> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.