> From: "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:10254] Re: planning and democracy > On Tue, May 20, 1997 at 14:52:05 (PST) Max B. Sawicky writes: > >Democratically-elected planners can connive to concoct a plan. . . . > This is logic of a most curious sort. If Jim, Max, and I, acting as > "sub-units", agree on a plan to dine at Chez Maynard's there is no > need for some "overlord" to reconcile such a plan. Suppose we extend There is no anology here because three-person economies are not in question. With N persons there would indeed be a need for reconciliation on where to eat, what time, and who picks up the check. This could be done by a democratically-designated overlord or, at somewhat greater cost, by some kind of collective decision-making process. > . . . > I don't think anyone is claiming that self-serving motives would be > rendered obsolete under such a system, parliamentary or otherwise. > Nor is anyone arguing that the presence of self-interest precludes > acting on "national interest", or vice-versa. Max's argument is, in > short, a Manichean straw-man. I think the claim for democracy is, > rather, that such motives of self-interest might very well be > minimized, and that other values could come to the fore. . . . That's your claim for democracy -- participation breeds altruism or a larger identity or class consciousness or whatever you'd like to call it. But you've yet to say why, except to invoke the necessity of optimism and to scold, inaccurately, about lack of support or faith in the ideal of democracy. > I don't think anyone expects a harmonious meshing of minds in the > interest of universal humanity, in which self-interest magically > evaporates. However, self-interest could very reasonably be expected > to be "downgraded" in many cases. Max seems to be seeing democracy as WHY? WHY? WHY? > just another arena in which game-theoretic maximization would continue > unabated, where I (and, I think Jim Devine), see it as one in which a > flourishing sympathy for others might very well be cultivated and > extended. None of us can tell whether or not this will come to > be---we've got to struggle and fail a thousand times to finally arrive > at an answer. > >I tried to put JD on the spot by asking how a specific > >relative price would be determined under so-called > >democratic planning. He then devoted three paragraphs > >on how a plan of democratic but otherwise unknown > >origin would set a production quota for a single good. > > I think asking such specific questions is only of use if one expects > to be presented with a shrink-wrapped version of a democratically > planned economy. I would think that things of this sort must evolve It is a fundamental question, not a detail. It speaks to the essence of economic planning -- how resources will be allocated, or how decisions about allocation will be made, even if one abstracts from the issue of capital ownership. > from a very primitive stage, and that answering such questions (which > strike me as an irrelevant fetish with precision) at this point would > be extraordinarily difficult. Adam Smith envisioned a system of . . . MBS =================================================== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===================================================
