One of my correspondents (RG Prior) responded to an earlier post on money.
You don't appear to provide any reason to disregard Austrian economics, or to dismiss Mises.
Well, I think it is inhuman in the political policies it promotes, fails in understanding humanity, and fails even to understand that its practical proponents (i.e. conservative politicians) will not hold to such non-populist policies.
This, and the suggestion that IT systems will be able to read people's minds and predict the impact of innovation within 10 years sufficiently accurately and frequently that they will enable effective economic planning and the ditching of markets, indicates that you put dogma ahead of reason.
Not really, because I am in fact worried about the sheer amount of individual tracking that goes on already in our economies. In other words, not dogma, but reasonable prediction.
But, first of all, on the harder question. There is less and less social science proof that people have individual free will. Even if they do, the variety of what is willed is within very narrow limits. I agree that people may naturally have a higher choice range than older soviet central planning could account for, but on a mass level RFIDing goods, tracking credit card spending, etc. is giving organizations like Walmart an essentially "planned" approach to its internal economy. Hell, we even know people will buy more iced yogurt if it's placed in the middle shelf of the last aisle in a supermarket.
I think these IT changes already well under way, will make talk of "reading peoples minds" irrelevant. IT will not read people's minds, it will predict their economic behaviour.
In other words I think the economic calculation problem will be solved by modern IT (and its predictable developments) in a way that makes the eighty-year old theories of Mies and Hayek just a matter of historical interest.
I'll tell you what. 10 years is soon enough that there's a decent chance both of us will still be alive. What shall we wager that IT systems with those capabilities are ubiquitous within that period?
Of course, we will need to come up with some tests by which this can be judged. Something like the Turing test, but demonstrating mind-reading and predictive capabilities rather than the ability to convince a human of the respondent's humanity?
Well since, by my current calculation I have been HIV+ since 1985, I really doubt I will be around ten years hence.
But we will see in any case that I am not predicting mind reading technologies within ten years. I think such technologies will be available in 30 years or so, and I find that quite as frightening as anyone else.