>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/08/01 11:43AM >>>
The question is: incentives for what. The Austrian argument that I accept
foicus not on incentives to work hard and avoid shirking, but on incentives
to gather accurate information. I think you overstte the importance of the
tactic dimension in Hayek: you are relying a lot on Polyani. I consider
myself a sort of Hayekian, and Hayek's theme was incentives to get accurate
information much more than inarticulable "how to" tacit knowledge. The
Hayekian point is that plans need accurate information, but pure planning
systems create incentives to generate inaccurate information. I am a
pragmatist and not a bigor about planning: we know empirically that some
things can be well planned--medicine, the military, utilities,
education--and maybe better than markets can do. Those things we should
plan. But we also know from experience that many things cannot be effective
planned,a nd I think Hayek was right about why not.
-((((((((((((
CB: Well, doesn't it come down to this ? Some of us know from experience, from the
facts of history that the overall economy cannot be effectively carried out with a
market and its pricing system. It is the facts of the history of capitalism that
refute Hayek's claim that the market is better than planning.
