Except all instances of free market Capitalism have been centrally planned — Maw
Central planning is essential for large scale projects like railroads and highways — frank
We sort of know where central planning is needed and where competition is best. — frank
But for other large scale endeavors it can prove ineffective. I would say that generally, the greater the scale, and when there are more unknowns, the more difficult it is for central planning to cope with the various logistical demands of large complex systems. — VagabondSpectre
But we too easily conflate strategic success in one situation with the universal applicability of the successful strategy. — VagabondSpectre
This is where the application of metaphors runs into a problem. Why is central planning represented by few, large boats when the central plan might just as well be to send out many small boats? And if individual preference is central to the free market, isn't it plausible that individuals might prefer to all stick together, for better or worse? — Echarmion
Per other comments above, I also think this isn't a very good analogy for the free market versus central planning dichotomy, for a number of reasons, including that free markets enable competing with others in a manner that you can "win" by doing things to make certain others lose. I think it's better to make the competition so that you win the most by helping others win, too. The competition should be how to best ensure that everyone's lives are better/easier/etc. — Terrapin Station
Could you give an example? — frank
:up:That's politics, though. People pour all their fear and belligerence into it. The truth is we have extravagant demonstrations of the folly of embracing either route single-mindedly. — frank
the mixture of both have in history been the most successfull: basically as a free market cannot operate well without institutions (contrary to the silly brainfarts of anarcho-libertarians) and on the other hand central planning cannot be successfull without some freedom of invention and innovation (as obviously central planners cannot know what the future holds and what will be successfull). — ssu
Allowing everyone to build their own boat will almost certainly result in some death, but it has a much higher chance of saving at least some lives. — VagabondSpectre
Without knowing something more about the situation, there's no good way decide which strategy is superior — VagabondSpectre
Predicting which strategy is superior is impossible without knowing more about the circumstances of the situation and environment. — VagabondSpectre
With the high taxes, crippling regulations, need to build 37 bathrooms (one for each gender) and designated “safe spaces” on each deck of the ship, etc etc, the lava would be knee high before the socialists could launch even one ship. — praxis
We do have information, which is some small boats have a much higher chance of some people surviving. — boethius
I'm disappointed that no one is arguing for the free-market solution I propose to the problem: of letting people act with their own wealth, as it is my understanding the point of this thread was to contrast free market principles and central planning principles in this example. — boethius
The strategic dilemma emerges precisely because we have two different strategies but we don't know which one is optimal. — VagabondSpectre
If you're an individual who wants the best shot at staying alive, then you probably want the big boat. If you're someone who wants to ensure the continuation of the society and culture, then you want the small boats. Most people probably don't know which they would actually choose. — VagabondSpectre
The purpose of this thread was to put one of these strategic coin-flips front and center, the strategic dilemma I chose was only meant to facilitate the example (in hindsight, I focused too much on free markets vs central planning). — VagabondSpectre
Adherence to socialist or capitalist principles, like choosing a strategy for the survival of you or your tribe, is a gamble (a wager that following X principle will tend to lead to individual or overall success). — VagabondSpectre
Optimal for what purpose? Optimization requires a specific objective. So, the optimum strategy will depend on what the objective is. If you do not adequately specify the objective, then the term optimum is not applicable. Your example simply shows why optimization is tied to objective, there is no "optimum in a vacuum".
It's like if I hand you a chair and I say "is this optimum? if not, optimize if for me", you cannot achieve any optimization without knowing (or then speculating) as to my objective with the chair.
If the community is trying to ensure survival of the community as a whole, and so weights more favorably a plan that has a higher probability of "everyone surviving". — boethius
I agree. What is seen as optimum will be determined by what people's objectives are.
For instance, if the sailors just want to maximize their own survival they may decide the optimum strategy is to build an optimum sized boat for themselves in secret (while pretending to do whatever society decided) and just cast off in the night. Obviously, if they wanted to maximize the survival of others they would never consider that plan (unless, they decide it's become the only plan that will potentially save anyone). — boethius
You were pretty clear your purpose was to discuss the scenario as an analogy of a free market principle vs central planning principle. — boethius
Free market proponents only loosely appeal to devolution and decentralization as supporting principles — boethius
The point of my third strategy is to point out you can have a free market in your scenario: everyone relying on their own wealth and trading and selling to achieve whatever strategy they personally think is best for themselves. If you agree it's absurd to rely on a free market economy to solve the problem in your scenario, to the point it won't even occur to most people, I agree. — boethius
Agreed, but even when we establish an objective we can still have no way to discriminate between strategic options. — VagabondSpectre
Consider a roulette wheel. Your objective is to walk out of the casino with as much money as possible. Do you bet your only dollar on red/black, or do you bet it on a number? They have the same ratio of risk to return, and you only have enough money for one initial bet. Which option do you choose, and why? — VagabondSpectre
Well yes, but aren't I allowed to have underlying intentions? :)
The final sentences of my OP's paragraph frame the understanding I sought to impart:
"Adherence to socialist or capitalist principles, like choosing a strategy for the survival of you or your tribe, is a gamble (a wager that following X principle will tend to lead to individual or overall success). The best we can do is suppose the statistical likelihood of risks and outcomes, which is always limited by our ability to detect and compute unknown variables, especially given potentially vast circumstantial differences between individual cases (which we seldom have the time or interest to investigate thoroughly). — VagabondSpectre
Their appeals might be loose, but they're damned frequent, especially in the neo-conservative from the camps (absolutely everything would be privatized if they had their way). — VagabondSpectre
I think with most things it's a mixture of bottom up and top decision making that produces the most robust results, but depending on the actual circumstances, we may be better off centralizing or decentralizing different aspects of our collective and individual decision-making. — VagabondSpectre
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.