this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
154 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15914 readers
12 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mardoniush@hexbear.net 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Being forced to learn partial differential equations and command economics to fuck with Libertarians "but muh calculation problem" is a curse because it illustrates just how badly the lanyard class fails to understand their own economic arguments for maintaining power.

[–] stigsbandit34z@hexbear.net 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Wasn’t the calculation problem only a “problem “ when humans didn’t have quantum computing and hadn’t been exposed to exponentially increasing rates of processing power?

[–] 420stalin69@hexbear.net 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The “calculation problem” is absurd because it’s equally true for a market system anyway since any Turing system is only capable of what any other Turing system is also capable of.

The idea that a central planner lacks complete information about an economy is true, but it’s equally true for any market. A market cannot have complete information about itself even in aggregate across the entire market. Provably true via the Turing argument but also empirically obvious since prices in any and every true market are constantly fluctuating even in the absence of events that should affect prices and never reach anything that even resembles an equilibrium.

Further, it’s empirically proven that higher “allocative efficiency” is achieved under administered rather than dynamic systems.

The first flaw in the “calculation problem” is that it implicitly assumes that markets achieve economic equilibrium… which is absolute horse shit they obviously do not achieve equilibrium prices. So it’s wrong in the sense it’s equally true for markets.

The second flaw is that empirically it’s demonstrably false since it’s been shown empirically that planned systems do in fact achieve higher allocative efficiency. So it’s wrong in the sense it is contradicted by actual observation.

The third flaw is that it makes the enormous conflation of assuming that because perfect efficiency is impossible that a system is therefore impossible. E.g. because you can’t swim at an Olympic level you’re going to drown in a pool. Actually perfect efficiency isn’t required for a system to function, obvious because perfect efficiency has never been achieved and yet we are still able to eat food.

The nail in the coffin of the “calculation problem” is that it believes that only markets can approach efficiency since only the market in aggregate can have perfect knowledge about an economy so a price mechanism approaches efficiency… but that’s exactly what linear programming does too - it constantly moves towards while never reaching perfecting efficiency in polynomial time - and in fact linear programming provably (in both the mathematical and empirical senses) approaches efficiency far faster than a “drunk-walk” market mechanism.

You don’t need super advanced computing to do this. GOSPLAN did it using pen and paper. Linear programming isn’t actually difficult mathematics.

All of the above points were made about one hundred years ago and the “calculation problem” has never been taken seriously as even existing as a problem outside of the Mises institute, which is exactly why Reddit dweeb fascists love to cite it.