Occasionally an very brief intervention seems like it might be helpful to clear up a simple misconception, if there are any simple ones on this area, and it seems worth the risk to offer a brief observation without opening Pandora's Box and turning the market-v. plan debare loose on the lsit once again, much less participating in it.
> > it seems impossible
> to
> > _prove_ that _in
> > principle_ there can't be substantial planning of
> > the economy.
I agree, actually, totally, with this statement. And also with the underlying idea, that there can and should be substantial planning in a modern economy.
Every last
> > thing may not be plannable, but it could be
> planned
> > sufficiently to solve
> > the problems that market "instability" cause.
I agree with this statement too.
It
> can
> > be planned to the
> > extent that every last person's basic needs are
> > substantially met
And this one.
> > Seems impossible to
> > prove that planning can't do it better than the
> > market.
And this one.
> >
> > Also, the timing of Hayek's thesis is suspicious
> as
> > being ideologically
> > motived as anti-Sovietism.
And this one.
_Of course_ Hayek and Mises were motivated by anti-Sovietism. Mises' first contribution to the calculation debate isn't dated 1920 by accident.
> >
> > Sure, there are information problems, but with
> > modern computers , WalMart
> > methods ,etc. it seems a lot more doable.
It's at this point that I get off, because when I try to explain what the issues are, I don't seem to be able to make my ideas clear enough so that I get relevant responses that actually join with what seems to me to be the main points. It's very frustrating and not helpful.
There is a large literature, some of it pretty accessible; interested people can read and find someone else to talk about it with.
____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news