[pdonis]

> I'm not sure what you mean by "information channels".

I mean information channels to and from the central computer.

> Wouldn't a factory mainly just need to communicate its inputs and outputs the computer or computer cluster doing the calculation?

If that's all it's doing, a free market does that fine. There is no need for any additional computation. Similarly for any other economic actor.

If the central computation is going to improve anything over what the individual economic actors would do on their own, it can only be by computing what the inputs and outputs should be for all economic actors, better than those actors can do themselves, and then dictating those inputs and outputs to the actors. Otherwise there's no point to it. And that is what it can't do based on the information argument I gave.

> I don't think the computation cost scales exponentially. If it did, the decentralized free market computer would not be able to accurately compute the economy.

Wrong. The decentralized free market computer's capacity scales exponentially, since each individual economic actor is computing their own actions. The centralized computer, however, has to compute everyone's actions. That's why it faces an insurmountable information problem that the individual actors doing their decentralized computing do not face.

> The government can help alleviate the failures of the market.

No, it can't. That is the lesson of history. Every time governments have done this, they have made things worse, not better. That is not to say that market failures do not exist, only that the failures of government are worse.

> the market is generally short-sighted, while governments can think more long-term.

You have this backwards. Government time horizons are the next election. Individual market actors can have time horizons going out decades--for example, individuals saving for retirement. Governments can't even keep their social security trust funds safe from being raided by the legislature when it wants to fund some white elephant.

> it is my understanding that the Chinese government has invested a lot in solar panel technology and implementation.

Quite possibly it has. That in no way means China might not be even better off if it were not centrally controlled by the government.

> You would probably agree this is a good thing, given the severity of the climate crisis.

No, I wouldn't, because I don't think climate change is a crisis. And as far as I can tell, neither do the Chinese. They are investing in those technologies not because they believe they need them themselves, but because they believe they can sell them at a substantial profit to Western countries who are much more worried about climate change than the Chinese themselves are.

[meheleventyone]

> I mean information channels to and from the central computer.

This makes no sense to grow exponentially then. Information channels grow exponentially in a peer-to-peer network but only linearly in a centralised one. You can trivially see this in computer networks. One server with eight clients will have 8 connections. Eight peers will have 64 connections. Adding one more node will make the centralised solution add one more connection. Adding one more node to the peer-to-peer solution adds 17.

[jwmhjwmh]

You say "a free market does [calculation] fine," but it has obvious deficiencies that I have already remarked upon. As I have said before, the optimization problem can be solved on modern computers without the problems of the market. The inputs and outputs of individual processes are known in a market system, so logically this information can be centrally recorded for use by the planning process. If a production center doesn't produce output at exactly the expected rate, the expected rate can be adjusted.

About computing capacity: Maybe free market capacity scales exponentially (with the number of actors?) but I don't see how it could. If an economy of n actors has a "capacity" of e^n, the average capacity of an actor would be e^n/n, which is about the same as e^n. How could an individual actor have such capacity? Perhaps my analysis here is mistaken.

Regarding government intervention, let's look at an extreme example. Do you think that, during World War II, the U.S. should have structured its wartime economy around free market principles? Did it make things worse by not doing so?

About government planning for the future: First of all, social security gets gutted because the U.S. government is not a government of the people. Business interests have too much control (that is, more than no control at all.) You also say governments are shortsighted because of elections. Even if this is the case, this is not a necessary part of government. The governance model described in the book I linked is based on sortition rather than election. China's current system, while authoritarian, is also able to plan for the future.

It seems you agree that China investing in solar power is beneficial to it, even if you disagree on the reason. So you agree that, all else being equal, it is better for China to have invested in solar power than to not have done so. In this case, this is a clear example of a government acting in the market with a good outcome. This contradicts your previous point.

[pdonis]

> You say "a free market does [calculation] fine," but it has obvious deficiencies that I have already remarked upon.

And as I have already remarked, central planning does not fix those deficiencies, it makes them worse.

> the optimization problem can be solved on modern computers without the problems of the market.

I strongly disagree, for the reasons I've already stated, but it doesn't seem like we're going to resolve that here.

> Maybe free market capacity scales exponentially

Yes, because the computation consists of the individual actors deciding their actions and the communication of price signals between them. (Note that while I say "price signals", these are much more general than just money prices. Many positive sum trades are made that do not involve money.) That's a general feature of distributed computing: you have to count the communication between the nodes as part of the computation.

> Do you think that, during World War II, the U.S. should have structured its wartime economy around free market principles?

Yes.

> Did it make things worse by not doing so?

Yes.

> social security gets gutted because the U.S. government is not a government of the people.

Ah, the No True Scotsman argument. Every time socialism fails, socialist ideologues say it's because it wasn't true socialism.

> The governance model described in the book I linked is based on sortition rather than election.

I'll take a look. However, I am extremely skeptical that any governance model can fix the fundamental problems with centralized control.

> It seems you agree that China investing in solar power is beneficial to it

I said that China's government believes it will be beneficial to China. They could be wrong. But even if they're not, that is not at all the same as saying that it is the most beneficial thing that could be done with the same resources. I am not saying that governments never do beneficial things. I am saying that governments, on net, will do worse than a free market would do. That is also not the same as saying a free market would always achieve an optimal result; in many situations there may simply be no way of achieving an optimal result. But that does not mean all achievable results are equivalent.

[jwmhjwmh]

> central planning does not fix those deficiencies, it makes them worse

How would the system I'm describing make inequality and the resulting conflict worse?

> you have to count the communication between the nodes as part of the computation.

But surely the nodes themselves must be the ones to perform the physical computation in the end? If the computing power of distributed systems scales exponentially with the number of nodes, why doesn't the computing power of a supercomputer scale exponentially with its number of cores?

> Every time socialism fails, socialist ideologues say it's because it wasn't true socialism.

Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of countries with much better safety nets than the U.S. The U.S. government is just especially dysfunctional.

> I am not saying that governments never do beneficial things. I am saying that governments, on net, will do worse than a free market would do.

I guess we just disagree about this.

> in many situations there may simply be no way of achieving an optimal result

If you take "optimal result" to mean "best possible result," then there is, by definition, always a way of achieving an optimal result.

[pdonis]

> How would the system I'm describing make inequality and the resulting conflict worse?

Because your system has to be implemented with humans, and humans cannot be trusted with the power to tell other humans what to do. Your system requires that in order to work. (Existing governments also require this in order to work, which is why they're dysfunctional, but your system requires it much more.) A free market does not; in a free market, all transactions are voluntary and nobody is given the power to tell anyone else what to do.

I don't see the point of further discussion since we appear to have a fundamental disagreement about this vital point.

[jwmhjwmh]

Very well. Let me just say that any large company involves humans telling other humans what to do, even if the workers work there "voluntarily". Many people have no choice but to work for such companies.