4 ms·

> completely unplanned and inefficient use of resources from perspective of resource use. People need to get over the idea of efficiency and centrally planned.

> completely unplanned and inefficient use of resources from perspective of resource use. People need to get over the idea of efficiency and centrally planned. These are not necessary qualities in order for humans to prosper.

coldtea 7y ago
No, but the opposite are enough qualities for humans and the planet to perish, and thus far, we're doing a good job on the latter...
maxerickson 7y ago
The carrying capacity of the planet is fixed relative to our current level of technology. Efficiently applying that level of technology can make the difference between shortage and plenty. Of course so can technological change, but it's not like efficiency is just some dumb irrelevancy.
noja 7y ago
> People need to get over the idea of efficiency and centrally planned. People need to get over the idea that a free market is the solution to everything?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  For food distribution, historically, a free market beats central planning, hands down.
  - lurquer 7y ago
    That's not true. In central planned economies, the members of the Party eat very well. /sarc
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    Not at all; free market fails to feed people daily. Even in the heartland of captialism we had plenty of bread lines during the great depression. To be clear I’m not advocating centralized planning, or any specific planning method. I’m simply pointing out the free market has specifically failed at food distribution. Or at least, you're going to need to contort the definition of success to get the free market to meet it.
yorwba 7y ago
It's not necessary, but efficiency makes prospering easier by lowering the required effort. If efficiency weren't important, nobody would every bother to optimize (aka. plan) anything. Also note that planning and central planning aren't synonymous. A central planning process makes more efficient use of planning resources, but that doesn't help if the plans it produces are themselves inefficient because they're based on five-year-old statistics someone faked for their personal gain. So far, decentralized planning seems to be more robust overall, and the additional decision-making overhead is small compared to the cost of actually moving things around. In that sense, it's not even the case that food distribution is currently unplanned; a great deal of effort goes into determining what quantities of various foods should be transported to warehouses all over the world in order to meet future demand. The problem is just that the planners are optimizing their own profit, and keeping the largest possible number of people well-fed isn't profit-maximizing currently.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Well, based on current distribution of resources, unplanned isn’t going so well either. What’s your suggestion?

coldtea 7y ago

No, but the opposite are enough qualities for humans and the planet to perish, and thus far, we're doing a good job on the latter...

maxerickson 7y ago

The carrying capacity of the planet is fixed relative to our current level of technology. Efficiently applying that level of technology can make the difference between shortage and plenty. Of course so can technological change, but it's not like efficiency is just some dumb irrelevancy.

noja 7y ago

> People need to get over the idea of efficiency and centrally planned. People need to get over the idea that a free market is the solution to everything?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
For food distribution, historically, a free market beats central planning, hands down.
- lurquer 7y ago
  That's not true. In central planned economies, the members of the Party eat very well. /sarc
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  Not at all; free market fails to feed people daily. Even in the heartland of captialism we had plenty of bread lines during the great depression. To be clear I’m not advocating centralized planning, or any specific planning method. I’m simply pointing out the free market has specifically failed at food distribution. Or at least, you're going to need to contort the definition of success to get the free market to meet it.

yorwba 7y ago

It's not necessary, but efficiency makes prospering easier by lowering the required effort. If efficiency weren't important, nobody would every bother to optimize (aka. plan) anything. Also note that planning and central planning aren't synonymous. A central planning process makes more efficient use of planning resources, but that doesn't help if the plans it produces are themselves inefficient because they're based on five-year-old statistics someone faked for their personal gain. So far, decentralized planning seems to be more robust overall, and the additional decision-making overhead is small compared to the cost of actually moving things around. In that sense, it's not even the case that food distribution is currently unplanned; a great deal of effort goes into determining what quantities of various foods should be transported to warehouses all over the world in order to meet future demand. The problem is just that the planners are optimizing their own profit, and keeping the largest possible number of people well-fed isn't profit-maximizing currently.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

Well, based on current distribution of resources, unplanned isn’t going so well either. What’s your suggestion?