Дочитал
Последние два абзаца из Capital In Disequilibtium Питера Левина:
...[for] economic planning, whether it be interest rate engineering, antitrust regulation, antipoverty planning, or environmental husbanding... [t]o be effective, policy-makers must have or must be able to acquire knowledge of the relevant economic future; of techniques, of preferences, of values. In addition, since government action requires resources that would otherwise be available to private individuals who would be, implicitly through the competitive process, experimenting with various techniques and theories, the extent of “discovery” displaced by such government action is inestimable. There is literally no way to estimate the “cost” of government, since a crucial part of that cost is the loss of valuable knowledge. Knowledge lost cannot be known about.
This is relevant also to the problem of economic development. The “transition to capitalism” cannot be simply bought. Capital equipment can be bought. Buildings can be built. Experts can be hired. But respect for private property cannot be produced. A system of laws that interprets and innovates property rights cannot be easily acquired. A functional monetary system cannot be centrally designed and implemented - the money has first to be accepted. And the necessary human capital structure in all its subtleties and depths cannot simply be replicated. Some transfers can be simply taught, others can be painfully acquired-“learning by doing” or by immersion in “other cultures”-other aspects are more elusive. Prosperity is a miraculous and improbable evolutionary outcome. If it can be transferred at all, it will be by allowing and encouraging the local population to evolve its own particular brand privately.
Хорошая книжечка. Кроме, собственно австрийской теории капитала еще приплитаються новый инстутиционализм и человеческий капитал. Соответствующие две главы, посвященные им, мне показалось, немного не вписываются в текст, но обсуждение капитала (включая history of thought), особенно учитывая, что я не читал классический текст Лахмана, мне понравилось.
...[for] economic planning, whether it be interest rate engineering, antitrust regulation, antipoverty planning, or environmental husbanding... [t]o be effective, policy-makers must have or must be able to acquire knowledge of the relevant economic future; of techniques, of preferences, of values. In addition, since government action requires resources that would otherwise be available to private individuals who would be, implicitly through the competitive process, experimenting with various techniques and theories, the extent of “discovery” displaced by such government action is inestimable. There is literally no way to estimate the “cost” of government, since a crucial part of that cost is the loss of valuable knowledge. Knowledge lost cannot be known about.
This is relevant also to the problem of economic development. The “transition to capitalism” cannot be simply bought. Capital equipment can be bought. Buildings can be built. Experts can be hired. But respect for private property cannot be produced. A system of laws that interprets and innovates property rights cannot be easily acquired. A functional monetary system cannot be centrally designed and implemented - the money has first to be accepted. And the necessary human capital structure in all its subtleties and depths cannot simply be replicated. Some transfers can be simply taught, others can be painfully acquired-“learning by doing” or by immersion in “other cultures”-other aspects are more elusive. Prosperity is a miraculous and improbable evolutionary outcome. If it can be transferred at all, it will be by allowing and encouraging the local population to evolve its own particular brand privately.
Хорошая книжечка. Кроме, собственно австрийской теории капитала еще приплитаються новый инстутиционализм и человеческий капитал. Соответствующие две главы, посвященные им, мне показалось, немного не вписываются в текст, но обсуждение капитала (включая history of thought), особенно учитывая, что я не читал классический текст Лахмана, мне понравилось.