Perhaps it can, perhaps it can't. I don't think we can know without real world trials. But planning, whether central or not, has the crucial advantage that it is much more flexible. Beyond that, we don't even need to go fully into one extreme.
The fact that it has to aproximate at all however completely invalidates Hayek's argument, which is why it is worthless - his assumptions beg the question.
That being said, given the ability of incredibly rudimentary paper-and-pen, low tech planning systems where planning is basically a very difficult computer science problem to get within a third to a half of what markets can do, I think there is a solid shot that planning can outperform markets in the majority of industries, though perhaps for smaller industries a flexible hybrid will be more useful.
Honestly man, I really wanted to get at your reasoning for your position but your statements are all assertions and no reasoning. Markets can't optimally distribute resources because there are NP hard problems, but machines can approximate NP hard problems so NP hard problems are no problem for central planning, as to whether a market can also approximate? Who knows. That's your narrative so far. So why did you bring up NP hard problems in the first place if they're mostly irrelevant to your argument?
I did enjoy this conversation though. And again, I'd love to read what you have on decentralized planning in anarchist planned economies and NP hard problems humans have to solve in markets. If you can show me a paper that demonstrates that markets require participants to solve NP hard problems I'll be done with markets.
I never said that central planning must work better or worse, just that Hayek's reasoning doesn't hold up because it starts from the ridiculous assumption that markets always find the equilibrium, always propagate local knowledge, etc.., and those are the reason why they theoretically are better than planning according to Hayek. I'm arguing against a purely theoretical argument that was cited with purely theoretical reasoning. The source for Hayek's assumptions implying P=NP is this : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.2284
I personally don't care for the purely theoretical arguments that Hayek makes, and yes the arguments are full of apriorisms and assumptions but that's the Austrian school for you and that's what you need to prove that markets must be better than planning.
The actual argument I'd make why planning can outperform markets in many industries and cases is pretty straightforward - markets require duplication of labour, they cause intrinsic crashes, they hurt knowledge transfer because they require intellectual property, they require infinite growth, and more.
Meanwhile actual implementations of planning have been plagued by incredibly slow iteration times (in the order of 5-4 years), access to data so horrible that CIA data was sought by planners, excessive centralization due to the impossibility of getting popular input, very low transparency, limitations in processing as data was collected and processed by hand, allocation of resources by hand, etc...
Planning is fundamentally a computer science problem at every level, and every single major defect can be fixed or palliated using techniques developped from computer science.
Because of this and the relative competitiveness, on the order of 1/3, of planning despite horribly deficient implementations, I think that there's a solid shot that planning can be a better solution than markets in most cases, though not all.
Finally, central planning doesn't actually mean eliminating markets - they are still useful for gaging the relative value and demand in consumer goods. Rather, the goal is to replace capital markets.
There, that's my case for why it is very probable that planning can be a better alternative to capitalist markets in most cases.
So you're not arguing against me, you're arguing against someone that's not here that I never cited?
From the linked paper (which is very interesting):
> Financially, the "economic calculation problem" of von Mises (1920) and Hayek (1935) suggests, among other things, that even if a free market is not perfectly efficient, it will certainly be more efficient than a regulatory or government alternatives. In other words, even if mispricings occasionally occur, most of the time they are smaller than any other alternative system.
> Both of those arguments are similar in their domains but neither applies to the results of this paper. Whether markets are efficient or not, and whether P=NP or not, there is no doubt that there will be markets that can allocate resources very close to efficiently and there will be algorithms that can solve problems very close to efficiently. The results of this paper should not be interpreted as support for government intervention into the market; the fact that market efficiency and computational efficiency are linked suggests that government should no more intervene in the market or regulate market participants than it should intervene in computations or regulate computer algorithms.
So basically the author does not argue that markets are suboptimal at distributing resources and even goes on to state that a government should not intervene. The paper basically demonstrates that if P!=NP then no system can achieve true efficiency, and argues that markets achieve at least as much efficiency as any other system through approximation.
You list the arguments you'd make defending the idea that planning can outperform markets, but you don't actually make the arguments. So I'll ask.
Where is the duplication of labor in markets? What is your argument that markets cause intrinsic crashes based on? why do markets necessitate intellectual property? I don't believe they do. People traded for centuries before the concept of intellectual property was invented. What is it you mean by "infinite growth"? There is ambiguity there that is often misunderstood, there is creation of wealth which is things like inventing the wheel, inventing the airplane, things that are real growth (and I'd add, preclude intellectual property) that are deeply connected to free markets, and then there is the concept of infinite growth of an economy in scale, something that is not necessary in a market. The two are often conflated.
Also is it possible, even probable, that the problems that plague implementations of planning are symptoms of my argument, and will structurally plague all implementations due to the limitations inherent in central planning systems I've laid out in this thread?
The fact that it has to aproximate at all however completely invalidates Hayek's argument, which is why it is worthless - his assumptions beg the question.
That being said, given the ability of incredibly rudimentary paper-and-pen, low tech planning systems where planning is basically a very difficult computer science problem to get within a third to a half of what markets can do, I think there is a solid shot that planning can outperform markets in the majority of industries, though perhaps for smaller industries a flexible hybrid will be more useful.