Cat Potts, Chapter 1, Question #6

The subtitle of this chapter, "Who Feeds Paris?" is perhaps the most interesting idea in this chapter, and the concept behind the question becomes more of a compelling idea with the story of the Soviet official at an American pharmacy. Even though this passage was very early on, it definitely stuck with me the most throughout the rest of the chapter. The concept of a market economy makes sense to us because we have never had to deal with an alternative, just as the Soviet official can't comprehend a market economy because all he has known is a market run by the government. Even though often our system seems flawed at times (for example, when we have to pay more for water and vegetables than we do for soda and burgers), I think it's interesting to consider what the possible alternative can be: could be better off with a different system? One could argue that proof of the superiority of a market systems lies in the failure of the Soviet economy, but perhaps the reason the Soviet economy failed was because they had the right idea, but the wrong execution. Is the idea of a government-mandated economy really such a terrible idea? Can a society properly function if the government is the one who controls what goes on the shelves in the stores and who gets those goods? Was the failure of the Soviet economy just bad timing and planning, or was it inevitable?