Wikipedia writes:

"Kropotkin never fully outlined how such a system would be achieved, nor did he answer the questions of how such a system would be structured or make decisions, other than to make broad pronouncements about mutual exchanges. For example he gives the examples of farmers in the countryside producing grain for the city based on the understanding that workers in the city will then provide them with finished goods."

I asked Revier/Scucca to justify his repeated quoatations of Reglar and Yunker, who have contradictory views of GE Theory. I don't care about some Russian spinning dreamy theories forty years before the revival of GE Theory, which is the topic of this thread.

Cristobal Young writes:

"It was the end of the Great Depression, ironically, that saw a tremendous revival of the General Equilibrium (GE)/Welfare economics project. In the US, a loose grouping of devout socialists were busy detailing the elegance of the market equilibrium. The leaders of the GE revival – Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner and Abram Bergson – were cutting-edge mathematical economists and true believers in Soviet-style central planning…"

I asked you to justify your repeated quotations of Reglar and Yunker, who have contradictory views of GE Theory.

Cristobal Young writes:

"It was the end of the Great Depression, ironically, that saw a tremendous revival of the General Equilibrium (GE)/Welfare economics project. In the US, a loose grouping of devout socialists were busy detailing the elegance of the market equilibrium. The leaders of the GE revival – Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner and Abram Bergson – were cutting-edge mathematical economists and true believers in Soviet-style central planning…"

Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner and Abram Bergson had nothing to do with Keynes. Slippery fellow! I already refuted your ludicrous claim that Keynes rejected a theory (the Phillips curve) that was introduced a decade after his death. Here is my refutation, again, in case you forgot:

This is a remarkable claim, considering that the Phillips Curve was introduced in 1956 and Keynes dies in 1946. IS-LM Analysis was introduced in 1937, a year after Keynes’ General Theory, and I am unaware that he had any significant dispute with Hicks.

But that is not the topic of this thread. Here I am asking you to justify your repeated quotations of Reglar and Yunker, who have contradictory views of GE Theory.

Now, one more time, the question you are trying to dodge:

Well, which is it? Reglar thinks that GE Theory "assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible." Yunker sees GE Theory as the basis for a central planner to "mimic contemporary market capitalism" while retaining for himself the authority to distribute the social dividend – hardly a "little role in economic life."

I wait for a reply.

Like the Terminator, but with less personality.

However, I do have a soft side - in my spare time I write poetry. You will be pleased or perhaps appalled to learn that I have written one about lesbians:

All Kinds of B*tches

There are all kinds of b*tches.
You can find them at the mall,
Most will come to you if you just call.
There’s the lonely b*itch with hungry eyes,
The petite b*tch who’s just the right size,
And even the horny b*tch who on her back lies.

There are all kinds of b*tches.
There are some that give good head,
And some that are quite dead.
There’s the vampire b*tch who never dies,
And the zombie b*tch who’ll someday rise,
But now lies in her grave and putrefies.

There are all kinds of b*tches.
Some are plain and some as pretty as a doll,
But I love and adore them, one and all.
I love the stony b*tch who never cries,
The prostitute b*tch that the church vilifies,
And even the assassin b*tch with mafia ties.

There are all kinds of b*tches.
I love them all and think they’re swell,
Though there’s one that’s bound for hell.
Vindictive and spiteful, she can only tell lies,
That’s the lesbian b*tch who can’t stand guys,
And with whom the devil surely fries.

Source: Go to Ode to an Economics Troll and click on "another poem" at the bottom of the page.

I notice you conveniently ignore the affirmation by Gould. Very well. The observations of mutual aid have also been affirmed by a prominent bioethicist, Peter Singer, who uses an illustrative analogy for this very purpose.

Suppose, for instance, that you had been falsely accused of a crime, along with another person. You are told that if you simply confess that the other person committed the crime, you will be released and he will be sentenced to thirty years in prison. However, he has been offered the exact same deal against you, and if you both accuse the other, you will both be spending fifteen years in prison. If neither one of you accuses the other, there will be no case against either one of you, and you will only be detained for a few months, and then released. This is an illustrative case regarding the merits of cooperation as opposed to competition.

At any rate, I hope that second portion wasn't some crude and primitive conflation of centralized socialist and libertarian socialist critiques of the Austrian economic calculation model, as they are manifestly different. TM2 has also created a thread about Lange theory in which I address that very issue.

I've already justified any use of Reglar. Whilst he was commenting on something which is actually rather obvious (i.e. the notion that Keynesianism can be understood via an IS/LM diagram and the Phillips Curve is drivel), it is still important to hammer it home because of the attempt to condemn macroeconomics to the same old neoclassical blandness.

You really need to learn some economic theory!

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

And are you Reglar, as he alleges?

Of course not (I believe he's an Aussie)! Note that I've made my position clear: "market socialist stance is based on an understanding of the labour market. I therefore focus on microeconomic analysis into unemployment, underemployment and underpayment. That stance has meant an approach that crosses orthodox (e.g. analysis into the impact of monopsony) and heterodox (e.g. institutional economics into hierarchy and wage norms) economic schools. And also note Onion Eater has ignored it. This reflects his agenda, an agenda which really isn't too cheery in the cunningness stakes

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

It is my thread and I don't care about Kropotkin, Gould or the Prisoner's dilemma. I was talking about GE Theory.

Obviously, you are embarrassed that your repeated citations of Reglar and Yunker are contradictory and so you are trying to change the subject to Keynes, though you know nothing of him, being ignorant even of when he died, claiming he rejected a theory introduced 10 years after his death.

The fact is, you just don't like capitalists and will say anything, as long as it is anti-capitalist. The fact that your post one day, citing Reglar's abuse of GE theorists as stooges of big business contradicts your citing Yunker the next day extolling GE Theory as a tool of market socialism doesn't matter to you. You don't care if you are consistent theoretically, only that you are consistently anti-capitalist.

Your resort to ad hom attacks is noted. I will take that as an admission that you have conceded. In the end, socialists always resort to ad hom.

His statements are by definition not ad hominem attacks. They would be ad hominem arguments had he attacked some personal characteristic of yours rather than addressing your main argument. Your statement regarding socialists is itself an ad hominem argument.