<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div><span>Stefano Vaj wrote:</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div>> Just to play Devil's advocate, it is perfectly true </div><div>> that planned economies used to mimic - or at best </div><div>> be based on! - serial computers of a limited power.</div><div><br>> It might however be possible today to have real, </div><div>> literal parallel computing actually surpassing the </div><div>> performance of the markets as far as economic </div><div>> optimisation is concerned.</div><div> </div><div>Unless the central planner relinquishes control over</div><div>economic decisions a better and better model of</div><div>how to optimize things is still central planning using</div><div>the model of a serial computer to control what could</div><div>be a more efficient parallel
process. Central planners</div><div>attempt a degree of parallel efficiency when they</div><div>delegate authority. This produces a serial operation</div><div>at the top controlling a combination of serial and</div><div>parallel processes below it. The delegates below</div><div>the top serial central planners then become their</div><div>own central planners also without adequate </div><div>information and producing bottlenecks.</div><div> </div><div>The dreams of serial central planners assume a </div><div>number of things never realized in action and never </div><div>reaching the capabilities of parallel operation [free</div><div>markets].</div><div> </div><div>When central planners control information [education]</div><div>the feedback loop enforcing the seen and unseen</div><div>favors what is seen to have the <span id="misspell-2"><span>positive</span></span> products</div><div>of central planning while the unseen [erased
from</div><div>history] or never allowed to happen [lack of free</div><div>markets] can be dismissed.</div><div> </div><div>The history of central planning is always "oh we</div><div>can do it better than the last guy who failed" while</div><div>never questioning the fundamental validity of the</div><div>approach - which is a flawed understanding of</div><div>information in markets, efficiency, production,</div><div>and technological growth.<var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></div><div> </div><div>Dennis May</div><div> </div></div></body></html>