Re: Re: To glib or not too glib?

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 07/14/00 11:02AM >>>
BTW, there's a basic ground-rule that is usually ignored in discussions of
planning vs. markets (one that Laura Tyson stated when she started the
first class of "Comparative Systems" at UC-Berkeley): you shouldn't compare
an ideal system with a real system of a different sort. Thus, while it's
okay to compare an ideal market to the real market (or real capitalism),
it's a fundamental mistake to compare an ideal market to a real planning
system (like that of the defunct USSR). Similarly, though a comparison
between Edward Bellamy's ideal planning system and the real world of
capitalism makes the former look pretty good, it's an invalid comparison.

I would also add that it's a mistake to arbitrarily separate the "economy"
from the rest of society and the political system. These parts of society
interpenetrate and affect each other profoundly.

___________

CB: This is an interesting thread I am late on, but I'll say anyway:

The Hayekian ideal of the market seems to fail to take into account the real history of the market which interpenetrates with a political (and economic) system that has wiped out much of the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere, practiced slavery and colonialism for centuries, removed many European peasants from their lands, etc. Hayek seems to assume without proof that the market system has worked well, has been "successful". But do the facts of the history of the market support that assumption ?