Reading Analysis of 'The Use of Knowledge in Society'

What did you find interesting or uninteresting about the piece? Was there something that seemed intuitive or counterintuitive? Explain.
Hayek mentions in this piece that the knowledge problem applies not only to the to the producers of a good, but to the consumers of it, too. In terms of allocation, a consumer may believe that he or she values a particular good more than the other demanders of the same product. This person doesn't know, however, if the next consumer would put the product to better use. In other words, a consumer may believe that their use for a good is superior, but actually has no idea if his/her form of consumption is "better" or more efficient. The information problem extends well into the demand market as well as the supply market. I also find it interesting that society tends to regard people who have an advantage of information that allows them to acquire a good as dishonest. They simply have a comparative advantage in obtaining a certain good over other demanders in that market. Hayek suggests that the other demanders feel contempt for such a person with a knowledge advantage, but I believe it's more jealousy than it is anything else.

Discussion Questions
Why do you think governments still appoint several central planners even though it has been proven to be inefficient time and time again? Do they have another option besides central planning? Why or why not?

Is there a way to economically plan without centrally planning? At what point does the former cross into the realm of the latter?

Annotation
The point of this article was to further discuss the extent of the information problem in markets, and to reenforce the idea that central planning is virtually worthless. There is no possible way that one person has the capacity to make decisions for the whole because there is no feasible way for them to acquire all the knowledge they would need to make choices on that level.