<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div>Stefano <span id="misspell-0" class="mark">Vaj</span> wrote:<br><br>> Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that the Market is a<br>> perfectly efficient and infallible way to allocate resources in a<br>> given context. Even there, the Market is nothing else that the sum of<br>> the decisions of "n" market players. Now, those market players take<br>> those decisions making use of organic brains, with some support by<br>> other computational resources.</div><div> </div><div>OK lets assume, for the sake of discussion, that each player in the </div><div>market can model the entire market and the central planners who</div><div>are attempting to control that market. Will each player change his</div><div>behavior based on that knowledge or his knowledge and behavior</div><div>to remain
static - an unrealistic assumption. </div><div> </div><div>"n" market players with knowledge and <span id="misspell-1"><span>capabilities</span></span> equal to the </div><div>central planner will compete with each other and with the central </div><div>planners. Or are the central planners to forbid knowledge and</div><div>changes of behavior while implementing their model?</div><div> </div><div>Stefano <span id="misspell-1" class="mark">Vaj</span> wrote:<br><br>> Provided that one accepts the idea that all the brains and computers<br>> and <span id="misspell-2" class="mark">behaviours</span> of each market player can be emulated by a sufficiently<br>> powerful system, it is incomprehensible how one can at the same time<br>> claim that such system would be inevitably be defeated by the Market<br>> itself.</div><div> </div><div>The independent self interested players in the market will react</div><div>to the
controls - once they do so the artificial pricing structure</div><div>directed by the central planners will be wrong leading to shortages</div><div>or wasted production in items for which there is no market. The</div><div>only way to avoid that would be to continually downloads of all of</div><div>the brains of all of the players in the market and all of the</div><div>information present in the market continually. After this impossible</div><div>task you then need a model of how the players will interact even</div><div>while they know they are having all of their information downloaded.</div><div> </div><div>Stefano <span id="misspell-3" class="mark">Vaj</span> wrote:<br> <br>> For the practical one, we are <span id="misspell-4" class="mark">indeniably</span> becoming better and better in<br>> dealing with micromanagement of larger and larger <span id="misspell-5" class="mark">organisations</span>,
...</div><div> </div><div>I disagree - I have worked for government, large corporations, and</div><div>small <span id="misspell-6"><span>corporations<var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></span></span>. There are severe information bottlenecks</div><div>leading to very real knowledge problems the larger an organization</div><div>get. The more micromanagement employed the greater the </div><div>inefficiencies and more serious the information bottlenecks.</div><div> </div><div>Stefano <span id="misspell-7" class="mark">Vaj</span> wrote:<br><br>> ...without anti-trust legislation or State intervention there is no<br>> obvious reason why scale economies and critical mass should not<br>> continue deploying their potentials, or why smaller fish should not be<br>> eaten by bigger ones, ...</div><div> </div><div>Large corporations invite anti-trust legislation and State intervention</div><div>stifling smaller competitors
and raising the costs of entry into the market.</div><div>They complain all the way - while meeting with legislators and writing </div><div>the rules they want to live by.</div><div> </div><div>Stefano <span id="misspell-8" class="mark">Vaj</span> wrote:<br></div><div>> One has just to try and create a motor company or a processor<br>> fab from scratch with a couple of friends to <span id="misspell-9" class="mark">realise</span> that.</div><div> </div><div>Central planners are the primary barrier to entry in any market.<br><br>Stefano <span id="misspell-10" class="mark">Vaj</span> wrote:<br> <br>> This is not to say that all that is plausible, desirable, or likely<br>> to happen anytime soon. But one would think that before declaring<br>> something "impossible" some more thought should be given to the<br>> subject...</div><div> </div><div>The first task of any central planner is to control information
available</div><div>to those they control. This leads to an information issue among</div><div>players in the market [market uncertainty] leading to reduced </div><div>efficiency. The "n" players in the market necessarily react to the plans </div><div>of the central planners. The interests of central planners do not </div><div>necessarily coincide with many of the interests of the "n" players. In </div><div>the real world central planners work to benefit the interest of central </div><div>planners - not those they control. In the real world the "n" players</div><div>see their interests at odds with the goals of central planners and</div><div>react accordingly - leading to reduced productivity, less creativity,</div><div>and increased efforts to avoid the efforts of central planners.</div><div> </div><div>I would continue to say that it is "impossible" for central planners</div><div>to produce better
results than the free market. The assumptions of</div><div>what is required for central planners to do better are impossible.</div><div>They simply can never gather the information to make correct</div><div>decisions - it is a serial computer attempting to control a massively</div><div>parallel computer - each component of which has the potential to</div><div>have better information than the serial computer.</div><div> </div><div>Dennis May</div></div></body></html>