[slibhb]

> If you have good knowledge of the economy and of production mechanisms you can simply not do anything that could cause a crash

But we don't have that knowledge. Economists disagree on many foundational questions. At some point, economics shades into psychology and we certainly don't have theories that predict human behavior.

I don't discount the possibility that knowledge can help economies run more smoothly but you're understating the difficulty here.

> Empirically the USSR had a single economic crisis without exogenous cause which was caused by incorrect accounting of agricultural production at its heart.

The idea that the USSR had one economic crisis is a bizarre joke. The only way you can justify this comment is to ignore all the shortages and poverty and make some tortured semantic argument about what constitutes a "crisis".

Empirically speaking, free markets trounced centrally planned economies in the 20th century. If you can't recognize that, I'm not sure why anyone would take you seriously.

[sudosysgen]

I mean knowledge of the real economy. What materials there are and what is done with it. That's all you need in a planned economy to avoid crises.

I said that the USSR had one economic crisis that wasn't due to exogenous circumstances. Which is true.

I agree that free markets outperformed them. I'm saying there is clearly potential for improvement since the USSR was so dysfunctional and was planned with pen and paper.

[nradov]

There is no way to gain accurate, detailed knowledge of the real economy. It has always been impossible. That's one of several reasons why economic central planning is stupid.

[sudosysgen]

This is stupid. We can definitely do that, even today, with basic computer technology.