**********************************************
Ron Baiman
Dept. of Economics
Roosevelt University Fax: 312-341-3680
430 S. Michigan Ave
Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694
**********************************************
On Sat, 24 May 1997, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>
> > b) When might this be necessary? One good example is WITHIN large
> > multinational corporations i.e. like Microsoft . Are these not national
> > and international PUBLIC institutions which are determining the course of
> > Techno development for the world? Should their choices and strategies
> > not be democratically acountable? My point here is that there is no way
>
> Sure.
>
> > to reduce accountability of institutions in the economy to the market
>
> I don't think I said there was.
>
> > plus taxes and subsidies. Democratic Planning is inevitable . . .
>
> If you generalize the definition of planning
> beyond ownership and direct control of capital
> allocation, I don't disagree either. I do think
> there isn't much left of planning, properly
> speaking, much less socialism, without public
> ownership of capital and public control of its
> allocation. What's left is where most of us are,
> in some kind of social-democratic framework.
> In other words, I agree with those on the further
> left who say most of us on, say, PEN-L, aren't
> really socialists. I differ in that I think
> that's as it should be.
Max,
Your previous two points appear to contradict each other. It appears
to me that if the inherently SOCIAL CHOICES of large and powerful and
powerful enterprizes are to made DEMOCRATICALLY AND SOCIALLY ACCOUNTABLE
and if we agree that the INDIVIDUAL CHOICE driven markets (when they are
optimally competitive - and if income is fairly distributed) cannot do
this - it appears to me that we are talking about social "ownership" and
control of capital among other things. "Social ownership" as Pierson
points out is not a clear and obvious concept just as "private
ownership" in today's corporate capitalism is not so clear - but a
limiting case.
In my view there is no recourse but to go beyond Social
Democratic type "indirect" influence of investment and markets to a much
more active and direct control over these as well as the social decisions
of powerful entities within the economy. This is just democracy - again
markets and indirect planning schemes appear to me to be woefully
inadequate to this job - not to mention the need for more equitable
distribution on income.
>
> > c) This doesn't mean that this PROJECT can be accomplished
> > overnight and that market pricing will be abolished over night.
> > Market Prices
> > currently reflect supply and demand of socially embeded markets - what
> > would be difference with more planning ? - presumabley better prices
> > which actually reflect real social constituted priorities and needs as
> > determined by more democratically (and less CEO ) determined social
> > choices plus many important decisions which try to take into account
> > social goals and some shadow prices that more accurately reflect
> > externalities and future social development goals than present market prices.
>
> This example reinforces my previous remark.
> To my way of thinking, you are describing
> Pigouvian taxes, where tax rates adjust prices
> up or down as appropriate to social cost. If
> that's socialism, then every state with excise
> taxes on gasoline, liquor, and tobacco are
> socialistic, or, more likely, none
Even if such a "perfect tax" system could be devised to take care of all
the externalities inequities in power, product tie-ins, research and
cross licencing, etc etc. (see LEAN AND MEAN, Bennett Harrison) - WHO
would do this if one conceeds so much private power to corporate and
individual capital and restricts one's activity to indirectly
manipulating prices on the market.
It seems to me that this policy approach offers no solution to this
classic problem of social democracy - evident today on a global scale.
Thanks for your detailed response - and sorry I'm so late in responding!
Best,
Ron
