If people keep suggesting solutions that were tried and failed of course other people will point that out.
1930-s Gosplan, 1950-s Gosplan, OGAS, Cybersyn, they all failed. Come up with something new maybe?
If people keep suggesting solutions that were tried and failed of course other people will point that out.
1930-s Gosplan, 1950-s Gosplan, OGAS, Cybersyn, they all failed. Come up with something new maybe?
Cybersyn was an experiment and we don't really know if it would have worked or not because the USA arranged for a military coup to destroy it ...
I think later systems were at a core an attempt to implement something like high-frequency (which is a misnomer, it's more like low-latency) trading over 1960-70s tech at a scope that we still have no means to do now, in 2020s.
"trading" was ideologically prohibited term which didn't help any.
And the whole centralized approach cannot scale.
So there you have it: it can't work, please bring new ideas.
My point is that they’re not the same thing and it’s an attempt to link two things that are loosely related, at best.
“Come up with something new maybe?” Is a trite attempt at belittling a conversation that is seeking knowledge and frankly just annoying.
It’s a desperate attempt by people who understand that identifying huge problems in the easy part. So much of life is just people thinking that by identifying the problem they’re 99% of the way to fixing it.
But apply this to something you understand in detail, unlike a whole society. “That guy has a bad heart, better fix it!” That’s something that doesn’t need to be said, never mind repeated like a solution to a hard problem.