I use this colloquial phrase “sounds good in theory” because often we don’t have all the facts. We either can’t measure them or the thing that we’re measuring varies over time, often (not always) in a Gaussian distribution. So we need systems that are robust against all the tolerances (variances in values) working out against you and making Gertie gallop. Setting aside the moral issue of central planners using force to tell people what to produce, maybe central planning could work if the planners had access to all the information. This is a moot point because there is no substitute for free people producing what works for them.
Regarding irrational market behavior, I know it’s real. I don’t understand how people use its existence as an argument for central planning. Central planners are subject to irrationality and other human foibles just as market participants are.
My saying “sounds good in theory” makes other Ayn Rand fans howl, but my reading of Rand is 180 degrees opposite from that of her most vocal fans.
Yes, we often don't have all the facts - and no one is omniscient. However, it is absurd to presume a situation in which central planners would have all the information for any complex system, let alone one driven by human volition, as you point out. And of course, irrational behavior is real, and as you also point out, it is evenly distributed and there is no better system than the price mechanism of free markets to sort it out while maintaining rights, liberty and justice. As far as Rand's vocal fans, most do not have a thorough knowledge and too many use parts of Objectivism to rationalize their conservative, libertarian or socialist bias.
I use this colloquial phrase “sounds good in theory” because often we don’t have all the facts. We either can’t measure them or the thing that we’re measuring varies over time, often (not always) in a Gaussian distribution. So we need systems that are robust against all the tolerances (variances in values) working out against you and making Gertie gallop. Setting aside the moral issue of central planners using force to tell people what to produce, maybe central planning could work if the planners had access to all the information. This is a moot point because there is no substitute for free people producing what works for them.
Regarding irrational market behavior, I know it’s real. I don’t understand how people use its existence as an argument for central planning. Central planners are subject to irrationality and other human foibles just as market participants are.
My saying “sounds good in theory” makes other Ayn Rand fans howl, but my reading of Rand is 180 degrees opposite from that of her most vocal fans.
Yes, we often don't have all the facts - and no one is omniscient. However, it is absurd to presume a situation in which central planners would have all the information for any complex system, let alone one driven by human volition, as you point out. And of course, irrational behavior is real, and as you also point out, it is evenly distributed and there is no better system than the price mechanism of free markets to sort it out while maintaining rights, liberty and justice. As far as Rand's vocal fans, most do not have a thorough knowledge and too many use parts of Objectivism to rationalize their conservative, libertarian or socialist bias.