In that case, the argument is meaningless. We can only know if alternatives to
markets can work if we try. Even then we can only know that that particular
experiment did not work, not that no institutional arrangement can work. If the
proposition is not general, it is merely an empirical hypothesis.
Rod
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Hayek had a deep insight, and, like many peop;le with such an insight, went
> overboard with it. We might take it for what it is worth, while correcting
> for its overstatement. However, his main point was not that _nothing_ could
> be planned, but that _not everything_ could be planned. He was in fact a lot
> less ferocious about markets than a lot of his followers, A big U of Chicago
> Law School libertarian, Richard Epstein, recently took him to task for that
> in a piece in the U Md. L. Rev. My poiint too is that planning cannot
> tiotally or largely displace markets, not that it cannot be used where
> experience shows it works. --jks
--
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
