I'm not a big fan of capital markets. On the Schweickart model I like, consumer goods and capital goods are marketed, but new investyment is provided by state run banks that gtant funds on criteria of balanced profitability and social benefits (employment, ecology, etc.), however the granting officer's income is linked to the grantee's profitability. Anyway, it's not like modern capitalist capital markets. Whether this would worek I don't know. It would be interesting to see if you could do sectoral experiments.
I think we need markets for stuff like CDs and toothpaste and food and clothes and books and toys (adult and other). The notion that Bill and Ernest Mandel have that you plan from last year's demand doesn't take account of the fact that both supply and demand changes. As does technology and production methods. I mean, look at this Asian dissster, for one thing, it would fuck up your five year plan real good.
But even aside from that, there's just no way of getting, collating, tabulating, and processing accurate information about all the products that people consume and the stuff that goes into making them. Bill's idea that you just ask (also Albert and Hahnel's idea) assumes that people know the answer, first. Which is absurd, I can't even predict my own shopping needs for food a week in advance. And second that people will give honest answers rather than overstating their needs and underestimating their capabilities -- I don't even mean consciously lying, just shading up and down to be on the safe side.
Then there is the fact that there is no check on errors in a nonmarket system. Sure there is politics, but politics, we know from the Yugoslav and Soviet experience, does not encourage harming powerful constituencies by shutting down inefficient or outmoded enterprises. Or even dangerous or harnful ones. Markets have teeth -- bannkruptcy. Oops, you guessed that people wanted Betamax, so sorry, go get another job.
Markets are harsh and brutal and a bit cruel -- that is why we need the welfare state and unenemployment insurance, but otherwise you do go all Soiet. And whatever Chris and Charles say, I know a lot about the Societ economy, and believe me, you don't want exploding TVs, long lines for stuff you don't want, shoddy everything if it's not military, and so forth. Yeah, it tottered along for 60 years. But if that is the criterion, markets are a lot older. We do want everyone fed and housed, but we don't have to get rid of markets to do that.
Other things, we don't need markets for: water, electricity -- anything simple where targets are easily measurable and demand is fairly predictable. Some complesx markets we don't want or need markets in -- health care.
And no labor markets, either. At least none where the threat of destitution drives people. Having worked in what are nominally copperatives in a sense -- law forms are partnerships, though we associates are mere employess -- I am not starry eyed about cooperative labor making everything hunky dory. But it is better than the alternative.
jks
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Lassen wrote:
>
> >andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >
> >> I am a Hayekian. Hayek's idea was that markets
> are
> >> information systems, not straw-bosses. The point
> is
> >> that people cannot know enough if they have to
> plan
> >> how many buttons and how much broccoli they will
> >need
> >> -- but mnarkets give people who are interested
> in
> >> making profits spedcial incentives to find out
> >without
> >> central coordination. No planning board can do
> as
> >well
> >> outside certain areas where supply and demand is
> >> highly predictable.
> >
> >I'm still a little puzzled why a Hayekian would
> want
> >to resort to markets given our current state of
> >technology and organization.
>
> And also given the evidence from financial markets
> that there's lots
> & lots of noise in market prices - they
> systematically overshoot, and
> reflect mob psychology, not the kind of
> dispassionate information
> that The Market's publicists tout. What have we
> learned from all the
> movements of oil prices, from under $10 to over $50,
> over the last 20
> years? Excessively low prices discouraged both
> exploration and R&D
> for a post-oil future; excessively high prices
> create recessions
> without encouraging much long-term planning.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com