Do, I am not assuming centralized bureacratic planning on the Soviet model. The Hayek
arguments assume only enough centralization to have a system count as planned.
Democracy would, if anything, make the problems worse, because there woiuld be more
information to coordinate and more pressure groups to accommodate.
Incidentally, democracy makes the lying problem worse, rather than providing
incentives to give correct information, your fellow workers will not thank you if you
say, Hey! we can makea higher target! We can work harder! We can get by with less
resources! They will say, shuddup, you. (Been there, the unpopular Stakhanovite.)
--jks
In a message dated Fri, 14 Jul 2000 3:41:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Rod Hay
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< I think, although I may be wrong, that democratic control can be as or
more effective than markets in providing information and a corrective to
the mistakes of planning. You seem to assume a centralized bureaucratic
planning a la the USSR. If adequate democratic controls are designed,
managers who systematically guess wrong can be more easily removed.
Providing proper incentives is a problem, but it is also a mistake to
assume that the market provides a suitable set of incentives. Where are
the incentives to provide adequate food, housing, medical care, or legal
assistance to everyone who needs it. A good part of the reason that I am
a socialist is that capitalism provides incentives that systematically
violate my sense of values. I think socialism can do better, although it
won't be easy.
Rod
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
>>
