rai on math optimization
via kevin fb share – from another lead essay in the C4SS Mutual Exchange Symposium – Mathematical Optimization and the Economic Calculation Problem – by Rai Ling @Railing56: https://c4ss.org/content/52959
There are two frames of reference through which can consider the matter of economic calculation, centralization vs decentralization, and markets vs planning. In this article, I will focus on markets vs planning, which includes decentralized planning. I define economic planning as the allocation of resources without money, exchange, and prices, but with quantities of raw inputs.
if we really want to optimize the math.. we need diff input.. ie: self-talk as input.. goes beyond limits of ie: sunlight, water, land..
what we keep missing is some ongoing detox embed.. to keep us knowing/listening-to what enough ness is
if we don’t go there first.. all the rest is just spinning our wheels
It is undoubtedly possible to plan an economy with predetermined goals in mind, but the question is whether or not it would lead to the misallocation of resources, expressed in terms of subjective measures like meeting consumer demand, compensating workers, and wasted time and resources.
definite waste.. we need a plan with no predetermined goals
Both markets and strictly planned economies use planning. A construction project in a free market, just like one in a planned economy will require the builders to determine the optimal amounts of scarce inputs like labor time, concrete and steel beams needed for the project.
again.. not optimizing math .. if building/resourcing things we don’t need/want in the first place..
The key difference, as mentioned before, is that the budget constraint faced by the builders in the free market would have prices as weights for all inputs, whereas planners would use a proxy like labor time, surveys, and a cost index for raw materials that includes labor time, scarcity, transportation, and so on from down the supply chain.
let’s org around that..
The only way to access revealed preferences is through the price mechanism;
Any other methodology such as using labor hours as Marx suggested, inevitably misrepresents the preferences of workers and is abstracted from real human desires, following protocols set by the planner.
all of this misrepresents preference of people.. ie: calling us workers in the first place is a misrep
Kantorovich proposed the use of objectively determined values, which ignore subjectivity by definition, and thereby imply authority, where planners use simplifying frameworks to capture viable data. This not only contradicts the principles of anarchy but also ignores the subjective disutility of workers, which socialism ought to value.
socialism/anarchism.. ought to value legit free people.. first.. no? not whales in sea world
When constructing objectively determined values, the planner has to decide what variables to include and how much to weigh them.
What factors determine how much a worker values their own labor?
Effort, hours, safety, etc. the full list varies from worker to worker and is ultimately undiscoverable, even with prolonged struggle sessions between planners, workers, and consumers. How to quantify these factors? Are they simply scores from 1-10? If so, how to weigh these scores relative to labor time? This process flattens subjectivity, because the methodology for constructing objectively determined values is determined by the planners, and worker input is circumscribed by the process.
huge time/energy suck..
let’s do this first: free art-ists.
there’s a nother way
On a very small scale where supply chains are extremely short, informational volume is low, and all participants can directly communicate with each other on a fully peer to peer basis, planned, communistic economies without money and explicit exchange can be reciprocal and non-authoritarian because quantification and complex planning are unnecessary.
The issue of revealed vs stated preferences also relates to the dynamism of the respective systems. In a freed market, an increase in demand for a good or service would raise prices above the marginal cost of production, leading to economic profits in the short run, causing more producers to enter the market, leading to higher output and lower prices. Price signaling allows market actors to coordinate with each other without the need to directly communicate. In small communes, the ability to directly communicate and the lower volume of information also facilitate dynamism. However, at scales where communication is limited by time and space, information processing would be constrained by planning cycles, leading to longer periods in which resources get misallocated and consumer demand is not met.
all irrelevant if we set people free first
Using the LP framework, it is clear that in decentralized models, the version of the economic calculation problem isn’t one of computational complexity on a decentralized scale, but of accessing information – the Hayekian formulation of the calculation problem.
actually of accessing legit info.. ie: self-talk as data..
i’d say currently all our data is non legit.. because it’s from whales in sea world
Prices capture large amounts of information, which cannot be captured to the same accuracy by systems that use planning. Therefore, linear programming doesn’t solve the issue, because both market actors and pure planners use similar planning methodologies, the difference is that weights on the budget constraint and objective for market actors contain data that more accurately reflects the preferences of both consumers and producers (workers).
more accurately reflect preferences of whales in sea world
from another lead essay in the C4SS Mutual Exchange Symposium
for other essays .. adding a mutual exchange symposium page
2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b free people
of math and men et al