Economic Calculation Problem: Debunking Xexizy—Socialists Don't Understand Economics

Economic Calculation Problem is something grossly misunderstood and have covered this very problem numerous times before. This time, debunking Xexizy, socialists don't understand economics. If socialists did understand economics, they would understand the importance of prices.

I covered the argument on prices relative to profits and losses, as well as on the variety of options regarding resources and their uses. You can find both of those videos here:

• profits and losses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI

• variety of options:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc

I advise that if you wish to get a fuller understanding to watch those two videos first. I explain the importance of prices, what profits and losses are, as well as giving you an understanding of how complex the economy is regarding the variety of options.

Then you can watch the extended argument I made that not only covers why computer technology can't solve the problem, but showing extensively examples of scarcity and the role prices have in the economy with relative scarcity in relation to products such as with milk, etc.

• Economic Calculation Problem (Extended):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjzofn0qzQ4

Xexizy confuses the Economic Calculation Problem, just like all socialists, he doesn't realise that the Economic Calculation Problem is a separate argument from Hayek's Knowledge Problem. I didn't feel the need to go much into the argument on this problem because I've addressed it more extensively in those other videos. The purpose of this video debunking Xexizy is to illustrate the point for why his argument is deeply flawed.

Relative to his deeply flawed argument he twists communism to suit his own agenda, he clearly does not understand the theory of communism and like many socialists, attempts to correlate socialism with individuals being able to drive production and have personal ownership.

As I have addressed on the dictionary definitions, they are VERY clear for what they mean.

*PERSONAL:*
• belonging to or affecting a particular person rather than anyone else.
• of or concerning one's private life, relationships, and emotions rather than one's career or public life.
• relating to a particular person; private
• Of or relating to a particular person; private
• Concerning a particular person and his or her private business, interests, or activities; intimate
• relating or belonging to a single or particular person rather than to a group or an organization

Those definitions explain crystal clear for what _"personal"_ ownership means. It has NOTHING to do with collective ownership on ANY level. Socialism is about communal ownership and this defies ALL meaning of what is personal. When in support of personal ownership, you're supporting individualism; the individual taking precedence over the group.

It is proof that socialists love to manipulate language to bastardise the meaning of anything to try and blur the lines because if they accept there is no personal ownership, they concede to the fact they require stripping you of all your rights.

Two other words socialists love to try and separate are *'CENTRALISE'* and *'COLLECTIVISE'* which both by definition clearly show they have the same meaning.

*CENTRALISE:*
• concentrate (control of an activity or organization) under a single authority.
• bring (activities or processes) together in one place.
• make central; "The Russian government centralized the distribution of food"
• to draw to or gather about a center.
• to bring under one control, especially in government.
• to come together at or to form a center.
• to bring separate parts together so that they are organized or controlled from one place.

Again, it is very clear for what _centralise_ means, which closely correlates to collectivise.

*COLLECTIVISE:*
• bring under collective control; of farms and industrial enterprises.
• If farms or factories are collectivized, they are brought under state ownership and control, usually by combining a number of small farms or factories into one large one.
• bring under collective control; of farms and industrial enterprises.

As you can see, the definitions of both _centralise_ and _collectivise_ mean the same thing. The very fact you have socialists out there religiously and desperately trying to convince you they mean different things, tells you that socialists are cultists. The reason socialists NEED to convince you that CENTRALISE is different in meaning to COLLECTIVISE is because the very basis of socialism is COLLECTIVISM. If they concede to this, they concede to the fact that socialism is nothing to do with decentralisation of an economy.

You cannot COLLECTIVISE and DECENTRALISE at the same time. *Perhaps if you decentralise from one body government down to individual communes, but even those individual communes correlate with centralisation.* As I've argued many times in the past, however, it's all theoretical for their argument for individual communes.