[Unperson-SN]

Anyone esle here think the command economy could work flawlessly if the job of planning and running it were left to sophisticated supercomputers and not error-prone silly little human beings?

All resources would be accounted for and allocated properly, efficiency would be absolute and the time it takes to plan would be reduced to minutes or even seconds. It could also allow for much shorter plans, a 1-year plan instead of a 5-year plan for example. Computers could also react and adjust much much faster and easily avoid the troubles past countries with command economies have faced.

[the Dealy Lama]

I was thinking about that the other day. It sounds pretty good to me. However, no matter how hard I try, I can't help but think of "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." Living as a cog in a machine's planned utopia just doesn't sit right with me, must be a political uncanny valley.

[Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef]

Cockshott proposes a market socialism planned using market information and working out labour-coefficients as to get an idea of value.

http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

(Not useful if you're not ready to get your head around the maths!)

It is a brilliant idea, the using of all capitals to ensure maximum productivity, shorter working days and a high quality output; made possible by intricate, up to date planning techniques.

[Unperson-SN]

I was thinking about that the other day. It sounds pretty good to me. However, no matter how hard I try, I can't help but think of "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." Living as a cog in a machine's planned utopia just doesn't sit right with me, must be a political uncanny valley.

I mean using supercomputers to do the planning that would normally be left to the government - the amount of possible conflicts people have with the system depends on the amount of feedback they give, clearly stating needs and other relevant information so it can be factored into the calculations for that person all reduce the possible conflicts and over time the system can learn about the person in order to provide a more accurate supply of goods and services.

I hate currency so that isn't a part of my glorious computerized economy.

[Truthseeker]

- the amount of possible conflicts people have with the system depends on the amount of feedback they give, clearly stating needs and other relevant information so it can be factored into the calculations for that person

And the risk of people inserting incorrect information to be allocated disporpotiane shares of resources?

I mean using supercomputers to do the planning that would normally be left to the government

But you would need a government to decide how to input the data and to implement the results, as well as maintaining order.

[Unperson-SN]

And the risk of people inserting incorrect information to be allocated disporpotiane shares of resources?

I figure basic needs (food, housing, transportation, healthcare) can be distrobuted based on factors the person cannot change such as age, status of relationships, etc - The 75 yr old divorced women isn't going to need the same amount of goods and services or the same kind as a 25 yr old married couple. For more complex things...things that could be considered "wants" and of course the system would need to grow and adapt as time progresses.

But you would need a government to decide how to input the data and to implement the results, as well as maintaining order.

Statistics and relevant information can be used by a computer to predict almost anything now adays, they have predicted the weather a hundred years in advance and use computers to make models, estimates, and projections I don't see how this would be any different except on a far bigger scale - naturally the same techniques people use now can be used with the computerized planned economy.

[Truthseeker]

Statistics and relevant information can be used by a computer to predict almost anything now adays

I figure basic needs (food, housing, transportation, healthcare) can be distrobuted based on factors the person cannot change

What I meant is that whoever controls the imput of data, potentially controls the results.

[Unperson-SN]

What I meant is that whoever controls the imput of data, potentially controls the results.

Oh I see what your saying now, but I don't expect to transition to such a system right away - the conditioning in the capitalist society that raises people to be greedy and encourages greed must be stamped out, currency abolished and the entire concept that material goods have some numerical or offical value must also be crushed! then and only then can you begin to rebuild a society where greed is nowhere near the forefront.

A complete re-education of society or perhaps focusing on just the next generation could pave the way for such a system and directly stop any sort of attempt to control the results by pulling the plug on the source OF that which would cause somebody to alter the results.

If such a system were implemented I suspect people would just fill out a complex sheet of questions and check boxes (in a truthful and realistic manner ) and submit that to the supercomputer - perhaps all done electronically through some terminal in a persons home or at a local government building then that persons needs are determined, proper allocation of Goods & Services occurs and tada! all needs are met!

Btw, I'd welcome criticism on this idea of using supercomputers to run the economy it will strengthen my argument for them over the long run!

[Mecha]

As you wish.

1) Production and allocation of non-fundamentally limited commodities is workable, but what are your thoughts on allocation of land, labour force and allocation of services and types thereof?

2) You say that certain conditions of the person's life would result in changes in their allocation. This has two implications:
2a) certain value judgements would have to be programed into the system, ie value and structure of "marriage", preferential value of some lives against others, ect.
2b) For preferences upon critically limited resources (ie choice land or living spaces in a city; new medicines or devices which cannot be produced to meet initial demand (a constant problem) or even if demand is higher than capibility to produce for long periods of time) what method would be used for allocation? Lottery? The person's "value" to society? Value accrued by work (ie pseudo-currency)?

3) Practical problems:
3a) large volume and quality of information will be required. Should corporate, government, and private data stores be acquistioned? Should all public life be observed via the supercomputer (ie via omnipresent cameras in stores, public areas like parks, streets)?
3b) would trading stuff like a new currency (ie if chocolate was allocated stiffly. and became a sort of currency) would such activity be made illegal?

~Mecha

[Unperson-SN]

As you wish.

1) Production and allocation of non-fundamentally limited commodities is workable, but what are your thoughts on allocation of land, labour force and allocation of services and types thereof?

Everything is based on need in this hypothetical computer-controlled economy/country I have to get that said firstly. Land isn't owned its distributed based on the needs of the people and if the state has goals then that must be taken into consideration aswell as endangered enviroments. In my country for example the population is relatively small and the amount of unused land is vast, therefore I think it would be within reason to ensure every person has a home with a front and back yard - in some countries this is impossible but due to the sheer amount of unused land combined with my desire to decentralize the population and eventually abolish big cities this sort of new living standard would happen I'd make sure of that. (Remember I to would live under this new system!)

As for the work force it would be completely reorganized in conjuction with a rebuilt education system, I feel that todays education system is bogus and flawed and must be replaced with a system that teachs people things useful in the real world AND in the job they are best suited for - In this system the government (in control of the workforce) would ensure that every person would be given the job they are best at.

That may seem impossible but really it isn't, remember a painter must paint and a musician must make music if he is to be happy with himself and this is the basis for who has what sort of job.

An authoritarian government and the smaller population (currently 33 million) makes this all the more possible, and of course this whole transition won't be all smooth and rosey but once people start becoming apart of the system they can be guaranteed real job security and the Goods & Services they need.

2) You say that certain conditions of the person's life would result in changes in their allocation. This has two implications:
2a) certain value judgements would have to be programed into the system, ie value and structure of "marriage", preferential value of some lives against others, ect.
2b) For preferences upon critically limited resources (ie choice land or living spaces in a city; new medicines or devices which cannot be produced to meet initial demand (a constant problem) or even if demand is higher than capibility to produce for long periods of time) what method would be used for allocation? Lottery? The person's "value" to society? Value accrued by work (ie pseudo-currency)?

Logic and common sense not ethnics or entrenched quasi-religious values will dictate the NEW values. All Goods & Services from food to holidays is distributed based on need, certain basic things will be a given regardless such as housing (universal high living standards are a must), food, etc. I believe that alone can solve any shortages but here we can also take a hint from the Soviets and realize that people cannot just be allowed to request whatever the hell they want and get it, yes the USSR had lines and empty shelves but little do people realize the consumption of food and other goods was much greater (nearly double) that of americans during the exact same period...no suprise they ran out of food! Ack!

Your 2b) question reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend over this exact system whereby things are given based on needs aslong as the individual puts in the effort in the job he/she is best at and my friend basically said that gold chains enhance his life and that he NEEDS them, and feels the need to be different by dressing himself in such things. The nature of this society (non-capitalist society) is one where greed is nolonger at the forefront of society so we must keep that inmind when asking such questions.

For medicines, etc that would boil down to need
For something silly like chocolate I would first like to remind everyone that if all the world suddendly bought chocolate bars the demand would instantly suck up the entire global supply, and in this society there would be limits to prevent that sort of thing I mean just because its there and in theory you can have it does not mean you can go out and get it. Prove to the system that you need chocolate in a time of short supply, if in times of plenty then it would be available but with reasonable limits. (The same limits imposed indirectly by one's paycheque and/or common sense)

3) Practical problems:
3a) large volume and quality of information will be required. Should corporate, government, and private data stores be acquistioned? Should all public life be observed via the supercomputer (ie via omnipresent cameras in stores, public areas like parks, streets)?
3b) would trading stuff like a new currency (ie if chocolate was allocated stiffly. and became a sort of currency) would such activity be made illegal?

~Mecha

I would develope major catagories for different people with sub-catagories and soforth all acting as guidelines to be factored in along with the data the actual person submits, it won't be instant I can admit that and it would take time to perfect the system. As for Big Brother I don't see how thats necessary? what possible data can a computer collect by watching people in a park?

The concept of currency would be abolished through (re)education, in the short term yes bartering would be deemed absurd and illegal. Besides if the country has the capacity to meet the needs of everyone then why should bartering even exist? If all material needs are taken care of the only thing left for a person to want is self-actualization which naturally will replace greed as the driving force behind society.

Btw I wouldn't say I am the best at articulating my ideas, nor am I a grammar nazi so this might seem to jump or include irrelevant references and soforth. I apologize if you experience this...phenomenon.

[Mecha]

In my country

What country?

due to the sheer amount of unused land combined with my desire to decentralize the population and eventually abolish big cities this sort of new living standard would happen I'd make sure of that.

Many people are happier in cities, and cities provide many opportunities other places cannot or willnot. Do you plan on imposing your view of life upon others? Is not a function of directing, regulating and controling the economy via a supercomputer to result in an economy that best suits the people? Sure, needs first. But "fulfilled needs" a life do not make.

Logic and common sense not ethnics or entrenched quasi-religious values will dictate the NEW values.

"Not ethics", I believe you meant? Your new values are what exactly? "Common sense" is very...relative, and can be thought to achieve very different conclusions. And logic always relies on the premises, so please refrain from the retheoric.

For example, it seems more logical for centralized population centers would lower the cost of providing needs, as there would be fewer required distribution centers, and less distance for experts and materials to be moved.

what possible data can a computer collect by watching people in a park?

Allocation and direction of custodial staff, optimal police routines due to observed traffic and statistical analyse of incidents of problems, or even redesigning the park to better fit the needs of people.

You seem to avoid making statements on the methodology of distribution of non-necessities and shortages other than re-education and making some form of ration to prevent it all.

Besides if the country has the capacity to meet the needs of everyone then why should bartering even exist?

Because "wants" and "needs" are seperate. Your plan is for complete economic control, yes? Thus, more than simple needs must be accounted for.

~Mecha

[Unperson-SN]

"Not ethics", I believe you meant?

Opps thank you for spotting that yes I ment Ethics because I think such things hinder progress and should be thrown out the window in certain situations.

What country?

Check my sig!

Many people are happier in cities, and cities provide many opportunities other places cannot or willnot. Do you plan on imposing your view of life upon others? Is not a function of directing, regulating and controling the economy via a supercomputer to result in an economy that best suits the people? Sure, needs first. But "fulfilled needs" a life do not make.

I fear invasion and nuclear attack, a decentralized population can suffer less under such an event and thats my main reason for wanting to eventually end multi-million-person cities and spread the population out.

"Not ethics", I believe you meant? Your new values are what exactly? "Common sense" is very...relative, and can be thought to achieve very different conclusions. And logic always relies on the premises, so please refrain from the retheoric.

If I said Socialist values would that due or are you going to demand more details? :P Does a working family man need a minivan or a sports car...hmm!? I don't think its very logical for a family to have a sports car when clearly the need for something esle exists. (just an example)

For example, it seems more logical for centralized population centers would lower the cost of providing needs, as there would be fewer required distribution centers, and less distance for experts and materials to be moved.

I imagined putting a cap on the population and once that limit is reached a new city is built but it is a risk to clump the population up as it is right now in some areas.

Allocation and direction of custodial staff, optimal police routines due to observed traffic and statistical analyse of incidents of problems, or even redesigning the park to better fit the needs of people.

I dislike the idea of putting cameras on every street block, I know I wouldn't want to live in that kind of enviroment.

You seem to avoid making statements on the methodology of distribution of non-necessities and shortages other than re-education and making some form of ration to prevent it all.

Effort could play a major role in who gets X amount of non-necessities or requests for non-necessities per X amount of time. If one does not put in the effort and simply leechs off society their supplyline will be cut just as if one puts in extra effort they can (attempt) to get something beyond the standard supply of goods and services. Combine that with education to further reduce greed and the socialization which perpetuates and *puff* *magic* your potential supply/demand problem is solved?

Because "wants" and "needs" are seperate. Your plan is for complete economic control, yes? Thus, more than simple needs must be accounted for.

The line between wants and needs isn't so clear cut, some things that would be considered "wants" have benefits that go far beyond the physical, going to a concert for example benefits the mind and enhances that person's social life, knowledge, etc and those sorts of things must be made readily available. The goal here is to take care of people's material needs so they can then have the maximal amount of time and opportunities to enrich themselves and experience life.

[Mecha]

I think such things hinder progress and should be thrown out the window in certain situations.

Ethics: Are you certain you understand the term? What are the point of values without any ethical system? You exihibit many instances of differentiating between right and wrong for reasons. So why do you think throwing out the concepts of right and wrong will help? ...Is that not an ethical decision itself?

Check my sig!

Ahh, I recognize it now. Soviet Canuckistan. k.

I fear invasion and nuclear attack, a decentralized population can suffer less under such an event and thats my main reason for wanting to eventually end multi-million-person cities and spread the population out.

So...your fears of invasion and nuclear holocaust are reason enough to ignore what is effiecent and desirable... I'm starting to get the impression the initial idea this thread is based on is simply asking for an implementation of your vision, rather than what is logical or wanted for society by society.

Oh, and a decentralized populace is easier to control via conventional forces, its the urban jungle thats the worst, if I remember right. You're not seriously worried about Canada being invaded, are you?

If I said Socialist values would that due or are you going to demand more details?

Of course, the Devil is in the details, and I've gotta get him summoned sometime soon, so get to it with the details : )

I dislike the idea of putting cameras on every street block, I know I wouldn't want to live in that kind of enviroment.

You trust the government with complete control over people's productive lives, with intense social engineering and education, but you do not trust them with cameras outdoors? With such self-contridictions, your ideology is difficult to accept. What is your explantion?

~Mecha

[El Gilroy]

Anyone esle here think the command economy could work flawlessly if the job of planning and running it were left to sophisticated supercomputers and not error-prone silly little human beings?

Yes. Me.

It might seem unusual, and for reasons cultural even uncomfortable, but in the end, one would have to accept the circumstance that it would simply be the superior option.