5 ms·

Replacing markets with central planners requires that you find planners that are 1) 100% impervious to corruption 2) Able to predict the weather or any other c

by lujim 11y ago

Replacing markets with central planners requires that you find planners that are 1) 100% impervious to corruption 2) Able to predict the weather or any other complex chaotic system with 100% accuracy. 3) Never sleep or take vacations. 4) Completely concerned with the needs of others and completely uninterested in their own needs (no family or friends) Once we can get 10 or 15 of those people, central planning would finally work better than imperfect markets.

imgabe 11y ago
Except for predicting complex systems, it sounds like something an AI might eventually be able to do.
coldtea 11y ago
>Replacing markets with central planners requires that you find planners that are 1) 100% impervious to corruption Not necessary, since markets have been proved to be quite prone to corruption themselves. >2) Able to predict the weather or any other complex chaotic system with 100% accuracy. Not necessary, they can just take quick actions. Markets can't predict the weather either. >3) Never sleep or take vacations. Markets actually sleep too -- e.g. stock exchanges close. And shops, especially pre-internet, close, all at the same time, around 8-9pm (with small exceptions like your local diner). And who said 24/7 planning is required in the first place? The whole idea about planning is that you do it in advance of some bigger or smaller period of time. Again, this "requirement" presupposes what it has to prove is needed. >4) Completely concerned with the needs of others and completely uninterested in their own needs (no family or friends) Not necessary, since the market has proven that it's doesn't result in any 100% perfect arrangement regarding needs either. The needs of a huge percentage are ignored (to the point that they can even die homeless and sick), 0.1% controls 80% of the wealth, and even individuals are taught and conditioned to make bad decisions all the time for their own needs, destroying themselves in the process (e.g. having easy credit pushed upon them, etc). All those arguments presume the market is 100% perfect, or even if they don't presume that, they still ask that the "planning system" should be 100% perfect (instead of just better than the market which would be a more logical demand).
- danbruc 11y ago
  There is already one contradiction in there - you say planning would have to act quickly and planning happens for extended periods. That is of course not mutually exclusive because you could usually do some longer term planning and resort to quick interventions when needed. But could you really isolate those? Wouldn't quick interventions in one area not likely also have indirect effects on other areas making at least some smaller adjustments necessary? This looks to me like you would become pretty busy doing quick interventions and propagating the ripples through the rest of the plan at which point you are back where you started without any longer term planing. It seems to me that any form of longer term planning incurs a cost by not being able to react in a timely manner, effects propagating asynchronously and as fast as possible in markets would propagate way slower over a couple of planning iterations because they are unnecessarily forced into lockstep.
- lujim 11y ago
  > Not necessary, since markets have been proved to be quite prone to corruption themselves. Markets actors can be corrupt, but the market itself is supply/demand driven. Corruption in central planners however is catastrophic. >Not necessary, they can just take quick actions. Markets can't predict the weather either. Markets don't predict complex systems, they are the complex system. They trend towards equilibrium when possible. Guessing where that equilibrium lies is nearly impossible for humans, but they try everyday. >3) Never sleep or take vacations. Never bought anything after 9pm? Amazon isn't a bad place to go for that, or Walmart, 7-11, nightclubs, bars, restaurants. Also while exchanges close there is after hours trading, orders being placed etc. The second the opening bell rings on the exchange there is an implied opening price that is different from yesterdays close due to 24/7 activity. >Not necessary, since the market has proven that it's doesn't result in any 100% perfect arrangement regarding needs either. Read about Boris Yeltsin's trip to the Clear Lake grocery store in the US in 1989. The US Market had better performance than Soviet central planners at stocking a grocery store according to demand. >The needs of a huge percentage are ignored (to the point that they can even die homeless and sick), 0.1% controls 80% of the wealth, and even individuals are taught and conditioned to make bad decisions all the time for their own needs, destroying themselves in the process (e.g. having easy credit pushed upon them, etc). Payday loans are an interesting phenomenon. Maybe they should be illegal, but no one in there right mind would charge anything short of usury rates with default levels as high as a payday loan operation. You are free to go head to the bad part of town and start lending at prime rate, but you will be destitute in one week. The alternative is no loans which may be better. Also in the US homelessness seems to be driven not from economic problems but from mental health issues and addiction. You may get hit with a massive medical bill, but without making a lot of mistakes along the way you will have a roof over your head. >All those arguments presume the market is 100% perfect, or even if they don't presume that, they still ask that the "planning system" should be 100% perfect (instead of just better than the market which would be a more logical demand). Those arguments say that to be better than an imperfect chaotic system, you have to be able to perfectly model that system then make decisions about it.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
The argument against this is that the rough number of bits of information that 15 people can process is way below the number of bits of information processing potential of all consumers and producers.

by lujim 11y ago

imgabe 11y ago

Except for predicting complex systems, it sounds like something an AI might eventually be able to do.

coldtea 11y ago

>Replacing markets with central planners requires that you find planners that are 1) 100% impervious to corruption Not necessary, since markets have been proved to be quite prone to corruption themselves. >2) Able to predict the weather or any other complex chaotic system with 100% accuracy. Not necessary, they can just take quick actions. Markets can't predict the weather either. >3) Never sleep or take vacations. Markets actually sleep too -- e.g. stock exchanges close. And shops, especially pre-internet, close, all at the same time, around 8-9pm (with small exceptions like your local diner). And who said 24/7 planning is required in the first place? The whole idea about planning is that you do it in advance of some bigger or smaller period of time. Again, this "requirement" presupposes what it has to prove is needed. >4) Completely concerned with the needs of others and completely uninterested in their own needs (no family or friends) Not necessary, since the market has proven that it's doesn't result in any 100% perfect arrangement regarding needs either. The needs of a huge percentage are ignored (to the point that they can even die homeless and sick), 0.1% controls 80% of the wealth, and even individuals are taught and conditioned to make bad decisions all the time for their own needs, destroying themselves in the process (e.g. having easy credit pushed upon them, etc). All those arguments presume the market is 100% perfect, or even if they don't presume that, they still ask that the "planning system" should be 100% perfect (instead of just better than the market which would be a more logical demand).

danbruc 11y ago
There is already one contradiction in there - you say planning would have to act quickly and planning happens for extended periods. That is of course not mutually exclusive because you could usually do some longer term planning and resort to quick interventions when needed. But could you really isolate those? Wouldn't quick interventions in one area not likely also have indirect effects on other areas making at least some smaller adjustments necessary? This looks to me like you would become pretty busy doing quick interventions and propagating the ripples through the rest of the plan at which point you are back where you started without any longer term planing. It seems to me that any form of longer term planning incurs a cost by not being able to react in a timely manner, effects propagating asynchronously and as fast as possible in markets would propagate way slower over a couple of planning iterations because they are unnecessarily forced into lockstep.
lujim 11y ago
> Not necessary, since markets have been proved to be quite prone to corruption themselves. Markets actors can be corrupt, but the market itself is supply/demand driven. Corruption in central planners however is catastrophic. >Not necessary, they can just take quick actions. Markets can't predict the weather either. Markets don't predict complex systems, they are the complex system. They trend towards equilibrium when possible. Guessing where that equilibrium lies is nearly impossible for humans, but they try everyday. >3) Never sleep or take vacations. Never bought anything after 9pm? Amazon isn't a bad place to go for that, or Walmart, 7-11, nightclubs, bars, restaurants. Also while exchanges close there is after hours trading, orders being placed etc. The second the opening bell rings on the exchange there is an implied opening price that is different from yesterdays close due to 24/7 activity. >Not necessary, since the market has proven that it's doesn't result in any 100% perfect arrangement regarding needs either. Read about Boris Yeltsin's trip to the Clear Lake grocery store in the US in 1989. The US Market had better performance than Soviet central planners at stocking a grocery store according to demand. >The needs of a huge percentage are ignored (to the point that they can even die homeless and sick), 0.1% controls 80% of the wealth, and even individuals are taught and conditioned to make bad decisions all the time for their own needs, destroying themselves in the process (e.g. having easy credit pushed upon them, etc). Payday loans are an interesting phenomenon. Maybe they should be illegal, but no one in there right mind would charge anything short of usury rates with default levels as high as a payday loan operation. You are free to go head to the bad part of town and start lending at prime rate, but you will be destitute in one week. The alternative is no loans which may be better. Also in the US homelessness seems to be driven not from economic problems but from mental health issues and addiction. You may get hit with a massive medical bill, but without making a lot of mistakes along the way you will have a roof over your head. >All those arguments presume the market is 100% perfect, or even if they don't presume that, they still ask that the "planning system" should be 100% perfect (instead of just better than the market which would be a more logical demand). Those arguments say that to be better than an imperfect chaotic system, you have to be able to perfectly model that system then make decisions about it.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

The argument against this is that the rough number of bits of information that 15 people can process is way below the number of bits of information processing potential of all consumers and producers.