I just listened to this debatesoundcloud.com
I think Andrew made a good case of socialism on ethical grounds (expropriating the expropriators!), but floundering during the questions asked the second day where Blylund and him discussed resource allocation.
Blylund made the point that if all communal funds were devoted towards one venture no matter how small, they would all loose if that venture turned out not to provide sufficient use to the community whereas a capitalist(and necessarily his workers) take the hit if the venture fails.
I think Kliman's position as a Marxist hurt him in this, as he was unable to suggest a feasible communally planned central economy. Andrew did point that with an abundance of resources it wouldn't take to long to initiate production, and that markets "cover up" their mistakes rather than in the communal society, where they are necessarily much more explicit which I thought was a good rebuttal to Blylund's proposal of a market that provides "order" in the midst of mistakes, but not a solution.
So my question is for ancoms and mutualist (because tankies and lelcoms don't focus on economics, but instead minor abstract theoretical differences):
- how do ancoms plan to account for changes in demand without wasting public funds since they advocate central planning
- how would a mutualist society protect property, and prevent the contradictions of markets that necessarily result from the acquisition of profit?