> >Chris Doss wrote:
> >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?
>
>
> You do misunderstand him and ought to read him. He thought
> that itw ould be
> grossly indfficient and wasteful, full of bottlenecks,
> shortages, long
> lines, bad products, missed targets, low innovation; that it
> would lead to
> generalized poverty and resist change in the direction of
> improvement. He
> was right, and right for the specific reasons he gave, as
> every planner or
> industrial manager in the FSU would acknowledge. Read, e.g.,
> Shmevel &
> Popov, the Turning Point. indeed, Hayekian ideas drove
> perestroika itself.
> jks
I'll put Hayek on my list. If I live long enough I might eventually read everything I'm supposed to, but there will be no time for action.
This argument of "shoddy" doesn't ring true to me. "Shoddy" is an older word than the fSU and central planning. I think it originates with English capitalism and India in the 18th C.
I use invidious comparison to the fSU when I'm particularly disgusted with our shoddy goods, and want to be sarcastic. You can't get socks that fit. My wife's robe is disintegrating after a few months of use. Men's C-widths are unavailable in shoes unless you pay a lot of money. My girth appears only once in a while at Wal-Mart.
Take a good look at goods and services for ordinary people in the USA. Perhaps they are better than elsewhere, but there is an awful lot of shoddy. And a lot of products, inferior to begin with, are priced out of many people's range. And try waiting in line in our stores.
So maybe the fSU central planning doesn't work well, but does our system?
BTW, any recommendations on Hayek?
-- John K. Taber