[WS:] I beg to differ. I've seen two types of arguments in the literature. One is that a socialist planning system, or if you want to approach this from the pov of transaction cost economics (TCE), a large scale organizational structure is better equipped to achieve efficiency than a multitude of entrepreneurs laboring under a free competition/free market regime. The socialists supported their position by claiming that a socialist planning system is better equipped to account for externalities (such as social or environmental costs) than individual entrepreneurs - in principle at least. The TCE folk argued that large organizations offer superior efficiency in the form of saving transaction costs of doing business (cf. scouting the markets or enforcing terms of contracts.) But both arguments cited a superior organizational form rather than superior rationality of individuals in the position of authority.
AFAIK, the argument claiming superior rationality of bureaucrats is a canard invented by neo-liberal trolls, and need not be taken seriously. In any case, these libertarian types tend to be delusional sociopaths who under ordinary circumstances would do better seeking twelve step programs than trying to influence public policy, which they are unable or unwilling to understand. It is as if a blind person attempted to tell painters how to paint, or a deaf person lecturing musicians how to play. :)
Wojtek
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM, // ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>>> Ravi: "This points to the key problem with "nudge" style paternalism:
>>> presuming that technocrats understand what ordinary people want better
>>> than the people themselves. "
>>>
>> [WS:] But this is what many advocates of socialist planned economies
>> argued, no?
>
>
> Was it? I would have thought that most socialist/planned economies argue that they know how to *achieve* what people want better. There is a difference between saying “I know what you want” and “I know how to get what you want", no?
>
>
>> The point is not that "technocrats know better" but that
>> ordinary people routinely fail to take into account considerations
>> that have been externalized.
>
>
> Yes, true. I think the authors of the article point out (or quote someone who does) that what is needed is a two-way, and that is ruled out when technical prescriptions are surreptitiously implemented. One (though not the only) reason is that not all considerations are technical.
>
> —ravi
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>