to all the rooms of your house.

If you rely on devolved room heaters, each empowered to be turned on or off separately and one of the switches breaks, you still have heat in the other locations.

The ensuing loss of “heat” being less “catastrophic” than under the “decentralised” system.

Another example – do you suppose Stalin could have possibly got away with murdering 30 million people if he owned a mere business, instead of owning USSR?

“The shallowness of your argument could not be more striking.”

Only for those who cannot grasp concepts which either challenge or fly high above their own dogmatic prejudices

Aw man! I cant believe I missed you under you new moniker Col. Welcome back. (Belatedly)

I still like Col Rouge better than Stern. Why did you have to change on me Col!

I've got some reading to do. So much to catch up on.

<<It is that capitalism devolves power and does not rely, like collectivist models of organisation, on the concentration of authority and thus “power” in one place. >>

It may not "rely" ,as you put it, on the concentration of power but the reality is that in a capitalist system power DOES concentrate to one place and one small group of people. The mega wealthy.

<<The “human frailty” issue means the potential for catastrophic consequences from ANY “centralised system” of control is far more damaging than where control is devolved.>>

So where do you stand on the average capitalist corporation? Surely you recognise the "centralised system of control" that is inherent in such organisations. Why does your ideology not also apply in business?

When will you recognise that not all socialist thought is predicated on centralisation and authoritarianism? Libertarian socialism, syndicalism, anarchism, mutualism and many others all reject central authority and control and seek to replace capitalist exploitation with decentralised, democratic workers control.

At least learn what socialism actually is before you critisise a straw man and make yourself look stupid.