>
>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.
Good. I mean, to read Hayek.
>
>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.
>
The OED says the term was originally a name of a kind of woolen cloth made by shredding refuse woolen rags. It gives the earliest uses as the 1830s.
>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.
There's no comparison with Soviet goods, none. Soviet TV sets regularly exploded; the smart purchaser kept a bucket of sand by the set. There was a actually a TV show under perestroika that was based on making fun of worthless goods. A handful of Soviet products, machine tools and the like, were world market quality. For the rest, Soviet industry made stuff that was unmarketable.
>
>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.
No doubt, but there's no comparison. The goods, made in large part in the world market, are world market quality. That doesn't mean they are all fine, but they are pretty good. That includes places like Target and K-Mart, where I do most of why shopping, except for my taste in fancy men's haberdashery. As for lines, it's not a big problem. We don't face chronic shortages. In the FSU, a smart shopper got in any line at all, just because that meant that someone was selling something you wouldn't be able to get again fora long time.
>
>So maybe the fSU central planning doesn't work well, but does our
>system?
>
Better, with regard to those dimensions. Worse with regard to provision of basic security to the poorest. But one reason I don't like to engage in this discussion is because it leads to this sort of pointless back-and-forth. Look. I am not a fan of capitalism. I am a socialist. I do not defend even social democratuc capitalism as the best we can do. I advocate a kind of public ownership--with markets--as explained to Charles.
>BTW, any recommendations on Hayek?
>
Individualism and the Economic Order is the best place to start. For arguments for a Hayekian socialism, see Alec Nove, The Economics of Feasible Socialism (good on the FSU), and David SChweickart, Against Capitalism. Also" Brank Horvat, The Political Economy of Socialism, for an old-style Yugosolav perspective.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.