nigerweiss comments on Open thread, May 17-31 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (311)
I know some hardcore C'ers in real life who are absolutely convinced that centrally-planned Marxist/Leninist Communism is a great idea, and they're sure we can get the kinks out if we just give it another shot.
C'ers?
People who'd choose option c) from Viliam Bur's list, I imagine.
You also know some people who desperately need a course in computational complexity. Markets aren't perfect, of course, but good luck trying to centrally compute distribution of resources.
That doesn't sound like a terribly good argument -- the fact that it would take O(something big) time to compute something exactly isn't terribly important if you can compute a decent approximation in O(something small) time.
(I'm not a Communist, FWIW.)
My model of how to approximate the optimum solution - specifically, break it up into tiny pieces and keep track of price-analogues by means of a real number valued function of the industrial output being managed - looks an awful lot like a free market with really weird labels for everything. It goes up to and includes closing sub-units that detract from overall optimization (read: unprofitable firms).
The various hardness results for economic problems (e.g. computing Nash equilibriums is PPAD-complete) cuts equally much against free markets as against central planning. If a central agent can't solve a given problem within cosmological time scales, then neither can a few billion distributed agents.
As in, line up all those against and shoot them?
Do these people see themselves as among the organisers of such a system, or the organised?