5 ms·

Hayek was an absolute fabulist and quite dishonest too. His arguments against central planning rely on a sleight of hand where any government planning is identi

Hayek was an absolute fabulist and quite dishonest too. His arguments against central planning rely on a sleight of hand where any government planning is identified with something like GOSPLAN under Stalin. How people using the internet, created by DARPA and NSF can fall for that is beyond me. Clearly, governments can plan well or badly. For that matter private corporations can plan well or badly - IBM and Intel have centralized planning on an immense scale.

RobertoG 10y ago
"IBM and Intel have centralized planning on an immense scale" Right. In fact, is there any human group that don't have some kind of central planning? Ironically, the only kind I can think of is the anarchist meetings where, somebody told me, nothing is never decided.
- pjc50 10y ago
  This is where people should read Coase rather than Hayek, who actually addresses the question of why companies exist and are centrally planned.
  - nickik 10y ago
    Yes. I have pointed to Law&Economics (invented by Coase for those who don't know) multiple times in this thread. I would however also say that Hayek has more to say on the topic and that the parent comment mischaracterized Hayek's arguments. Little triva, Coase was a student at LSE when Hayek was there in the 30s. They are two of the best and most important economists of this century, both should be studied in depth.
  - thehardsphere 10y ago
    TL;DR version: Companies exist to reduce the transaction costs of coordinating many people independently to achieve something.
nickik 10y ago
You are attacking a straw man. Hayek is not against all planning, not even against all government. That the government must plan for the things they are responsible for, is absolutely clear and needed. He is talking about government control of the economy. Also this hole point about DARPA creating the internet is just as dishonest. First of all because nobody ever claimed government can never do anything useful, second of all the internet is what it is because of millions and billions of dollers invested in it by both governments and private companies, because of millions and billions of people putting their creativity in it. The idea that nobody would ever had the idea of networking without the government is just insanity. We can clearly push forward the development of the internet, develop, adopt and implement new protocols today without the government. Even without government there would be some sort of system where we can discuss stuff online.
lend000 10y ago
Unlike IBM and Intel, the government has no competition -- it's a true monopoly.
- yarrel 10y ago
  States compete with other states.
  - lend000 10y ago
    To an extent, yes, and even nation states compete with one another for 'your business,' but at the end of the day, it requires completely uprooting your life to change governments, assuming they let you leave/ another government lets you in.
jimmyk 10y ago
IBM and Intel have centralized planning on an immense scale. It's a bit of a different situation. Giant companies can still look to prices on the market to make decisions about how to use their resources. Central economic planning, as I understand Hayek to have meant it, means getting rid of market generated prices.
- vyodaiken 10y ago
  But he created this false dichotomy: either GOSPLAN+ or free markets (which included government actions he didn't want to call "planning"). Government provided medical care is not equivalent to Gulag Archipelago and it can also be price sensitive.

RobertoG 10y ago

"IBM and Intel have centralized planning on an immense scale" Right. In fact, is there any human group that don't have some kind of central planning? Ironically, the only kind I can think of is the anarchist meetings where, somebody told me, nothing is never decided.

pjc50 10y ago
This is where people should read Coase rather than Hayek, who actually addresses the question of why companies exist and are centrally planned.
- nickik 10y ago
  Yes. I have pointed to Law&Economics (invented by Coase for those who don't know) multiple times in this thread. I would however also say that Hayek has more to say on the topic and that the parent comment mischaracterized Hayek's arguments. Little triva, Coase was a student at LSE when Hayek was there in the 30s. They are two of the best and most important economists of this century, both should be studied in depth.
- thehardsphere 10y ago
  TL;DR version: Companies exist to reduce the transaction costs of coordinating many people independently to achieve something.

nickik 10y ago

You are attacking a straw man. Hayek is not against all planning, not even against all government. That the government must plan for the things they are responsible for, is absolutely clear and needed. He is talking about government control of the economy. Also this hole point about DARPA creating the internet is just as dishonest. First of all because nobody ever claimed government can never do anything useful, second of all the internet is what it is because of millions and billions of dollers invested in it by both governments and private companies, because of millions and billions of people putting their creativity in it. The idea that nobody would ever had the idea of networking without the government is just insanity. We can clearly push forward the development of the internet, develop, adopt and implement new protocols today without the government. Even without government there would be some sort of system where we can discuss stuff online.

lend000 10y ago

Unlike IBM and Intel, the government has no competition -- it's a true monopoly.

yarrel 10y ago
States compete with other states.
- lend000 10y ago
  To an extent, yes, and even nation states compete with one another for 'your business,' but at the end of the day, it requires completely uprooting your life to change governments, assuming they let you leave/ another government lets you in.

jimmyk 10y ago

IBM and Intel have centralized planning on an immense scale. It's a bit of a different situation. Giant companies can still look to prices on the market to make decisions about how to use their resources. Central economic planning, as I understand Hayek to have meant it, means getting rid of market generated prices.

vyodaiken 10y ago
But he created this false dichotomy: either GOSPLAN+ or free markets (which included government actions he didn't want to call "planning"). Government provided medical care is not equivalent to Gulag Archipelago and it can also be price sensitive.