4 ms·

If you had the online data of what was being ordered of Amazon, Walmart, Target, Costco, and a handful of grocers, you'd know exactly how much to produce. . Th

If you had the online data of what was being ordered of Amazon, Walmart, Target, Costco, and a handful of grocers, you'd know exactly how much to produce. . The myth that a planned economy is inefficient comes from a time when not everything was computerized.

Clubber 3y ago
You're talking about food production, which is already centrally planned with subsidies to not grow certain foods. This has been in place since the dust bowl. It seems to be working pretty well. Probably wouldn't work in anything that isn't a historical staple though. Think of how much the congress is knowledgeable in tech for the last 20+ years. Could you imagine if congress centrally planned how the tech revolution and how it would pan out? We'd still be using whatever the first viable tech was (ENIAC?).
- analognoise 3y ago
  Every computer advancement we take for granted today is due to industrial policy, and a time when the top marginal tax rate was over 70%. The idea that government is not effective and should not participate in industrial developments is all relatively new. Every year that goes by without a reset in industrial policy, the web gets worse and there are fewer companies doing actual hardware. It turns out when you let the people who focus solely on finance and efficiency run things, it goes well for a while and then your foundational companies become like Boeing. Government should participate more strongly, not less - including by breaking up big tech.
Nasrudith 3y ago
The Soviet Union had armies of mathematicians and surveyors to try to predict manufacturing needs. That is like saying "just use surveys"! Equating retailers with the entirety of the chain is massive willful ignorance. It is like equating knowing how to repair a car with knowing the entire manufacturing process of the car down not just to the ore but to the "production" of the individual workers themselves!
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  There’s been a lot of technological progress since the Soviet Union’s demise. There’s probably some point where running a full command economy becomes feasible with modeling, oppressive surveillance and repression, etc. Not sure I’d want to live in it, but “the Soviets failed” is a weak argument.
  - analognoise 3y ago
    I can't see anything in a command economy indicating it requires repression? Clearly humanity will get there, or will likely destroy itself in the process.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      A command economy gets a lot easier if you can force people to work certain jobs and produce certain things. The Soviets had trouble with this because measurement and enforcement were challenging; they'd have loved Amazon's warehouse worker surveillance systems.
      - analognoise 3y ago
        That's an amazing point. What we have under "capitalism" is essentially the Soviet wet dream: being able to force workers into work, "willingly", and they work so hard they piss into bottles to stay on target. We've got all the repression right now, just for a slice of the population that everyone considers effectively disposable. Woah.

Clubber 3y ago

You're talking about food production, which is already centrally planned with subsidies to not grow certain foods. This has been in place since the dust bowl. It seems to be working pretty well. Probably wouldn't work in anything that isn't a historical staple though. Think of how much the congress is knowledgeable in tech for the last 20+ years. Could you imagine if congress centrally planned how the tech revolution and how it would pan out? We'd still be using whatever the first viable tech was (ENIAC?).

analognoise 3y ago
Every computer advancement we take for granted today is due to industrial policy, and a time when the top marginal tax rate was over 70%. The idea that government is not effective and should not participate in industrial developments is all relatively new. Every year that goes by without a reset in industrial policy, the web gets worse and there are fewer companies doing actual hardware. It turns out when you let the people who focus solely on finance and efficiency run things, it goes well for a while and then your foundational companies become like Boeing. Government should participate more strongly, not less - including by breaking up big tech.

Nasrudith 3y ago

The Soviet Union had armies of mathematicians and surveyors to try to predict manufacturing needs. That is like saying "just use surveys"! Equating retailers with the entirety of the chain is massive willful ignorance. It is like equating knowing how to repair a car with knowing the entire manufacturing process of the car down not just to the ore but to the "production" of the individual workers themselves!

ceejayoz 3y ago
There’s been a lot of technological progress since the Soviet Union’s demise. There’s probably some point where running a full command economy becomes feasible with modeling, oppressive surveillance and repression, etc. Not sure I’d want to live in it, but “the Soviets failed” is a weak argument.
- analognoise 3y ago
  I can't see anything in a command economy indicating it requires repression? Clearly humanity will get there, or will likely destroy itself in the process.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    A command economy gets a lot easier if you can force people to work certain jobs and produce certain things. The Soviets had trouble with this because measurement and enforcement were challenging; they'd have loved Amazon's warehouse worker surveillance systems.
    - analognoise 3y ago
      That's an amazing point. What we have under "capitalism" is essentially the Soviet wet dream: being able to force workers into work, "willingly", and they work so hard they piss into bottles to stay on target. We've got all the repression right now, just for a slice of the population that everyone considers effectively disposable. Woah.