2 ms·

That’s pretty clearly a data quality issue though; I don’t think this result necessarily holds in the case of better data. Besides that, we don’t even have “ac

That’s pretty clearly a data quality issue though; I don’t think this result necessarily holds in the case of better data. Besides that, we don’t even have “actual markets” - take a look at all the places we’ve extremely distorted things; farm subsidies, for example. Do we have more than enough food, and is it cheap enough? We’re already funding this stuff, and distorting the market - then playing pretend that it’s all fair competition by closing our eyes and saying “central planning doesn’t work”.

roenxi 2y ago
1) A subsidy isn't central planning. A key feature of central planning is having a plan that the market participants don't mutually want to follow anyway [0]. A subsidy is the government interfering but as a market participant. There is a spectrum going from [free market] -> [some interference] -> [central planning]. 2) It wasn't a data quality issue. It doesn't matter how good the historic data is, they couldn't possibly have predicted future demand. Future demand isn't a function of past data. 3) If you think central planning is going to work, you're going to need an argument for why to have a meaningful conversation. At the moment you're claiming it fails due to data quality issues, but there is no evidence that the central planning failures are due data quality issues. Central planners are limited by the fact that the market-optimal price point for a product is unknown until after the market has cleared, and the market can't clear properly if supply is constrained by a central plan because there will be either a shortage or oversupply. That dynamic doesn't change by having better data, the problem is that the plan prevents the data needed from existing. [0] In theory I suppose you could have a central plan where you just copy Walmart's existing internal quarterly plan, tell Walmart to do that then don't enforce anything if the situation changes, but that'd be pretty pointless even by government bureaucracy standards.

roenxi 2y ago

1) A subsidy isn't central planning. A key feature of central planning is having a plan that the market participants don't mutually want to follow anyway [0]. A subsidy is the government interfering but as a market participant. There is a spectrum going from [free market] -> [some interference] -> [central planning]. 2) It wasn't a data quality issue. It doesn't matter how good the historic data is, they couldn't possibly have predicted future demand. Future demand isn't a function of past data. 3) If you think central planning is going to work, you're going to need an argument for why to have a meaningful conversation. At the moment you're claiming it fails due to data quality issues, but there is no evidence that the central planning failures are due data quality issues. Central planners are limited by the fact that the market-optimal price point for a product is unknown until after the market has cleared, and the market can't clear properly if supply is constrained by a central plan because there will be either a shortage or oversupply. That dynamic doesn't change by having better data, the problem is that the plan prevents the data needed from existing. [0] In theory I suppose you could have a central plan where you just copy Walmart's existing internal quarterly plan, tell Walmart to do that then don't enforce anything if the situation changes, but that'd be pretty pointless even by government bureaucracy standards.