Another point -- national parks are not produced and distributed.
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: SA <s11131978 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] IT innovation and "the Markets"
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 5:05 PM
> Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> >> While I agree with your list do you imagine
> central planning would be as effective at filling demand for
> microwaves, TeeVee, pants, shoes and similar goods?
> > Why not? The efficient distribution of media from a
> lending library requires significant planning, tracking,
> budgeting, staffing, etc. Actually, the more I think about
> it, in practical terms, it's way easier to produce and
> distribute microwave ovens than it is to produce any of the
> public goods on my list.
>
> I don't think we're all talking about the same
> thing here. You seem to be talking about whether
> "planning" can work well. On that there was never
> any disagreement. Planning works well - libraries, subways,
> Medicare, etc - no argument there. What others are talking
> about is whether *central* planning works well.
>
> An economy where virtually all production is planned = a
> centrally planned economy. An economy where libraries and
> subways are planned = capitalism as we know it. You seem to
> believe that the former is just an extension of the latter,
> but that's the whole point - it's not.
>
> Planning under central planning is like decrypting a coded
> text in which every letter is represented by an unfamiliar
> symbol. Planning under capitalism as we know it is like
> decrypting that same text with the aid of a legend that
> translates half the letters of the alphabet for you. It
> would take an average person an hour to decode the text with
> the legend; without the legend most people could never solve
> it no matter how much time they had.
>
> SA
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk