RE: nuts or immoral

[Thornton Wheeler <twheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 28 Feb 1995 chu@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> :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
>
>
Glad to see that someone understands some of the essence of Hayek!

T Wheeler