Linear programming has proven to be a feasible way of maximizing outputs given certain inputs, but it can't, for example, decide whether people would be better served building more cargo ships, more tractors, or more consumer cars using the same metal. It cannot decide how to organize the use of said materials(like for example, build one big plant or several smaller ones). How does socialism manage opportunity cost? What mechanisms under socialism(cyber or otherwise) are in place to supplement this shortcoming?
If I had to guess, I would say that this mechanism would be filled in for by the Mass Line as Maoists swear by if not a pseudo-market like Cockshott proposes. I would appreciate recommendations of further material on this topic(though I will say that the people in /cybersoc/ were extremely helpful with their takes on the topic, and I cannot deny their critique of Hayek, which compels me to study further into leftism)(Spam IP)(merge into chatgpt general)
>>2022>but it can't, for example, decide whether people would be better served building more cargo ships, more tractors, or more consumer cars using the same metal.Yes it can.
>It cannot decide how to organize the use of said materials(like for example, build one big plant or several smaller ones). Yes it does.
>How does socialism manage opportunity cost? Opportunity cost is a capitalist fiction capitalist enterprises don't directly deal with either.
Linear programming can be tasked to maximize a vector of production using a given set of available resources and methods of production. This does include multiple construction options and multiple usages of the same resources.
Perhaps you ought to actually understand linear programming before talking actual bullshit.
Here, go read this, understand it, then come back to us.
>>2027I apologize for not reading it earlier before making this thread. Assuming I have not exhausted your patience, I would like you to explain the workings of this graph to me. Are tops and bottoms the hypothetical stand-in for product A and product B, or do they mean something else entirely that I missed? The plan ray is just an x = y line as far as I understood, and the individual lines being segments of 3y = 2x, y = 2x, and 8y = 3x respectively.
>>2025I will have to admit that I have not studied linear algebra as of yet; I've heard that Axler's book covers the topic pretty well. Would you recommend something different?
>>2024That is how I've acted so far by failing to read what I was given before making a full thread.
>>2032>>2033The graph is a representation of a function.
Hope this helped.
>>2032Tops and bottoms are two products yes.
Kantonovichs diagram only works with two end products (linear programming algorithms can work with any number, but for a graph on paper in 2d its just 2).
You start with the one best at producing bottoms, then the next best, putting their line of possible production at max intensity end to end. This way it stays convex. Then you draw a line with an angle proportional to the proportion of the output you want. All things left of the line should make bottoms all things right of the line should make tops. The line intersecting allows you to calculate the amount of the sliced one to split between the two.
But all in all, it simply shows you, regardless of if you understand how linear programming works (god knows I dont understand the cutting edge algorithms), that it can determine, using a single input, and multiple possible production methods, how to maximize an output.
>>2022>but it can't, for example, decide whether people would be better served building more cargo ships, more tractors, or more consumer cars using the same metal. It can.
Problem is not that but property ownership and sabotage when planning does not benefit wannabe porkies
>>2033Assume that you need 1 top and 1 bottom widget to get a finished product.
You have three options for producing them: auto turret lathes, turret lathes, and milling machines.
The slopes of the three machines indicate how efficiently they produce each type of thing.
The plan ray intersects with the arc to show you how much time should be spent on each type of machine.
The intersection here shows that the most efficient way to produce widgets is to set 100% of the auto turret lathe time to producing tops, 100% of the turret lathe time to the bottom, and about 90% of the milling machine time to producing bottoms.
I hope that helps.
>>2041>Who gets to decide what the calculator thinks better served means? What the fuck are you talking about.
It maximizes or minimizes some output given a list of constraints. There is no ambiguity or matter of opinion. It literally calculates the best possible configuration given the information it has.
The vector of products you decide upon comes from political and economic considerations from other systems, but this is unrelated to linear programming and not a weakness of it. The economic calculation problem has nothing to do with what op is talking about.
>>2044>It maximizes or minimizes some outputWho decides what outputs to prioritize?
>given a list of constraints.Who defines the constraints?
> It literally calculates the best possible configuration Define best possible configuration.
The capitalists have a simple answer on how to answer all of this, market signals.
>The economic calculation problem has nothing to do with what op is talking about.It does because people like to pretend that linear algebra paper refutes ECP when it really doesn't.
>>2045>Who decides what outputs to prioritize?The planners dummy. Buy this has nothing to do with the algorithm or the "ecp"
>It does because people like to pretend that linear algebra paper refutes ECP when it really doesn't.The only thing the ecp actually has any claim is exactly the time complexity of the calculation of a whole economy. Getting the information is no issue, it's available in the companies so getting it or better is a no brainer.
>>2045>It does because people like to pretend that linear algebra paper refutes ECP when it really doesn'tthe ECP is a statement of faith so there is little to "refute". when you've defined "economic calculation" to be trade, of course socialism can't do economic calculation. the entire point of the project is to get away from trade, to get away from the commodity fetish
>>2046>implying there should be such a job as plannerdo not obscure what are essentially political decisions behind some unelected experts. vidrel by zachariah and hardin seems to imply around 22:22 that the goals can be different in each geographical area, depending on political aims
>The only thing the ecp actually has any claim is exactly the time complexity of the calculation of a whole economyI'd say the local knowledge problem is still relevant. but ancaps don't realize it cuts both ways. after all, who knows most about the process of production - the owners or the workers?
Unique IPs: 16