Update: a screehshot of the first page of book in question (screenshot of the Kindle, haha, bezos, fooled ya…)
This is the first book on the search list from Amazon “socialist economics”…http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004GB1FNU?keywords=socialist%20economics&qid=1449682607&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
The socialist calculation debate has a long history and it is like darwinism a sphere where (despite leftist counterattacks) capitalist logic is taken for granted due to the pronouncements of experts. I can’t cut and paste from Kindle (I will try a screenhshot later perhaps), but this book, a Mises attack on early socialist marginalism, opens with its own refutations: it cites the general equilibrium arguments of Walras and these can be struck down on the spot. There are no such theorems that are science.
From there we can follow the debate, if we an assemble the materials, and penetrate the mathematical veil that keeps these sciences out of the hands of most leftists.
If you study of the notes for Last and First Men, at the end, there is textbox for emergency debriefing on modern economics. It cites Krugman’s textbook, which was not an endorsement, but a good typical textbook that be starting point for seeing what is going on with economists a this point. The subject is too vast! What is needed is a form of the Krugman textbook that gives the real lowdown on economic illusions, theories, and the calculation debate.
The critics of socialism may well have had a point, but it is not the result of assuming anything in Walras.
The point here is that the left must demand a recompute of the whole legacy of marginalist economics. NOT EASY: I suspect this ‘science’ has fooled Krugman. Could Krugman come to a critique?
It is here that historical materialism is weak: it assumes Marx produced a better theory. That is very doubtful. He produced a first rate philosophic critique of ideology and theory, but then produced his own theory, which confuses critics of the later economics…
We need to probe more deeply, but the quick take here is that we are under no obligation to take the Mises legacy of socialist critique as hard science…..We need some second plus opinions. But here almost everyone is confused by mathematics.
I have tried to show on the basis of WHEE that no model using differential equations can be a science of economic histories due to the factor of free agency…It is hard to communicate this to people who have been brainwashed by courses in economics, and all sorts of evasions will arise. But the basic point is clear…