Oh, I agree with you entirely. It's arguing with people who have not heard about the
calculation problem that drives me to rhetorical excesses. It's a bit late in the day
to wake up to the idea that there may be a problem with planning. The problems with
markets we (at least) know. --jks
In a message dated Fri, 14 Jul 2000 3:13:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Waving the words "decentralized" and "democratic" doesn't expalin
>where we get incentives to find out correct information, reduce
>waste, innovate new producrs, services and production methids.
I'll concede the Hayek critique is a problem for planning, but when
you talk like this you sound like there's no problem with capitalist
production - no botched plans ("new" Coke?), no waste (2.4% of GDP on
advertising?; landfills chock full of stupid packaging; air and water
full of externalized environmental costs), no spurious innovations of
doubtful social merit (Heinz green ketchup, due in October, born in
focus groups with kids; production techniques that the Labor Notes
people call "management by stress")... The flaws of capitalism are
charming quirks; the flaws of socialist planning, inevitably fatal. I
can understand Hayek arguing this, but shouldn't a market socialist
sound a little different?
Doug
>>
