It is indeed very interesting, however it has not been studied enough. Nothing has been proved. Too much effort goes in mainstream economics, while complex syst

It is indeed very interesting, however it has not been studied enough. Nothing has been proved. Too much effort goes in mainstream economics, while complex systems and agent based models are where the good stuff is, to answer question such as yours. Aggregation problems are at the very core of Hayek reflection. I would not say it's bad. Look at his excellent 1945 paper: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html There seems to be a lot going in favor. The global optimality depends on what one think is best. Like, maybe Betamax was really better than VHS, but we humans settle on VHS. They went away with DVD. Then, rinse and repeat with Blueray. Maybe Betamax and HD-DVD were much better, and maybe in an alternate reality they won. But saying they should have won and imposing that by force would be unfair to all those who chose otherwise in this reality. And if we argue on a coordination problem, I would disagree- all it takes is something much better, like DVDs were to the VHS, or as streaming is to Blueray. So being "stuck" on a local optima depends on a) the existence of an alternative only slightly better and b) lack of progress, ie never ever having a clearly better alternative to overcome the smallness of the difference or c) disregarding the opinions or the costs to whoever prefers the alternative. We may not have proofs, but there is a strong argument. But maybe I am biased, as I would consider myself an Austrian economist. Personally, I think the best way is leaving everyone free, not forcing anyone to do what they don't want to do, as I don't like the concept of force or violence. I don't care about government action as such - if it was optional, as in a "recommendation". As in saying cigarettes are bad. Not in banning or taxing them.