>You don't have to reject all planning to
>agree with them. But, as I say, if you don't see it, you don't see it.
>However, you can ask yourself why almost every single centrally planned or
>command economy has has a long and agaonized relationship with market
>reform, and wonder if the planners in those economies see something you
>don't.
I don't see what bearing that has on it. I am not defending Soviet planning, no matter how non-central it was. I just don't see that it was the strawman Hayek and Mises attacked.
>I will also that your reading of ALbert & Hahnel is exaxtly the opposite of
>mine. In my reading with and debates with them (one of which is available
on
>line, in a one sided way--Hahnel responds to me), I find a flat denial of
>the proposition that markets provide adequate incentives to gather and
>systematize accurate information about needs and resources.
------------------
I've never read Hayek, but I was under the impression he thought central planning a la the Soviet Union wouldn't function at all.
If this is true, how did it manage to continue for 60 years, from the NEP to perestroika?
Or maybe I misunderstand Hayek...
Chris Doss The Russia Journal