5 ms·

Socialism and free market capitalism are extremes on a scale. Most Western societies these days include significant elements of both socialism and market-shapin

Socialism and free market capitalism are extremes on a scale. Most Western societies these days include significant elements of both socialism and market-shaping forces. In terms of organising a society the extreme forms of socialism imply very strong central planning. Which run into significant problems because the central planners are never going to know the needs of the people as well as the people themselves, nor are they going to have the information available on all the industries that they're trying to oversee.

minikites 13y ago
Fun fact, central planning isn't necessarily less efficient: http://econweb.umd.edu/~murrell/Articles/Can%20Neoclassical%20Economics%20Underpin%20the%20Economic%20Reform.pdf http://econweb.umd.edu/~murrell/Articles/Can%20Neoclassical%... > One doubt about the evidence might lie in the comparability of estimates obtained from separate studies, although Table 1 addresses this issue by matching studies with similar methodologies. One study, Koopman (1989b), employs observations on both centrally planned and market economies, thus providing direct comparability. He uses observations for 1960-79 for Soviet republics and a matched sample of Canadian provinces, U.S. states, and Finland, and employs a translog functional form that allows for differences in technology between Soviet and non-Soviet regions. The average level of technical efficiency in Soviet agriculture is estimated at 93 percent, while it is 92 percent for agriculture in the market economies.
- pwnna 13y ago
  Competent central planning would be great! However that would never work in real life...
  - ams6110 13y ago
    You'd be happy with a "competent" planner telling you where you could work, what you could earn, where you could live, how many kids you could have, etc?
    - minikites 13y ago
      And that doesn't happen now in the US? Your boss does all of these things. Sure, you can quit, but there goes your health insurance and good luck finding another job unless you're in the Hacker News demographic.
      - ameister14 13y ago
        I don't know about you, but my boss has no say in how many kids I have or specifically where I live, and any effort he makes to impact these things is not enforced by the state.
    - jerf 13y ago
      More to the point, is your neighbor going to be happy? Is the new immigrant going to be happy? Are your children going to be happy? Many people might think they can say yes to that question as their personal opinion, but I think it's easier to understand how it's hard for people to answer "yes" in general. For one thing, everybody always thinks they deserve more. It matters very little how much they already have.
    - jayd16 13y ago
      Central planning does not require micro-management and one could easily imagine a system where central planning provides a person with more options than what a free market provides a lower income individual.
    - pwnna 13y ago
      Actually. Yes (on average). Since people tend to want more, and since we're all subject to boundary conditions posed by nature, compromises need to be made in certain cases. A good example is the driving situations in Japan/China where if you have an even numbered license plate you can only drive on certain days. Also, central planning != micro management. Just general guidelines similar to things like building codes. But really, not sure how it would really work.
    - 6d0debc071 13y ago
      Qualifications, minimum wage, property laws... 3 out of 4 of those things at the moment have government bounds on them in some sense or another, and that with fairly questionable planning. Edit: Oh right, yeah, duh: minimum age before you can decide for yourself whether you have an abortion or not.
- craigyk 13y ago
  I forget the sci-fi author and books, but a central theme was that AI results in a de-facto centrally planned economy, even though the AIs themselves are using free-market like behaviors.

minikites 13y ago

Fun fact, central planning isn't necessarily less efficient: http://econweb.umd.edu/~murrell/Articles/Can%20Neoclassical%20Economics%20Underpin%20the%20Economic%20Reform.pdf http://econweb.umd.edu/~murrell/Articles/Can%20Neoclassical%... > One doubt about the evidence might lie in the comparability of estimates obtained from separate studies, although Table 1 addresses this issue by matching studies with similar methodologies. One study, Koopman (1989b), employs observations on both centrally planned and market economies, thus providing direct comparability. He uses observations for 1960-79 for Soviet republics and a matched sample of Canadian provinces, U.S. states, and Finland, and employs a translog functional form that allows for differences in technology between Soviet and non-Soviet regions. The average level of technical efficiency in Soviet agriculture is estimated at 93 percent, while it is 92 percent for agriculture in the market economies.

pwnna 13y ago
Competent central planning would be great! However that would never work in real life...
- ams6110 13y ago
  You'd be happy with a "competent" planner telling you where you could work, what you could earn, where you could live, how many kids you could have, etc?
  - minikites 13y ago
    And that doesn't happen now in the US? Your boss does all of these things. Sure, you can quit, but there goes your health insurance and good luck finding another job unless you're in the Hacker News demographic.
    - ameister14 13y ago
      I don't know about you, but my boss has no say in how many kids I have or specifically where I live, and any effort he makes to impact these things is not enforced by the state.
  - jerf 13y ago
    More to the point, is your neighbor going to be happy? Is the new immigrant going to be happy? Are your children going to be happy? Many people might think they can say yes to that question as their personal opinion, but I think it's easier to understand how it's hard for people to answer "yes" in general. For one thing, everybody always thinks they deserve more. It matters very little how much they already have.
  - jayd16 13y ago
    Central planning does not require micro-management and one could easily imagine a system where central planning provides a person with more options than what a free market provides a lower income individual.
  - pwnna 13y ago
    Actually. Yes (on average). Since people tend to want more, and since we're all subject to boundary conditions posed by nature, compromises need to be made in certain cases. A good example is the driving situations in Japan/China where if you have an even numbered license plate you can only drive on certain days. Also, central planning != micro management. Just general guidelines similar to things like building codes. But really, not sure how it would really work.
  - 6d0debc071 13y ago
    Qualifications, minimum wage, property laws... 3 out of 4 of those things at the moment have government bounds on them in some sense or another, and that with fairly questionable planning. Edit: Oh right, yeah, duh: minimum age before you can decide for yourself whether you have an abortion or not.
craigyk 13y ago
I forget the sci-fi author and books, but a central theme was that AI results in a de-facto centrally planned economy, even though the AIs themselves are using free-market like behaviors.