Re: [Pen-l] planning [was: Paul Davidson sums up

[John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Devine wrote:

> In light of the manifest failure of planning a large economy (the
> USSR) and the way in which "market socialism" tends to turn into
> capitalism, I like Charlie Andrews' alternative of decentralized
> not-for-profit institutions embedded in a larger democratic society. I
> also like the way it's part of his scheme to reward workers with free
> education and how the system has a tendency to gradually move toward a
> non-market communism. See http://www.laborrepublic.org/.

FWIW, it looks like we both agree that central planning is a dead end 
and that social democracy is the way to go. "From each according to 
ability, to each according to deeds", I also concur with. But because we 
cannot sidestep natural elasticities between costed inputs and demand 
for output, and deeds become valued through the demand for one's output, 
I hold that a for-profit economy is by far the most effective way to 
deal with this situation; as long as it leads to an after the fact (of 
supply) remuneration in the form of profit sharing. This necessitates 
cost+ pricing, rather than a command system, at least for a substantial 
portion of an economy. A "tendency to gradually move toward a non-market 
communism" would be absent. But why would that matter in an environment 
where social needs are adequately taken care of?

John V
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l