/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I deliver lots of verbiage because planning is a crucial fetish object for my vision of the eschatron despite there being absolutely no logical necessity for it beyond being intellectually unsatisfied by markets being basically fine at allocating goods and distribution/ownership concerns being independent of the need for planning. Secretly, I have more in common with giscardpunk posters or with Richard stallman than with serious economic thinkers.

>>2856703
>>2856695
How often do you make this stupid fucking threads? Fuck off.

we have a thread for asking questions. then again, you do not seem to have a feckin clue how this shit is done under a market economy, so what gives.

>>2856703
fuck off stop trying to pass of as me

>>2856706
>>2856709
This is the first time I've made this thread and I actually do know how a market economy functions.
I'm curious as to what this board has to say given that the problems cited are more or less the reason the communist movement is in the state it is today

>>2856711
>I actually do know how a market economy functions.
you don't. otherwise you'd realize every 'argument' you made applies to 'market economies' just as much.
>the problems cited are more or less the reason the communist movement is in the state it is today
lol. lmao even.

>>2856725
>otherwise you'd realize every 'argument' you made applies to 'market economies' just as much
They don't. The information problem only applies to very large firms like amazon, and even then they are not comparable to what a planned economy in a socialist country would be. The under/over reporting (misalignment of incentives) has been known for quite some time in enterprise economics and is solved through CEOs having shares in the company. Lastly, the innovation problem and price determination are solved through the market's reaction to unproductive labor and opportunity-costs.

Notice how all of these were somehow linked to the market or to profit maximization ?

>lol. lmao even.
<the economic woes of the USSR and eastern block are totally not the reason why communism is seen as dysfunctional bro trust me
lol

>>2856735
>imbecillically reiterating econ101 garbage and liberal propaganda.
just piss off you troll

I'm going to get you accused of samefagging OP but here are some other threads you might like where you can see the calibre of pro and anti market posters here.
>>2833859
>>2811601
>>2854570

You might also like >>2845206 for balance and in particular the book "Collapse" discussed within it, which strikes the right balance between "the USSR obviously had to transition to a market economy" and "the late USSR was the result of total dysfunction caused by Gorbachev's reforms and is not representative of the general state of the USSR or of planned economies, which can function even if worse than market economies. Gorbachev was a generational dud of a leader, but also the underlying system cannot be let off the hook for appointing him"

Draw your own conclusions.

>>2856750
>no arguments
>immediatly ressorts to insults
I genuinely don't get it. What's the point in doing b8 and shitty trolling on leftypol ?

>>2856752
Thanks ! I'll look into it and see what I can get

>>2856703
>eschatron
a greek apocalyptic transformer

>>2856695
>How do you determine where to allocate labor, and where to distribute the products
you take them out of making sex dildos and video games and put them into making food and housing
>There is an incentive gap between the workers at a factory tasked with production, and the planners who do not know how much they can produce.
you can know how much they can produce by taking an average of how much the produce per day
>How do you make certain that the workers are truthful about their productive capacities ?
by taking statistics
>How do you make sure that there workers aim at adopting and implementing new technologies to the fullest extent possible, and that they also try to develop local innovations by themselves.
innovation comes from applying TRIZ, a soviet invention now used by capitalist companies. it is a science of innovation.
>In essence, how do you make sure that the workers use the most efficient means of production.
if there are 5 factories producing the same thing and one of them lags behind the others you can investigate the runt of the litter and find out what they're doing wrong
>If the economy is currency-less
labor vouchers are the currency
>how do you determine opportunity-costs
socially necessary labor time required to produce the commodity is the cost of the commodity in time form instead of money form
>? If there is some form of tractability between goods, how do you determine the prices of different goods.
you look at value instead of price, i.e. socially necessary labor time

>>2856750
In a world where the single largest economy is a communist governed market one, it is the case for planning and not the case for markets nor the case for communist party governance that really needs to be made.
>B-but they do mild industrial interventionism and publish plans like MITI and South Korea and and and please don't pay attention to the fact that as an export oriented economy they're inherently subject to market discipline even if their entire internal economy was planned, please just put this down as a W for my fetish.
now that we've got that out of the way…

>>2856735
Youre the same guy constantly using the same arguments (that have already been debunked in those other threads), you are not here to debate but to get constantly scolded on things you dont understand. Fuck off.

>>2856754
>Thanks ! I'll look into it and see what I can get
see this shit is what i mean, he didnt search the catalogue but instead demands the we feed him information like a toddler. No excuses.

>>2856766
>you take them out of […]
What ?

>you can know how much they can produce by taking an average of how much the produce per day
>by taking statistics
How can you know ? How do you adress chronic under/over reporting of production potential ?

>TRIZ
Interesting, I was not aware of its existence. Thx for the info

>you can investigate the runt of the litter and find out what they're doing wrong
So some sort of automatic readjustment for the X% worst companies in each sector ?

>>2856779
>>2856781
Stop samefagging retard. You've already said this in >>2856706. Why are you so butthurt about a thread on economic planning ?
Take a deep breath, close this tab and try to go for a walk outside if the idea of normal discussion on one of the most researched socialist feature is too daunting for you.

>>2856781
>but instead demands the we feed him information like a toddler
I'd also add that it's pretty funny that you're seething so much to the point where you're incapable recognizing basic polite discourse and automatically assume that everyone here spends eons scouring every thread for any bits of info. Get a life ffs

>Allocation
Surely a voting process in production is simply tallying for demand of a certain good?
>How do you make certain that the workers are truthful about their productive capacities ?
You can measure outputs very easily by counting it.
>In essence, how do you make sure that the workers use the most efficient means of production.
Because in a socialist system, efficiency means less labour time.
>If the economy is currency-less, how do you determine opportunity-costs ? If there is some form of tractability between goods, how do you determine the prices of different goods.
The prices are given from their production costs, such as in the case of market equilibrium. If the complaint is that demand may deviate from supply, then a social demand should be recorded by voting in the next production cycle.

>>2856695
Does capitalism do any of these things well? A planned economy can still be wasteful and inefficient, it just has to outperform a market economy. I would say these are problems you run into in any mode of production anyway. How is, for example, the information problem not found in capitalism in the contradiction between use value and exchange value?

Another thing is that a lot of things are not going to be made continuously, but made once and stored until needed. After we have, say, built enough solar panels to power the economy, and then some, for a while, production can stop. Same with say other things like furniture or trams, etc.

Food you can decide what to grow and how much of it based on the season, land composition, caloric intake and nutrition. It's going to be local chains with seasonal fruit and vegetables.

Other things are probably going to be rented and collectively taken care of. Think of the tractor stations in the USSR but for other things one doesn't need often enough to own them.

I imagine a communist economy being mostly service oriented and upkeep of existing things, and then sometimes we have large waves of collective production of necessary goods or whatever.

Surely a lot of leisure time will get freed up and people can pursue their interests.

>>2856795
Yeah there's probably going to be a kind of centralized statistics app which asks you every so often what you would like or some other way people can participate in the economy with little to no infrastructure sans their phones.

>>2856795
>Surely a voting process in production is simply tallying for demand of a certain good?
So some sort of customer board would determine what is to be produced, and subsequent I/O matrices would be drawn from this board ?

>You can measure outputs very easily by counting it.
>efficiency means less labour time
I was probably misleading in my format but the question is not necessarily about how we measure output, but how we determine how efficient one factory is.
For instance, if a tomato factory in a remote place reports that it can only produce X amounts of can, how do we determine whether or not this report is truthful about the potential of the factory rather than being a lie to minimize time spent at the factory by the workers ?

>>2856796
>Does capitalism do any of these things well?
Firms do to an extent, because otherwise they find themselves unable to compete. But most of the questions touched above have been the subjects of economic literature at some point.

>>2856803
>>2856806
Well, if prices are informational "signals" of demand, where you "vote with your dollar" upon the policies of producers, then markets still have system controls, but in a distributed or de-centralised way. The planned economy is just a formalisation of existing capitalist rhetoric. Everyone agrees with the abstract mechanism, but its about method. I personally think some things are better or worse in terms of central and non-central planning, but there are plans, nonetheless. Marx and Engels overestimate the "anarchy" of production so-called. At least in our age, consumers control things.

In terms of the actual architecture, withdrawing a product in stock sends a signal to the supply chain to replace this good with itself, and if nothing is taken, the signal is to not reproduce the good. Of course, this is re-inventing the wheel in a way, since money is just replaced with a more formal technique, but I'm not a dogmatist either way.

>>2856807
>consumers control things.
holy hell are you actually that delusional and disconnected from reality? consumers control fuck all. commodities are produced to maximize profit and the consumer can go fuck himself sideways.

>>2856806
>economic literature
fucking imbecile

>>2856812
>commodities are produced to maximize profit
Where does profit come from, anon? If nobody buys commodities, production ceases, and so the capitalist depends on consumers.

>>2856789
>>2856786
You dont get it? You made a fucking thread on a topic is regularly discussed here (including threads on this very board) in which you can ask those questions. For what purpose did you make another fucking thread? Is that your first time using an imageboard or what?

>>2856810
>"vote with your dollar"
Incorrect assumption. There won't be money, there won't be competition. These are questionnaires about need fulfillment.

>>2856817
You're not comprehending what I'm writing.
The signal to either re-stock or de-stock a good is the function of money in purchasing goods, as a signal of demand. To "vote" on the policies of production then entails the same abstract mechanism.

>>2856819
It doesn't. You're are confusing two different things: money as value-signals, and needs.

>>2856810
>Well, if prices are informational "signals" of demand, where you "vote with your dollar" upon the policies of producers, then markets still have system controls, but in a distributed or de-centralised way. The planned economy is just a formalisation of existing capitalist rhetoric. Everyone agrees with the abstract mechanism, but its about method. I personally think some things are better or worse in terms of central and non-central planning, but there are plans, nonetheless. Marx and Engels overestimate the "anarchy" of production so-called. At least in our age, consumers control things
Incentive anon is back with another ass analysis.
>I personally think some things are better or worse in terms of central and non-central planning, but there are plans, nonetheless.
>there are plans, nonetheless
amazing really

>>2856806
>Firms do to an extent
But we are talking about an entire economy here, not individual firms. When you zoom out you see that we are allocating labor and resources in an absolutely ridiculous manner. Just to name an example, there is a housing crisis in pretty much every developed economy because there is no incentive to build affordable homes. It is instead more profitable to just sit on the existing housing stock as a speculative asset.

>>2856820
A need is still a signal of demand.
How do we know what people need?

>>2856825
You are taking needs (something existing in every political economy) and universalizing it to be a general signal of market demand which makes sense only in a capitalistic economy. People should really read and understand the critique Marx and Engels offer in this book. It would do good to expel the millions of worms hiding under your thick skull.

>>2856828
Different people have different needs…
You just seem confrontational for no reason.

>>2856829
mods should ban this absolute idiot.

>>2856829
>Different people have different needs…
No fucking shit. You are not understanding what I am trying to communicate here. Stop conflating market demand with needs. Market demands are, for the most part, artificial and socially-engineered by capitalists. Needs are what we actually need, like food, housing, clothes, healthcare, infrastructure. No one wants a Funko Pop, they just think they do. Most people don't even own their own thoughts. You don't even own the thoughts of others. Your head is full of hot air and steamed worms

>>2856815
>You made a fucking thread on a topic is regularly discussed here
Quote me a thread where people discuss about the disalignment of truthful reporting incentives between the agent and the principal in command economies.

>For what purpose did you make another fucking thread?
I didn't make another thread. This is the only thread I've made on the subject and it's to talk about specific mechanisms of how an economy would operate under planned mechanism. The only threads outside of this one that I could find are more concerned with historic performances of planned economies.

Again, close the tab if it's too much to handle that people might enjoy discussing economics.

>>2856824
Oh yeah absolutely, this is why we believe that we can do better than capitalism. The issue however is that, as they existed, the AES countries have so far not managed to simultaneously hold a fully planned economy AND the relative abundance of goods in western capitalist nations (which are the ones they compete with).

>>2856828
>>2856833
This. Consumer boards that send demands based on opportunity-costs of their needs is not the same as a capitalist relation

>>2856833
You still don't understand, because you never answered my original question - if different people have different needs, how do we know their needs? By signals of demand, which in a market, is tallied by money. In a planned economy, the rate of supply of stock is thus also determined by rates of demand, but by a different function. Marx suggested vouchers - what do you suggest? Or are you just here to be angry and waste time?

>>2856786
>What ?
WHAT? HUH? DURRRRRRRRRRRRR? yes you take them out of making non necessary bullshit and put them into making necessary things.

>>2856695
Just use this secret weapon and trust the plan.

>>2856806
>Firms do to an extent, because otherwise they find themselves unable to compete. But most of the questions touched above have been the subjects of economic literature at some point.
In an ideal world, under actually existing capitalism things look different and firms collectively are mostly concerned with the realization of value rather than meeting human demands, which these days are met mostly as a byproduct of capitalist activity and careful state investment into those unprofitable or barely profitable activities which aid in the reproduction of the societal base capitalism requires. Which is why even though I don't oppose markets in principle, they are already a pretense in developed capitalism. The question really lies over the political control of the planning tools that exist today and the ways to put them under the control of workers rather than planning which is already practiced by all manner of state-capitalist regimes and multinational financial entities around the globe.

"just tell the planner what you want" collapses as soon as you don't know what you want (faster horse! Flying car!) or when what you want is highly contingent (horse or car? flying car or helicopter taxi?) and the best response planners can offer to this dilemma is inevitably a price system with extra steps at which point you have to wonder why they don't just propose having an indicative planning agency where they can do national statistics all day on the taxpayer's dime as small concession to their intellectual resentment at being outperformed by a dumb process based around a single variable and no small amount of dumb luck.
for me I saw the light after reading a paper - which I now only dimly remember - basically about an evolutionary process making a better little processor than a human designer because it stumbled upon a dumb property of the material that meant that if you joined two ostensibly dead / otherwise disconnected logic gates together, there'd be some weird electrical interference that made for a more efficient design overall, something no sane human designer would ever touch on. Evolutionary processes require a few freaks doing stupid stuff and that process is effectively unplannable but desirable.

>>2856903
>you allocate them in necessary things
That’s not the question, the question is how you determine these things constantly without making massive waste.

>>2856906
Again, how are stats meant to help you if the data reported is innacurate ?

>>2856952
>the question is how you determine these things constantly without making massive waste.
Market economies determine these things all the time. They make constant waste doing so. A planned economy, like the soviet one, had far less waste than market economies. What are you talking about?

>>2856695
How do you determine where to allocate labor, and where to distribute the products
How does McDonalds do this on a global scale? Not by market forces and profit motive, that's for sure.

>>2856952
>the question is how you determine these things constantly without making massive waste.
You'll always waste stuff OR create shortages until you've figured out how much stuff to make at the factory or order from the warehouse. If I order 40 crates of milk every day for a week and only sell 30, then I should order less. If all 40 crates sell, my shelves are empty and I should have ordered more. If this increase or decrease is more than an anomaly at a single point of sale it will send an indication up the supply chain to increase or decrease the production of milk.

Even if you have that figured out, you'll still miss occasionally due to certain changes in consumer demand that you can either incorporate into your model (like the weather and the seasons) or that are truly one off or cannot be predicted (an increase in the sale of candles due to a power outage).

Anybody that has worked in a large retail store, but especially in a supermarket knows how we determine where consumer goods are allocated.

>>2857001
The Soviet economy didn't have less waste at all. You're just asserting that because planning has efficient vibes and because you haven't internalised Goodhart's Law. Which isn't some anticommunist trope, it was coined to make fun of monetarist neoliberals!

Fundamentally, any analysis of the Soviet Union that asks you to believe that it functioned well at all times can be discarded out of hand: it clearly didn't or it wouldn't have collapsed, and even if cope by heaping the blame on external factors or the great-shit-man of history Gorbachev, that can't save it from the obvious fact that a system that cannot defend itself is doomed and a system that appoints great-shit-men to positions of power is doomed.

Anyway, just ad-hoc:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/036054429290029Y
>A comparison of the energy intensities of key activities in the USSR and those of Western countries shows that in most cases the Soviet Union uses more energy than Western countries to produce a given production or output. We reject aggregate measures (such as the ratio of energy use to national income) as tools for comparisons between the past evaluations of Western and Soviet energy use or for predicting energy use in the future because both the structure of the Soviet economy and the intensities of energy uses in the USSR differ so greatly from Western experience. We conclude that there is a large potential for energy savings in the Soviet economy.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP08S01350R000602130001-5.pdf (yes yes yes, it's the CIA, blah blah blah ''grain)
>The Soviets perennially experience high losses and deterioration in the quality of grain because of inadequacies in their post-harvest processing and storage capacity and technology. Such losses are particularly significant in years of abundant harvests because they tend to reduce the carryover available to supplement years of poor harvests.
(It goes on to say they'll fix it, but given the USSR was a net grain importer every single year from the time this memo was written, one of the main underlying causes of it teetering on the verge of bankruptcy and having to abandon foreign commitments throughout the 1980s, it clearly didn't solve everything!)

Which would be bad enough if it wasn't paired with general shortages (if the system was perfectly efficient, one might make a case for rationing. To waste energy on production, waste crops before they get to store shelves, and still have shortages… I'm beginning to think the Soviets were underperforming somewhere!)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/22/brezhnev-hints-food-shortage-grows-serious/9282d682-90c3-4484-849e-8313f5707781/
>MOSCOW, Oct. 21, 1980 – Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev hinted today that the Soviet Union's good shortages are reaching serious proportions in a speech in which he asserted that "improvement of the food supply comes first" in raising Soviet living standards.
>He acknowledged "considerable difficulties" in the economy, which is now facing the second poor harvest in a row and which has been plagued by shortages of meat, milk and other consumer goods. "Certainly not all things went smoothly," he added in an apparent reference to intensified consumer frustration here.

China won, the USSR lost. That's all there is to it. Today, China is a top-3 agricultural producer and consumer. Insofar as you can point to "waste" in the Chinese economy, it takes the form of waste that adds convenience (e.g. soda in a plastic bottle or whatever) rather than stuff like "a chunk of the harvest had to be thrown away because we fucked up storing it, now we've got to give the US precious hard currency" (which is of no benefit to anybody, except US farmers.)

>>2857001
>>2857003
If you don't understand the question don't answer lol

>>2857006
The information problem is a problem of scale. One shop owner or even a retail store can know with relative accuracy by analyzing his sales whether he needs to increase or decrease the quantity of a given commodity.

However, in a planned economy, you have billions of sales analysis to perform. Each distribution center can't on his own decide whether or not he requires less or more a good, he has to notify the planning center first. This is the crux of the information problem : how do you make sure that you know with relative certainty that you need to allocate X tons of goods in one place and not in another place.

>just record demand
It's not as simple as that because you have to adapt scarcity to it. If there is a fixed supply of one good, and 2 different distribution centers demand the entirety of that good, you need to decide which one gets it.

>>2857428
Not the anon, But you seem to miss what he tells you, is that need is something that is known. In medical subfield on nutrition it is known that a human need to consume N amino acids a day, economizing on that is called starving.

If you did not read Cockshott, he is suggesting doing market study, may it can be done everyday, If something is in deficit, the price will be higher. He AFAIK shows it will get to economic equilibrium so IMO you can no longer argue.

You can't call it market immitation. If you do so, you ignore the readblocks of capitalist market.

>>2857428
>The information problem is a problem of scale.
A level of scale already achieved by the huge oligopolist supermarket chains. In my country the largest one has a market share of almost 40 percent. That's a customer base, and a corresponding amount of transactions, larger than many countries on earth. Ordering systems for most product groups, even for perishable goods where mistakes can cause massive amounts of waste, are entirely hands off. The only human input at the store level is ensuring the real time inventory tracking is accurate.

>Each distribution center can't on his own decide whether or not he requires less or more a good, he has to notify the planning center first
Yes they can, or we wouldn't have stocked shelves in modern supermarkets.

>It's not as simple as that because you have to adapt scarcity to it.
Again, the same thing these huge firms deal with quite successfully. Why couldn't these systems be applied for an entire economy?

>>2857438 (me)
>Yes they can
Or rather, they can't. That's why you have a fully integrated planning system from top to bottom. The people at Gosplan would've busted a nut if they could see what we have today.

>>2857428
>how do you make sure that you know with relative certainty that you need to allocate X tons of goods in one place and not in another place.
What is confusing you? You are confusing bureaucracy with cybernetics. Your entire critique rests on a tired Austrian straw man.

>information problem
We perform billions of financial transactions, Google searches, and GPS pings every second with current off-the-shelf hardware. For an economy of 10 million products (far far far larger than any real national economy) the iterative solution to the computation problem requires 6-7 seconds on a 1990s-era multiprocessor. Modern supercomputers run at 10^15 operations per second. IO matrices, large they might be, are sparse and therefore tractable. Complexity of computation of Leontieff inverse to an IO table grows as n^(1.4), not n^3 as is usual with Gaussian elimination.

>communication between centers
Distribution centers do not send requests to the capital for permission. They observe the labor-voucher price of goods. If a distribution center faces a shortage, the local price rises. This price adjustment happens at the point of sale, instantaneously. The center does not micro-manage the local shop's inventory. What does the center do? It calculates the aggregate gross output requirements to ensure physical feasibility. It cares whether the total national supply of a good matches the total national demand revealed by the aggregated price signals. The local manager's "notification" is simply the recorded transaction data, which modern retail chains already collect automatically without breaking a sweat. The center then runs a weekly update of the algorithm to adjust the future production plan. What is the problem?

>allocation
Allocation is handled by the so-called Harmony Function algorithm. The algorithm allocates the scarce stock to the industry or distribution node with the lowest harmony (i.e., the greatest deficit relative to the social target). It reallocates resources from industries with surpluses (high harmony) to those with deficits (low harmony) iteratively, maximizing the overall social welfare function encoded in the plan targets.

>distribution
Finally, you imply that moving goods to the "right place" is uniquely hard under planning. Nonsense. Walmart and Amazon manage global supply chains for millions of items using centralized algorithms right now. They know exactly where to send containers. Our proposal simply extends that proven logistical cybernetics to the whole economy, stripped of the parasitic financial sector.

You are arguing against a caricature of 1950s Gosplan. We are proposing a cybernetic, computer-mediated, price-guided system. Your objections are invalidated by the mathematics on pages 4 through 7. Read the complexity analysis again; the paper has already refuted you.

>>2857445
>the flowchart
see OP can just ask "but how do you do that" for each step of the flowchart, and then you break each step into 10 more steps, and each of those steps into 10 steps and he will keep asking "ok but how do you do that" until he "wins" by exhaustion

>information problem
Computer and cell phone
>over/under reporting
You have a surveillance device in your pocket the government can get into at any time and catch you
>innovation problem
See above
>opportunity costs
There will be niche autistic communities interested in making any given product become that’s what’s interesting to them, it’s a hobby that consistently makes supplies

>>2857446
not OP but generally devil's advocate for the market: a better question is why do it. when you realise you can just socialise everything while keeping it in competition, it seems like a solution in search of a problem.

>>2857437
>>2857438
You guys don't understand the issue I think. The problem is not determining that we need X amount of tomatoes, it's determining the entire supply chain that goes with it.
Modern retail stores do only one things : they aggregate sales data to determine quantities of goods to purchase to then later sell. You're only allocating goods, you're not organizing an entire supply-chain line because the goods are already conceived, you just need to move them around.
A planned economy on the other hand needs to both allocate goods AND determine the supply chain required to make these goods AND decide on a priority list when the supply of a determined good contradicts the supply of another good.
I agree that each company does that to a relative extent, especially nowadays with multinational corporations, but none of these do it to the extent aforementionned. Similarly, very large enterprise like Amazon actually run on an insane amount of inner-market and subsidiaries that perform like a micro-economy of its own, which wouldn't be possible in a fully planned economy.

>>2857445
Thanks for the detailed answer.
I was aware that Cockshott had done some works on the computational possibility of the information problem but I didn't know he had gone to this extent.

>>2857446
No I won't retard. I'm not trying to "win" a debate here, I'm trying to discuss planning solutions to the aforementionned problem and learn more about it. Stop trying to cope with whoever debated with you on planning by shitting up my thread

>>2856786
>How do you adress chronic under/over reporting of production potential ?
You don't, if workers don't want to work other people will, the argument that as a society we need cohercion to produce is flawed, we have the means to develop every commodity with s mere push of a button.

>>2857613
>The problem is not determining that we need X amount of tomatoes, it's determining the entire supply chain that goes with it.
How do these systems not either do that in reality (Amazon's planning has even spread into the warehouses and factories of its suppliers for example) or contain the theoretical possibility of extending this out to an entire supply chain? These algorithms are determining demand down to individual consumers. Are these not the exact datasets needed to order both production and allocation in a planned economy? If not, please point out at what scale this is actually practically impossible. We can determine the demand for tomatoes. Algorithms do a decent job at satisfying this demand at the level of huge firms like Walmart without resorting to an internal market. Do you think the information problem starts arising when producers of tomatoes are included in these systems? How about the suppliers and producers of, for example, seeds, fertilizer or machinery? You said it's a problem of scale. So, at what exact scale does the information problem start operating?

>I agree that each company does that to a relative extent, especially nowadays with multinational corporations, but none of these do it to the extent aforementionned.
So planning is being proven feasible in practice, but because it hasn't reached the ill-defined level/scale where one starts running into the information problem and you need to revert back to the magic of the market and price signaling, that's kind of irrelevant?

>Similarly, very large enterprise like Amazon actually run on an insane amount of inner-market and subsidiaries that perform like a micro-economy of its own, which wouldn't be possible in a fully planned economy.
Skimming through .pdf related, that seems false. I think you and I should both read this book.

>Cockshott had done some works on the computational possibility of the information problem
I'm pretty sure that's his entire M.O.

>>2857660
Bordigists never beating the red anarchist allegations

>>2857613
If it is a necessary item, something called "needs", the quantity is not given by a function: decide item1 or item2.

Just saying, seems it makes things simpler.

Cybersyn

>central planning is when decisions are made centrally
I can already feel the brainrot
also we have the cybercom thread for this

>>2858201
>Give your dumb idea a dumb name
>Get mad when people call you out on it
Holy Roman Planning.

>>2856695
>>2856735
>>2857613
>>2858216


Your entire argument hinges upon the assumption that central planners can't allocate tasks to planners on a smaller scale while still making macroeconomic decisions; this is already what governments in general do, and they arise naturally due to medicine, infrastructure, first responders contributing positive externalities. It can't solve all problems of course, but it comes across as very bad faith especially when you already got pretty good answers.

I'm especially referring to >>2856786; stop playing dumb; Not everything needs to be as efficient as you're suggesting.

I myself took micro and macro economics here so I ask what specific economic model do you suggest as an alternative, and what's your evidence for it's validity? Otherwise read a fvcking book.

>>2858071
>How do these systems not either do that in reality
I've already answered this. A large retail store distributing goods is not the same as determining the entire chain of supply. Buying X amounts of goods to then distribute is not the same as planning the entire supply chain of these goods to then distribute them.

>>2858265
>Your entire argument
Dude this is like the 6th time you say this. I don't have an argument. I'm not trying to start a debate here. The only things I've done is reformulated the problems to people who didn't understand them. Furthermore, I don't care that much about the information problem. I'm more looking solutions for the incentives issue rather than the information problem which is mostly a scale issue.
You're mentally ill, go get checked

There's something funny about the planning debate over the years. Just seems odd the left is trying to reinvent the wheel when they say the wheel sucks, and the debate hinges over the left trying to convince liberals that no they totally can make the wheel work.

>>2858265
And what if central planners allocate the wrong person to the task? Not just "what if they choose an incompetent", but what if - for example - they send a pilot to do a banker's job, an urban planner to do a vehicle designer's job, and so on.
An example that came up in one of the other threads that was never engaged with: airlines are an unprofitable mess, almost inherently, yet you can fly most places remarkably affordably because companies have come up with business models that would never occur to planners in a thousand years (just make airlines into banks!?!)

Nobody engaged with this, not even to make the obvious cope argument that we need to fly less for environmental reasons so actually returning to 1970s tier access to flying is necessary. (A bad argument: one upside of the low profits of the industry has been a huge push for fuel efficiency and insane aircraft financing models. It tests credulity to imagine planners could do a better job when they could instead keep old inefficient aircraft and just regulate access to travel on them.) A minor worked example of this would be the USSR's forays into 3 engined jets that carried just 40 people and Poland's jet powered cropduster…

To me this all fundamentally aligns with the question of whether it's better to have a central authority making good decisions or a lot of decentralised experiments, and I come down on the side of the latter. I would object to any prohibition on a local council attempting planning just as I would object to any utopia in which a council was prohibited from attempting a market economy. Let each worker choose where he liv s and let each area choose their own preferred colour of cat, so long as workers retain ultimate political authority.

>>2857086
the economy stagnating was an issue because of pro market reforms after stalins death

>>2858386
>they send a pilot to do a banker's job, an urban planner to do a vehicle designer's job, and so on.
thats not even how central planning works lol, fucking retard

>>2858386
Your question is kind of gay because it's basically "what happens if god put the wrong king in charge," as though the idea of a mechanism to replace people that aren't producing the desired outcome wouldn't occur to anyone.

And that's aside from the system we have now where without central planning "the wrong people" actually have been put in charge of airlines and plane production companies, and they've all run their companies into the ground. Boeing can't even make fucking planes any more and instead of course correcting they must jusy murder whistleblowers.

>>2858443
you are reading the metaphor literally rather than in the context of the example of the airline industry which follows. e.g. the airline ostensibly has a "how do you make money moving passengers" problem, but the answer in many cases is only tenuously related to that ("you don't, you use the fact you're moving passengers to create what is effectively a bank using airline miles and credit cards")

>>2858449
to some extent yes, but i think "desired outcome" is the wrong framing. it's not just a binary success/fail, it's a question of achieving the optimal outcome. e.g. if the airline industry could be equally profitable and equally polluting, but carry less people (e.g. operating as a transportation rather than finance business), that's a "success" state, but it's a less desirable one than the status-quo where more people can travel as a result. so you can't just fire the people who underperform, you need an opening for someone to try a completely different approach.

airlines are doing okay on the whole (kind-of-sort of, the US is behind the curve on a lot of this) while boeing has correctly lost marketshare (and airbus has overtaken them as the world's biggest aircraft manufacturer) as a result of their incompetence. this is quite possibly, on balance, better than an easy-to-imagine alternative like boeing continuing where they were circa 2000 (e.g. manufacturing outdated models at a lower rate with a proven workforce). they had to do something different, they chose to do something stupid, and they got punished. that's a good feedback mechanism even in a world where the US government will always step in to save them in the last resort!

>>2858216
>dumb idea
rent free
>>2858282
>Furthermore, I don't care that much about the information problem. I'm more looking solutions for the incentives issue rather than the information problem which is mostly a scale issue. You're mentally ill, go get checked
Ignoring that you talk like a redditor, incentives arent an issue. Never have been. Also you are fundamentally wrong about why the soviet economy collapsed. Late stage soviet economy was a shitshow because the planners had less input (or no input at all) on the economy than they had previously under Stalin. It was alot more decentralized at point. Gosplan (and the predecessor to it) was the main reason for the electrification of the country and why most rural people experienced a lightbulb for the first time.

>>2856695

Only through the undervaluation or overvaluation of products is it forcibly brought home to the individual commodity producers what society requires or does not require and in what amounts. But it is precisely this sole regulator that the utopia advocated by Rodbertus among others wishes to abolish. And if we then ask what guarantee we have that necessary quantity and not more of each product will be produced, that we shall not go hungry in regard to corn and meat while we are choked in beet sugar and drowned in potato spirit, that we shall not lack trousers to cover our nakedness while trouser buttons flood us by the million – Rodbertus triumphantly shows us his splendid calculation, according to which the correct certificate has been handed out for every superfluous pound of sugar, for every unsold barrel of spirit, for every unusable trouser button, a calculation which “works out” exactly, and according to which “all claims will be satisfied and the liquidation correctly brought about. […] And now consider the naiveté with which Rodbertus would abolish industrial and commercial crises by means of his utopia. As soon as the production of commodities has assumed world market dimensions, the evening-out between the individual producers who produce for private account and the market for which they produce, which in respect of quantity and quality of demand is more or less unknown to them, is established by means of a storm on the world market, by a commercial crisis. If now competition is to be forbidden to make the individual producers aware, by a rise or fall in prices, how the world market stands, then they are completely blindfolded. To institute the production of commodities in such a fashion that the producers can no longer learn anything about the state of the market for which they are producing – that indeed is a cure for the crisis disease which could make Dr. Eisenbart envious of Rodbertus.

• Friedrich Engels, Preface to Poverty of Philosophy, First German Edition, 1885

>>2858463
>to some extent yes, but i think "desired outcome" is the wrong framing. it's not just a binary success/fail, it's a question of achieving the optimal outcome. e.g. if the airline industry could be equally profitable and equally polluting, but carry less people (e.g. operating as a transportation rather than finance business), that's a "success" state, but it's a less desirable one than the status-quo where more people can travel as a result. so you can't just fire the people who underperform, you need an opening for someone to try a completely different approach. airlines are doing okay on the whole (kind-of-sort of, the US is behind the curve on a lot of this) while boeing has correctly lost marketshare (and airbus has overtaken them as the world's biggest aircraft manufacturer) as a result of their incompetence. this is quite possibly, on balance, better than an easy-to-imagine alternative like boeing continuing where they were circa 2000 (e.g. manufacturing outdated models at a lower rate with a proven workforce). they had to do something different, they chose to do something stupid, and they got punished. that's a good feedback mechanism even in a world where the US government will always step in to save them in the last resort!
Transportation does not need to make a profit. And blaming the "gubermint" for the failure is just lol. You have no premise.