3 ms·
> Sometimes I try to imagine how the alternative would be in a planned economy for software. > On one hand, it would be very slow and very inefficient. Why do
by andrepd 4y ago
> Sometimes I try to imagine how the alternative would be in a planned economy for software.
> On one hand, it would be very slow and very inefficient.
Why do you say that? Large, "boring" sectors of the economy would probably work just fine being algorithmically steered.
- brokenkebab2 4y agoBecause there are 0 successful examples for it. And as someone born in USSR let me say if you like to experiment with planned economy you better choose a country nobody will regret leaving in dust afterwards
- andrepd 4y agoThat's not a good reasoning, there were 0 successful examples of democracy for millenia, until stable Western democracies emerged. Anyways, more concretely: huge vertically integrated megacorporations behave much like centrally planned economies, and they seek to be doing just finem
- brokenkebab2 4y agoYour first argument could be somewhat interesting point for debates if the latest planned economy attempt were some hundreds years ago. The second one is no argument at all: planned economy is a radical departure from the feedback loop of the current economy within which all corporations operate.
- Aerroon 4y agoBecause they wouldn't be. A planned economy just takes the power of business owners and adds it to the pile of power politicians have. These algorithms would just 'happen' to suggest things favorable to those in charge.
- jokoon 4y agoI said that to appeal to the HN crowds. Computing and software was researched and invented in a planned manner (NASA etc). Maybe you can't "expand" and "generalize" software in a planned economy, if you want everything to be made with software. The article talks about about 80 competitors, so it can easily be said something should be planned.