I am willing to provide minimal explanatory information. I won't engage in extended discussion because I found it fruitless and unproductive. I was apparently unable to make myself clear because I found myself answering the same erroneous misconceptions about my views or their bases over and over without satisfying either myself or, apparently, anyway else that we were even achieving clarity on our points of difference. To the extent that there seemed to be mutual understanding -- a very small extent from my point of view, and I am sure that was largely my fault -- we mainly seemed to face irreconcilable disagreement about values, theory, method, and even basic facts that there was no point that I could see in re-rehearsing over again. Several intensive and extended rounds of this wore me out to no good purpose. My time and energy is limited. I have papers to write for tenure. These lists are for discussion, but not fruitless discussion, at least, fruitless discussion is not what appeals to me about them.
^^^^^^^ CB: Oh, in that case, go ahead and don't talk about it. Just seems that periodically, you start talking about it and then suddenly in the middle say you aren't going to talk about it, so I figure you might as well talk about it. I can't "make" you talk, but I don't have to. You talk anyway, voluntarily.
To me the main issue is that it seems impossible to _prove_ that _in principle_ there can't be substantial planning of the economy. Every last thing may not be plannable, but it could be planned sufficiently to solve the problems that market "instability" cause. It can be planned to the extent that every last person's basic needs are substantially met ( Let James H. define basic needs). Lets put it this way. Seems impossible to prove that planning can't do it better than the market.
Also, the timing of Hayek's thesis is suspicious as being ideologically motived as anti-Sovietism.
Sure, there are information problems, but with modern computers , WalMart methods ,etc. it seems a lot more doable. It's sort of like "proving" that there could never be solar energy captured "directly" sufficient to substitute for fossil fuels, or "clean" nuclear energy is impossible. One cannot prove that future scientists won't figure those out. Similarly, one can't really prove that the information problems for plannning in economics can't be solved. Also, it sort of implausible that the market _can_ solve the same problems that planning cannot. This is a mystification/deification of the market, ignores that "the market" is people. If people can solve the problem through the market, seems they could solve it in other ways that include experts who do planning of the overall economy. Right now the Fed seems to purport to do something for the overall economy. There are all kinds of alleged experts on "the economy as a whole". Why can't they take their expertise further ?
One component seems to me would be the opposite end of the system from the "center". Each individual would have to make an economic plan for some period of time. This estimating plan would be submitted to central computers that would then estimate the totality of everybody's basic needs and desires for the next year or more, and what production would be necessary to meet everybody's needs and desires.
Of course the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. People change their minds. Stuff happens. New goods and services are invented. Thers's spontaneity even. So, there would have to be adjustments. But the base periodic plan would guide the fit between needs/desires and production to a substantial extent.