<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div>I wrote:</div><div><br>> So those involved in the market are expected not<br>> to react to the fact that central planners are making<br>> their economic decisions for them?</div><div> </div><div><span>Stefano <span id="misspell-0" class="mark">Vaj</span> wrote:</span><br><br>> Entirely different issue.<br><br>> We were just discussing whether carbon is by </div><div>> definition faster than silicon.<br><br>> It may, but it need not, be. My point however is </div><div>> that you seem to have religious reasons to think </div><div>> otherwise.</div><div> </div><div>The subject originated as observations indicating</div><div>a decline in human intellectual productivity.</div><div> </div><div>I noted that this decline can be directly tied to</div><div>the information
bottlenecks and resulting </div><div>inefficiencies of central planning. A small</div><div>serial processing system inhibiting what is</div><div>inherently a large parallel neural process.</div><div> </div><div>This information based view of the central</div><div>fallacy of central planning has been around</div><div>for a very long time. Information theory</div><div>seems very important in relation to the subject</div><div>matter of this discussion site. I think it is </div><div>appropriate that the central fallacy be </div><div>examined in this light. </div><div> </div><div>"Religious reasons" does not address the</div><div>question of information available to central </div><div>planners versus everyone else and how</div><div>everyone else reacts to central planners -</div><div>living in information and processing </div><div>poverty - making decisions for them.</div><div> <var
id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></div><div>Dennis May</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div></div></body></html>