Not thinking about introducing andie to Sir Isaac Newton, are you?
--- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
> ^^^^^^^
> 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.
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Lyubo, bratsy, lyubo, lyubo, bratsy, zhit!
ËÞÁÎ, ÁÐÀÒÖÛ, ËÞÁÎ, ËÞÁÎ, ÁÐÀÒÖÛ, ÆÈÒÜ!
____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/