I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/reeeeeeeeee] [r/Drama] SERIOUSPOSTERS OUT OUT OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

When have we not been at this point? This sub is a trash heap of serious posting retards. Has been since the election ended.

I'd say you answered your own question.

We recently got culturally enriched by some 'pedes after the sub opened back up

No we didn't.

Yes we did.

did that have anything to do with voat?

Nah mostly MDE

The whining about mde is even worse. What the fuck is that sub anyway

r/drama but somehow shittier.

Shitposters who aren't lefties that make SRD wannabe dramanauts lose their shit it seems.

Downdoodles speak for themselves.

responds to own comment to cry about downvotes

/r/sadcringe

That's not what complaining means. Downsnozzled.

> having feelings this hurt

Oy vey

I'm not mad, ur mad Did MDE subscribers mug you and your boyfriend or something?

the only people that vote in drama are seriousposters

drama users whining about mde is like srd users whining about drama

some people here have zero self awareness

Must be newfags who’ve been here a week

says the serious poster

Kek

Always downvoting smh. No one has serious internet feelings more than you.

I have only ever serious-posted in direct response to a serious post. Not that it's helping things.

unironically complaining about imaginary internet points

Can you be anymore pathetic? Lololol

I've literally deleted tens of thousands of karma. But u got me 🙄. Keep the downvotes coming bud 😁

cry harder

👏👏👏

Lololol. I would never try and out karma you Ed. Never. I enjoy having a job, getting laid, and getting off the internet in general. You are undoubtedly a much better Redditor than me. Congrats! 🎉🎊🍾

I enjoy...

https://i.imgur.com/zKSsExY.jpg

Lmao

You still into creative writing?

Cry harder about LEFTOIDS ruining this sub and downvoting. I enjoy those tears (っ˘ڡ˘ς)

https://i.imgur.com/Sc8pgyO.gif

Lol keep it coming Ed. This sub was boring while you were banned. Shame that ticktock got his way and forced you into making concessions.

trying this hard to bait and fails

But I thought you were happy with your "job"? https://i.imgur.com/hXe50HZ.gif

Boring tbh. Make sure you're online later. I'm coming for this sub.

Actually, nvm, you'll be on here lol

trying this hard

r/sadcringe 😢

You do realize that you keep the karma from deleted posts and comments, right?

Only dinoposters should be allowed on here tbh

Daily reminder that Jesus summoned Meteor to nuke the dinosaurs from the face of the earth because they were living in sin.

Gay sin.

Daily reminder that dinosaurs 🦖 were to perfect for this world so they transcended to the next by altering cosmic entities

Is that what you learned at Dinosaur Camp?

What a fundie, keep yourself safe.

Once again I say that I hope your punishment in the afterlife is you being tied to a rock being eaten by dinosaurs 🦖 at night to only heal during the day as the heat bakes you on the rock. No food to quell your hunger. No water to satisfy your thirst. Your body will only provide sustenance to those whom you mocked. Day in and day out a slow torturous existence that makes you wish for the sweet release of oblivion. You’ll wish to embrace nonexistence in her apathetic embrace, but that night will never come, for your nights will be filled with your guttural screams and a feast for those you scorned. Enjoy your time here mocking the dinosaurs 🦖. There will be a reckoning for you words typed here today if not in this life, then in the next.

Yeah yeah Dinosaurs escaped on a spaceship or something, who the fuck cares. They're dead, all of them.

Now if you excuse me I'm going to scratch my butt with this Stegosaurus bone I found in my backyard.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Meteor of Peace'ed

Some dinosaurs rebelled, too afraid of what might happen if the transcendence went wrong. They were too chicken, and they lost.

Truly a sad part of that tale

Akshually it was the ice age

Sauce: the documentary Batman and robot

Akshually

https://imgur.com/a/r1mFEn8 does this count? i mean its not technically a dinosaur

^{Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image}

https://i.imgur.com/GEizQt3.jpg

^{Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme | deletthis}

Daily reminder that Jesus summoned Meteor to nuke the dinosaurs from the face of the earth because they were living in sin.

Gay sin.

I can only get so erect.png

no the extinction of the dinosaurs was done in part by the zionist so they could evolve from reptilians and mingle with humanity in the future. You see.. the jews are Parasitic Alien Psychopaths who tried to control and interbreed with Humanity in their quest for universal domination.

Want proof? Despite only being 0.19% of the world's population, Jews control 99% of the world's money. (See: Rothschild, Warburg, etc.) The only nation's whose money is not issued by a Rothschilds bank are Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Noticing anything there?

btw guys last time I made a pasta like this /r/topmindsofreddit took me seriously and linked my comment lmao

And people still think Muslims are the enemy...

https://noobproguide.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/safer-savior-sephiroth.jpg

I remember that...though as Gay as Jesus looks with his blocky abs and long hair, I'm fairly sure he was trying to wipe out the straights.

🐧

What's your opinion on the Archaeopteryx?

Neat but I prefer larger dinosaurs

I take ut you're an Argentinosaurus fan?

It’s cool but I’m more of a Spinosaurus/Irritator guy myself

  ________________ 
 ( LOL GAY )
  ---------------- 
          o 
            o
              \\
               l'> 
               ll    
               ❤Bussy~ 
               ||  ||  
               ''  ''  
         ~~~  Congratz!!! ~~~
U haff been visited by the r/Drama Llama!! 

r/BUSSYLMAO

⏬DOWNVOTED⏬

wow rood af 😡😡😣😣

LOL GAY

You're so mean to meeeeeee 😣😣😔😔

L

O

L

G

A

Y

bully!

Rip dramallama

😭😭😭

DINOCIDE_65_MILLION_YEARS_AGO

Without a healthy environment of seriousposters from both sides, radical centrism cannot be achieved.

seriousposters are to be selectively imported, like a temporary work visa, not permanent residents

Then you get a biased sample, and through evaporate cooling end up with a partisan sub.

if I wanted to hang out with a bunch of cringeanarchy and SRD posters, I'd go to those fucking subs

But nowhere else you get to seem them go at each other all the time.

Problem is, the MDE immigrnats are more common now than the misplaced SRDines.

SRD thinks drama is filled with Nazis and stays away. MDE thinks drama is full of Nazis and comes over.

Maybe step up our harassment (are we still allowed to do this?) of MDE regulars until they get the point?

We apparently are no longer allowed to do this.

What if we just ping them and then ambush the ones who take the bait?

Why are they immigrating even? Do they not like it in their home subreddit for some reason?

They're coming here to rape our bussies. Drama is already starting to have no-go zones with all the dae legbeards are bad posts.

I offer up /u/Ed_ButteredToast as a sacrifice.

5 day old account

MDEFAGS OUT OUT OUT 👉👉👉

I was /u/arko_podu and /u/fartkin. I delete my accounts periodically

https://i.imgur.com/KDQjVZS.gif

nigga you've only been on reddit for a year and a half

OUT OUT OUT 👉👉👉

Ahh so you're a coward afraid to stand by your own opinions huh?

You resemble gussy, gussy is NEVER ok here.

I want to see your tits so bad Ed.

https://i.imgur.com/kvCXJ7x.jpg

Shithole subs

SRD thinks drama is filled with Nazis and stays away

I think there's an understanding over there that there's a good overlap between the subs.

No.

I suggest we “Transition” all MDE users unironically

I suggest we Transition all transitioned users

I don’t listen to people who get BTFO by pizzashill. Nothing personal kid

I don’t care if you listen. I don’t need to communicate with you; all I need you to do is not exist.

all I need you to do is not exist

What did you mean by this?

Degenerates and jihazis should stop existing and no new ones ought be created

Degenerates and jihazis should stop existing

How?

Just... say... no.

Give it a couple weeks, they’ll fuck off to T_D like they always do. People who aren’t secure in their opinions can’t take the rarefied r/drama culture.

Will there even be a culture left this time?

As long as Ed and Pizzashill keep up their usual quality content, yeah. A bunch of MDE incels aren’t going to be what kills r/drama.

💤💤💤

Why is /u/Ed_ButteredToast around still then? We need to really reflect on the the consequences of letting unvetted subrefugees in.

Because he's a drama queen and really fucking good at it, unlike real life tbqh.

What real life?

Nice seriouspost.

Just admit that you're mad because the posting on this sub doesn't skew leftoid and you're another bitchy closet SRDine.

2/10 no bussy 😡😡😡

r/BUSSYLMAO

Now I get it. You're so adamant about seriousposting because you're this appallingly bad at funposting.

this but unironically

There is no such thing as “trans” women

They aren’t any kind of women

using LEFTOID unironically

Imagine being this stupid

Ever being unironic

why bother

Like a CA user.

leftoid

does your handler you post online?

Imagine getting so mad about me using the word leftoid that you literally forget words in the middle of your single sentence post

dont talk to me before ive had my coffee

imagine getting so mad

no u mad

Nice defense. Your reaching meltdown status tbh

/u/AnnoysTheGoys see! I called it 2 hours ago! Knew it was gonna happen lol

they got smug for a while and now theyre panicking lol

There's a ton of one day old accounts espousing srdiney opinions and getting upvoted, I wonder where the brigade is coming from

The real issue with this sub is the coward pussies that post from 5 day old alts bitching about anything and everything. Man up you fucking fembot pussy.

We want you to go to those subs and don’t come back

This is like my 50th re reg, obviously

Why would you even volunteer something so pathetic?

Reddit mods go on autistic tantrums and ban people. It is a badge of honor.

GET THE FUCK OUT

I agree with you completely. Radical centrism is the radical right and radical left coming together creating unity through drama and being each other's lolcows. It's the political position of peace.

Anti-feminism is so passe

Why is his name Nelson ManDela and not Neldaughter WomanDela??????

PATRIARCHY

so bad lol

(I stole this one from the glorious source of cultural critique known as YouTube comment sections)

Don't lie, just admit that you got DESTROYED by FACTS and LOGIC.

Instead of history, how come there is no herstory???🤔🤔🤔

There is. It's a permanent exhibit in the Brooklyn Museum.

Yeah, I thought we were going islamo-radfem this month.

jewish woman is feminist irl what a shock

Keep yourself safe.

The Seriousposter is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Seriousposter and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

I'm serious in 100% of my posts but no one ever believes me or is willing to challenge me on it.

me too thanks

you're welcome

H.1

What is the problem we wish to solve when we try to construct a rational economic order? On certain familiar assumptions the answer is simple enough. If we possess all the relevant information, if we can start out from a given system of preferences, and if we command complete knowledge of available means, the problem which remains is purely one of logic. That is, the answer to the question of what is the best use of the available means is implicit in our assumptions. The conditions which the solution of this optimum problem must satisfy have been fully worked out and can be stated best in mathematical form: put at their briefest, they are that the marginal rates of substitution between any two commodities or factors must be the same in all their different uses.

H.2

This, however, is emphatically not the economic problem which society faces. And the economic calculus which we have developed to solve this logical problem, though an important step toward the solution of the economic problem of society, does not yet provide an answer to it. The reason for this is that the "data" from which the economic calculus starts are never for the whole society "given" to a single mind which could work out the implications and can never be so given.

H.3

The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate "given" resources—if "given" is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these "data." It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.

H.4

This character of the fundamental problem has, I am afraid, been obscured rather than illuminated by many of the recent refinements of economic theory, particularly by many of the uses made of mathematics. Though the problem with which I want primarily to deal in this paper is the problem of a rational economic organization, I shall in its course be led again and again to point to its close connections with certain methodological questions. Many of the points I wish to make are indeed conclusions toward which diverse paths of reasoning have unexpectedly converged. But, as I now see these problems, this is no accident. It seems to me that many of the current disputes with regard to both economic theory and economic policy have their common origin in a misconception about the nature of the economic problem of society. This misconception in turn is due to an erroneous transfer to social phenomena of the habits of thought we have developed in dealing with the phenomena of nature.

II

H.5

In ordinary language we describe by the word "planning" the complex of interrelated decisions about the allocation of our available resources. All economic activity is in this sense planning; and in any society in which many people collaborate, this planning, whoever does it, will in some measure have to be based on knowledge which, in the first instance, is not given to the planner but to somebody else, which somehow will have to be conveyed to the planner. The various ways in which the knowledge on which people base their plans is communicated to them is the crucial problem for any theory explaining the economic process, and the problem of what is the best way of utilizing knowledge initially dispersed among all the people is at least one of the main problems of economic policy—or of designing an efficient economic system.

H.6

The answer to this question is closely connected with that other question which arises here, that of who is to do the planning. It is about this question that all the dispute about "economic planning" centers. This is not a dispute about whether planning is to be done or not. It is a dispute as to whether planning is to be done centrally, by one authority for the whole economic system, or is to be divided among many individuals. Planning in the specific sense in which the term is used in contemporary controversy necessarily means central planning—direction of the whole economic system according to one unified plan. Competition, on the other hand, means decentralized planning by many separate persons. The halfway house between the two, about which many people talk but which few like when they see it, is the delegation of planning to organized industries, or, in other words, monopoly.

H.7

Which of these systems is likely to be more efficient depends mainly on the question under which of them we can expect that fuller use will be made of the existing knowledge. And this, in turn, depends on whether we are more likely to succeed in putting at the disposal of a single central authority all the knowledge which ought to be used but which is initially dispersed among many different individuals, or in conveying to the individuals such additional knowledge as they need in order to enable them to fit their plans with those of others.

III

H.8

It will at once be evident that on this point the position will be different with respect to different kinds of knowledge; and the answer to our question will therefore largely turn on the relative importance of the different kinds of knowledge; those more likely to be at the disposal of particular individuals and those which we should with greater confidence expect to find in the possession of an authority made up of suitably chosen experts. If it is today so widely assumed that the latter will be in a better position, this is because one kind of knowledge, namely, scientific knowledge, occupies now so prominent a place in public imagination that we tend to forget that it is not the only kind that is relevant. It may be admitted that, as far as scientific knowledge is concerned, a body of suitably chosen experts may be in the best position to command all the best knowledge available—though this is of course merely shifting the difficulty to the problem of selecting the experts. What I wish to point out is that, even assuming that this problem can be readily solved, it is only a small part of the wider problem.

H.9

Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is not the sum of all knowledge. But a little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active coöperation. We need to remember only how much we have to learn in any occupation after we have completed our theoretical training, how big a part of our working life we spend learning particular jobs, and how valuable an asset in all walks of life is knowledge of people, of local conditions, and of special circumstances. To know of and put to use a machine not fully employed, or somebody's skill which could be better utilized, or to be aware of a surplus stock which can be drawn upon during an interruption of supplies, is socially quite as useful as the knowledge of better alternative techniques. And the shipper who earns his living from using otherwise empty or half-filled journeys of tramp-steamers, or the estate agent whose whole knowledge is almost exclusively one of temporary opportunities, or the arbitrageur who gains from local differences of commodity prices, are all performing eminently useful functions based on special knowledge of circumstances of the fleeting moment not known to others.

H.10

It is a curious fact that this sort of knowledge should today be generally regarded with a kind of contempt and that anyone who by such knowledge gains an advantage over somebody better equipped with theoretical or technical knowledge is thought to have acted almost disreputably. To gain an advantage from better knowledge of facilities of communication or transport is sometimes regarded as almost dishonest, although it is quite as important that society make use of the best opportunities in this respect as in using the latest scientific discoveries. This prejudice has in a considerable measure affected the attitude toward commerce in general compared with that toward production. Even economists who regard themselves as definitely immune to the crude materialist fallacies of the past constantly commit the same mistake where activities directed toward the acquisition of such practical knowledge are concerned—apparently because in their scheme of things all such knowledge is supposed to be "given." The common idea now seems to be that all such knowledge should as a matter of course be readily at the command of everybody, and the reproach of irrationality leveled against the existing economic order is frequently based on the fact that it is not so available. This view disregards the fact that the method by which such knowledge can be made as widely available as possible is precisely the problem to which we have to find an answer.

IV

H.11

If it is fashionable today to minimize the importance of the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place, this is closely connected with the smaller importance which is now attached to change as such. Indeed, there are few points on which the assumptions made (usually only implicitly) by the "planners" differ from those of their opponents as much as with regard to the significance and frequency of changes which will make substantial alterations of production plans necessary. Of course, if detailed economic plans could be laid down for fairly long periods in advance and then closely adhered to, so that no further economic decisions of importance would be required, the task of drawing up a comprehensive plan governing all economic activity would be much less formidable.

H.12

It is, perhaps, worth stressing that economic problems arise always and only in consequence of change. So long as things continue as before, or at least as they were expected to, there arise no new problems requiring a decision, no need to form a new plan. The belief that changes, or at least day-to-day adjustments, have become less important in modern times implies the contention that economic problems also have become less important. This belief in the decreasing importance of change is, for that reason, usually held by the same people who argue that the importance of economic considerations has been driven into the background by the growing importance of technological knowledge.

H.13

Is it true that, with the elaborate apparatus of modern production, economic decisions are required only at long intervals, as when a new factory is to be erected or a new process to be introduced? Is it true that, once a plant has been built, the rest is all more or less mechanical, determined by the character of the plant, and leaving little to be changed in adapting to the ever-changing circumstances of the moment? H.14

The fairly widespread belief in the affirmative is not, as far as I can ascertain, borne out by the practical experience of the businessman. In a competitive industry at any rate—and such an industry alone can serve as a test—the task of keeping cost from rising requires constant struggle, absorbing a great part of the energy of the manager. How easy it is for an inefficient manager to dissipate the differentials on which profitability rests, and that it is possible, with the same technical facilities, to produce with a great variety of costs, are among the commonplaces of business experience which do not seem to be equally familiar in the study of the economist. The very strength of the desire, constantly voiced by producers and engineers, to be allowed to proceed untrammeled by considerations of money costs, is eloquent testimony to the extent to which these factors enter into their daily work.

H.15

One reason why economists are increasingly apt to forget about the constant small changes which make up the whole economic picture is probably their growing preoccupation with statistical aggregates, which show a very much greater stability than the movements of the detail. The comparative stability of the aggregates cannot, however, be accounted for—as the statisticians occasionally seem to be inclined to do—by the "law of large numbers" or the mutual compensation of random changes. The number of elements with which we have to deal is not large enough for such accidental forces to produce stability. The continuous flow of goods and services is maintained by constant deliberate adjustments, by new dispositions made every day in the light of circumstances not known the day before, by B stepping in at once when A fails to deliver. Even the large and highly mechanized plant keeps going largely because of an environment upon which it can draw for all sorts of unexpected needs; tiles for its roof, stationery for its forms, and all the thousand and one kinds of equipment in which it cannot be self-contained and which the plans for the operation of the plant require to be readily available in the market.

H.16

This is, perhaps, also the point where I should briefly mention the fact that the sort of knowledge with which I have been concerned is knowledge of the kind which by its nature cannot enter into statistics and therefore cannot be conveyed to any central authority in statistical form. The statistics which such a central authority would have to use would have to be arrived at precisely by abstracting from minor differences between the things, by lumping together, as resources of one kind, items which differ as regards location, quality, and other particulars, in a way which may be very significant for the specific decision. It follows from this that central planning based on statistical information by its nature cannot take direct account of these circumstances of time and place and that the central planner will have to find some way or other in which the decisions depending on them can be left to the "man on the spot."

V

H.17

If we can agree that the economic problem of society is mainly one of rapid adaptation to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place, it would seem to follow that the ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances, who know directly of the relevant changes and of the resources immediately available to meet them. We cannot expect that this problem will be solved by first communicating all this knowledge to a central board which, after integrating all knowledge, issues its orders. We must solve it by some form of decentralization. But this answers only part of our problem. We need decentralization because only thus can we insure that the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place will be promptly used. But the "man on the spot" cannot decide solely on the basis of his limited but intimate knowledge of the facts of his immediate surroundings. There still remains the problem of communicating to him such further information as he needs to fit his decisions into the whole pattern of changes of the larger economic system.

H.18

How much knowledge does he need to do so successfully? Which of the events which happen beyond the horizon of his immediate knowledge are of relevance to his immediate decision, and how much of them need he know?

H.19

There is hardly anything that happens anywhere in the world that might not have an effect on the decision he ought to make. But he need not know of these events as such, nor of all their effects. It does not matter for him why at the particular moment more screws of one size than of another are wanted, why paper bags are more readily available than canvas bags, or why skilled labor, or particular machine tools, have for the moment become more difficult to obtain. All that is significant for him is how much more or less difficult to procure they have become compared with other things with which he is also concerned, or how much more or less urgently wanted are the alternative things he produces or uses. It is always a question of the relative importance of the particular things with which he is concerned, and the causes which alter their relative importance are of no interest to him beyond the effect on those concrete things of his own environment.

H.20

It is in this connection that what I have called the "economic calculus" proper helps us, at least by analogy, to see how this problem can be solved, and in fact is being solved, by the price system. Even the single controlling mind, in possession of all the data for some small, self-contained economic system, would not—every time some small adjustment in the allocation of resources had to be made—go explicitly through all the relations between ends and means which might possibly be affected. It is indeed the great contribution of the pure logic of choice that it has demonstrated conclusively that even such a single mind could solve this kind of problem only by constructing and constantly using rates of equivalence (or "values," or "marginal rates of substitution"), i.e., by attaching to each kind of scarce resource a numerical index which cannot be derived from any property possessed by that particular thing, but which reflects, or in which is condensed, its significance in view of the whole means-end structure. In any small change he will have to consider only these quantitative indices (or "values") in which all the relevant information is concentrated; and, by adjusting the quantities one by one, he can appropriately rearrange his dispositions without having to solve the whole puzzle ab initio or without needing at any stage to survey it at once in all its ramifications.

H.21

Fundamentally, in a system in which the knowledge of the relevant facts is dispersed among many people, prices can act to coördinate the separate actions of different people in the same way as subjective values help the individual to coördinate the parts of his plan. It is worth contemplating for a moment a very simple and commonplace instance of the action of the price system to see what precisely it accomplishes. Assume that somewhere in the world a new opportunity for the use of some raw material, say, tin, has arisen, or that one of the sources of supply of tin has been eliminated. It does not matter for our purpose—and it is very significant that it does not matter—which of these two causes has made tin more scarce. All that the users of tin need to know is that some of the tin they used to consume is now more profitably employed elsewhere and that, in consequence, they must economize tin. There is no need for the great majority of them even to know where the more urgent need has arisen, or in favor of what other needs they ought to husband the supply. If only some of them know directly of the new demand, and switch resources over to it, and if the people who are aware of the new gap thus created in turn fill it from still other sources, the effect will rapidly spread throughout the whole economic system and influence not only all the uses of tin but also those of its substitutes and the substitutes of these substitutes, the supply of all the things made of tin, and their substitutes, and so on; and all this without the great majority of those instrumental in bringing about these substitutions knowing anything at all about the original cause of these changes. The whole acts as one market, not because any of its members survey the whole field, but because their limited individual fields of vision sufficiently overlap so that through many intermediaries the relevant information is communicated to all. The mere fact that there is one price for any commodity—or rather that local prices are connected in a manner determined by the cost of transport, etc.—brings about the solution which (it is just conceptually possible) might have been arrived at by one single mind possessing all the information which is in fact dispersed among all the people involved in the process.

VI

H.22

We must look at the price system as such a mechanism for communicating information if we want to understand its real function—a function which, of course, it fulfils less perfectly as prices grow more rigid. (Even when quoted prices have become quite rigid, however, the forces which would operate through changes in price still operate to a considerable extent through changes in the other terms of the contract.) The most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates, or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action. In abbreviated form, by a kind of symbol, only the most essential information is passed on and passed on only to those concerned. It is more than a metaphor to describe the price system as a kind of machinery for registering change, or a system of telecommunications which enables individual producers to watch merely the movement of a few pointers, as an engineer might watch the hands of a few dials, in order to adjust their activities to changes of which they may never know more than is reflected in the price movement.

H.23

Of course, these adjustments are probably never "perfect" in the sense in which the economist conceives of them in his equilibrium analysis. But I fear that our theoretical habits of approaching the problem with the assumption of more or less perfect knowledge on the part of almost everyone has made us somewhat blind to the true function of the price mechanism and led us to apply rather misleading standards in judging its efficiency. The marvel is that in a case like that of a scarcity of one raw material, without an order being issued, without more than perhaps a handful of people knowing the cause, tens of thousands of people whose identity could not be ascertained by months of investigation, are made to use the material or its products more sparingly; i.e., they move in the right direction. This is enough of a marvel even if, in a constantly changing world, not all will hit it off so perfectly that their profit rates will always be maintained at the same constant or "normal" level.

H.24

I have deliberately used the word "marvel" to shock the reader out of the complacency with which we often take the working of this mechanism for granted. I am convinced that if it were the result of deliberate human design, and if the people guided by the price changes understood that their decisions have significance far beyond their immediate aim, this mechanism would have been acclaimed as one of the greatest triumphs of the human mind. Its misfortune is the double one that it is not the product of human design and that the people guided by it usually do not know why they are made to do what they do. But those who clamor for "conscious direction"—and who cannot believe that anything which has evolved without design (and even without our understanding it) should solve problems which we should not be able to solve consciously—should remember this: The problem is precisely how to extend the span of our utilization of resources beyond the span of the control of any one mind; and therefore, how to dispense with the need of conscious control, and how to provide inducements which will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do.

H.25

The problem which we meet here is by no means peculiar to economics but arises in connection with nearly all truly social phenomena, with language and with most of our cultural inheritance, and constitutes really the central theoretical problem of all social science. As Alfred Whitehead has said in another connection, "It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them." This is of profound significance in the social field. We make constant use of formulas, symbols, and rules whose meaning we do not understand and through the use of which we avail ourselves of the assistance of knowledge which individually we do not possess. We have developed these practices and institutions by building upon habits and institutions which have proved successful in their own sphere and which have in turn become the foundation of the civilization we have built up.

H.26

The price system is just one of those formations which man has learned to use (though he is still very far from having learned to make the best use of it) after he had stumbled upon it without understanding it. Through it not only a division of labor but also a coördinated utilization of resources based on an equally divided knowledge has become possible. The people who like to deride any suggestion that this may be so usually distort the argument by insinuating that it asserts that by some miracle just that sort of system has spontaneously grown up which is best suited to modern civilization. It is the other way round: man has been able to develop that division of labor on which our civilization is based because he happened to stumble upon a method which made it possible. Had he not done so, he might still have developed some other, altogether different, type of civilization, something like the "state" of the termite ants, or some other altogether unimaginable type. All that we can say is that nobody has yet succeeded in designing an alternative system in which certain features of the existing one can be preserved which are dear even to those who most violently assail it—such as particularly the extent to which the individual can choose his pursuits and consequently freely use his own knowledge and skill.

VII

H.27

It is in many ways fortunate that the dispute about the indispensability of the price system for any rational calculation in a complex society is now no longer conducted entirely between camps holding different political views. The thesis that without the price system we could not preserve a society based on such extensive division of labor as ours was greeted with a howl of derision when it was first advanced by von Mises twenty-five years ago. Today the difficulties which some still find in accepting it are no longer mainly political, and this makes for an atmosphere much more conducive to reasonable discussion. When we find Leon Trotsky arguing that "economic accounting is unthinkable without market relations"; when Professor Oscar Lange promises Professor von Mises a statue in the marble halls of the future Central Planning Board; and when Professor Abba P. Lerner rediscovers Adam Smith and emphasizes that the essential utility of the price system consists in inducing the individual, while seeking his own interest, to do what is in the general interest, the differences can indeed no longer be ascribed to political prejudice. The remaining dissent seems clearly to be due to purely intellectual, and more particularly methodological, differences.

H.28

A recent statement by Professor Joseph Schumpeter in his Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy provides a clear illustration of one of the methodological differences which I have in mind. Its author is pre-eminent among those economists who approach economic phenomena in the light of a certain branch of positivism. To him these phenomena accordingly appear as objectively given quantities of commodities impinging directly upon each other, almost, it would seem, without any intervention of human minds. Only against this background can I account for the following (to me startling) pronouncement. Professor Schumpeter argues that the possibility of a rational calculation in the absence of markets for the factors of production follows for the theorist "from the elementary proposition that consumers in evaluating ('demanding') consumers' goods ipso facto also evaluate the means of production which enter into the production of these goods."*1

H.29

Taken literally, this statement is simply untrue. The consumers do nothing of the kind. What Professor Schumpeter's "ipso facto" presumably means is that the valuation of the factors of production is implied in, or follows necessarily from, the valuation of consumers' goods. But this, too, is not correct. Implication is a logical relationship which can be meaningfully asserted only of propositions simultaneously present to one and the same mind. It is evident, however, that the values of the factors of production do not depend solely on the valuation of the consumers' goods but also on the conditions of supply of the various factors of production. Only to a mind to which all these facts were simultaneously known would the answer necessarily follow from the facts given to it. The practical problem, however, arises precisely because these facts are never so given to a single mind, and because, in consequence, it is necessary that in the solution of the problem knowledge should be used that is dispersed among many people.

H.30

The problem is thus in no way solved if we can show that all the facts, if they were known to a single mind (as we hypothetically assume them to be given to the observing economist), would uniquely determine the solution; instead we must show how a solution is produced by the interactions of people each of whom possesses only partial knowledge. To assume all the knowledge to be given to a single mind in the same manner in which we assume it to be given to us as the explaining economists is to assume the problem away and to disregard everything that is important and significant in the real world.

H.31

That an economist of Professor Schumpeter's standing should thus have fallen into a trap which the ambiguity of the term "datum" sets to the unwary can hardly be explained as a simple error. It suggests rather that there is something fundamentally wrong with an approach which habitually disregards an essential part of the phenomena with which we have to deal: the unavoidable imperfection of man's knowledge and the consequent need for a process by which knowledge is constantly communicated and acquired. Any approach, such as that of much of mathematical economics with its simultaneous equations, which in effect starts from the assumption that people's knowledge corresponds with the objective facts of the situation, systematically leaves out what is our main task to explain. I am far from denying that in our system equilibrium analysis has a useful function to perform. But when it comes to the point where it misleads some of our leading thinkers into believing that the situation which it describes has direct relevance to the solution of practical problems, it is high time that we remember that it does not deal with the social process at all and that it is no more than a useful preliminary to the study of the main problem.

• Friedrich Hayek "The Use of Knowledge in Society"

tl;dr - it was her turn.

lol gay

LOL HETERO

unsubscribe

ur mom have big gay

Didn’t read lol

What?

This sub is cancer

zoz

zle

zozzle

zle

zozzle

at that fucking point AGAIN where everything is a link to some feminist thread with a bunch of legbeards agreeing with each other

Don't blame me, I'm using this sub as /r/ShitQSays

Funny how you guys never criticize all the leftwing wanking over daddy.

unironic mensrights and kia seriousposter

What totally appropriate things for an SRDine like you to complain about here in SRD, oh, wait.

Not all of r/drama is SRD, just the boring "r/drama is for shitposting only" seriousposters who have no problem spending all their time unironically and seriously bitching ad nauseam about gamergate and "daddy".

PS: If I'm wrong and you're not an SRDine, feel free to post from you main account any time, bruh.

So your main is a deleted account I've never heard of before?

Bruh, just admit you're an SRDine. If you were half the shitposter you want anyone to believe you are you would have written a shitpost making fun of seriousposters, not this 100% serious assmad post bitching about them. You're just a male feminist who's upset that r/Drama occasionally makes fun of you for all the rapes.

https://reddit.com/user/gmscreamingmemes

Can we pls stop the daddy/goobergate hate? 😢

dont forget mde

the only people that ever hated gamergate were feminists and faggot liberals trying to spite people to be contrarian

actually tho, gamergate was cool when it was just about the cucked guy telling everyone how much of a slut his gf was

literally all it ever was dude

then the journos that got free bjs from the fat girl sperged out and called everyone nazis for 2 years

anti gg is some basic normie shit tbh akin to those news articles about how kids stick vodka soaked tampons up their ass

Daddy is the prez and a drama queen. Nobody knows these legbeards outside their sub lol. Nice try DDF

its because theyre irl mad about it and find it cathartic

This place is literally nothing but a left-wing circle jerk at this point. Of course everyone not a left-winger is getting downvoted.

You've all made it very obvious. There is indeed space between TD (Which I don't think I've ever even posted on) and SRD, which this place has become. Sort by controversial. Any post picking on women or the left, is controversial. Most posts picking on men and the right, are not.

It's not like you guys are even trying to hide it. You've been posting BRDs for days. Sharia Blue has a heavy presence here, including among the mods, and BRD posts are the mods signalling that this sub is now fallen to the fempire. Hence why any post mocking a woman is suddenly downvoted, and a ton of weird SRD leftist shit is getting upvoted.

Bird=BRD=Bring Reddit Down; a SRS meme. Try to deny it by calling it out in plain sight, but it is what it is.

It's time for anyone else just plain leave this sub, block its regulars and go hang out in bigger, better subs, because if every place is a partisan circlejerk (and this place definitely has been for the last few months), we're better off in our own circlejerk subs, like CringeAnarchy, which is a lot bigger than place, and no more or less full of retards. /r/drama is just SRS/CB2 circlejerking at this point. Literally nothing they say makes sense, but they all frantically upvote each other and downvote anyone else.

I won't be interacting with any of you further on this post. You know what's happening here. It's very obvious.

>Redditor for 4 days

Friendly reminder that one of the many reasons that there's nothing wrong with seriousposting is that it causes babies like OP to screech autistically.

Don't call me my nigga, I don't have any niggas who are dirty SRDine trash like you.

pls don't bully us newfags

Type like a person or go to /r/doggos you fucking autist.

Honestly it's hard to find something between idiotic troll bait comments and people disagreeing with political opinions.

https://imgur.com/o7Ubx5G

IW spoilers here. Because memes I guess

Counterpoint:

Without serious posting there is no drama.

Discuss.

NEWFAG OUT OUT OUT

STFU nerd

This attack on u/pizzashill will not be tolerated

"Agenda posting is only ok when i do it"

it turns out that 2018 social media has 100x more lunatic feminism to poke fun at than stuff from the other end of the spectrum

Shut the fuck up, you retarded faggot

It must suck to live in the greatest nation in history and be upset about that.

greatest nation in history

Doesn't exist anymore, sadly. Assad and the Kurds fucked 'em right in the bussy.

It is not too late for you to join the Islamic State and never come back.

Yeh, the top posts of last week are all ranting about le left. I want representation of retards from ALL across the spectrum.

Preach it, brother 2233... (I am just not typing all those fucking numbers out. I am just not. What the shit were you thinking?)

I serious post only. Fuck you

lol are you a feminist

Really this is what gets you going, not the faggots who link to a pic of Trump which contains zero drama except for maybe the cringe inducing title gore.

At least in the legbeard posts people are saying ridiculously stupid shit. A pic is a pic. Now if it were a pic of Trump pissing on an underage girl then alrighty, but no these are pics of shit like him and other heads of state holding hands.

Like every president in the last 100 years has done.

Boring.

As.

Fuck.

Over and over and over and over again. It's out of control.

I may be a card carrying Berntard, but I'm enjoying that right leaning seriousposting is making some people here upset on a daily basis. Drama, drama everywhere you look!

https://i.imgur.com/voOqmtm.gif

too scared so they post this from a throwaway.

who wants to take bets on OP being a huge agendaposting faggot themself

I'm guilty of this. Sorry.