RE: nuts or immoral

[chu@xxxxxxxx]

:Date:          Tue, 28 Feb 1995 14:41:47 EST
:From: "Roger Koppl" <KOPPL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:Subject: Was Hayek nuts or just immoral?

I'm sure he was neither.

< interesting historical incidents ...>
:Hayek never, NEVER, denied the utility of planning.  He objected ONLY
:to CENTRAL planning.  Coase might be invoked to get a sense for how
:you could reject central planning while endorsing corporate planning.
:The planning of a corporation carries costs and benefits.  If the
:benefits of expanding the scope of a planning island should exceed
:the costs, it seems likely that such and expansion will occur.  If
:not, no such expansion occurs.  What do we see?  Many planning
:islands of various size, no clear tendency toward the grand
:unification of all corporate enterprise.  Indeed don't we have merger
:waves followed by waves of the opposite type?

This seems to be another argument of the form:  This is what we have now.
Since it arrived here through 'selection' and 'spontaneous organization,'
it must be the 'natural order' in some sense.  Since we don't have global
central planning, it must be 'unnatural' and not cost effective.

I'm sure Dr. Ransom and you have a more substantive arguement against
Central Planning than this one.  I'd be interested to hear it.
BTW, what would you think of global ogliopoly of a handful of MNCs?
If this seems to stray too far off the pkt list, please do use e-mail.

Thank you.

A. Chu