the existence of a nash equilibrium is not a guarrantie that it is reachable. IE the earth never reaches the sun.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you do NOT have a Nash equilibrium, you will NOT stay there. Any utopic system that is not a Nash equilibrium, will not remain utopic.
Quote
No central planning is not a game, it is an algorithm that determines the parameters in the economy, its gain is to find the optimum solution.
Central planning implies central planners. Central planners play the game of optimising things for themselves.
If you were a central planner, and you have the choice between setting the algorithm such that everybody, you included, has 2 loaves of bread and a bottle of milk, or setting the algorithm so that most people have 1 loaf of bread and a bottle of water, and you and your kin have caviar and vodka, what algorithm are you going to implement as a central planner, you think ?
What is then, according to you, the "optimum solution" ?
No, I don't think that the central planning of economy can be made independent of a government system in the society. Really, how could you force people to accept what they should eat and wear if there would be no authoritarian rule that would tell them what they should think and say in the first place?
Otherwise, you should show how you could foretell every individual's whimsy and fancy in respect to their economic decisions
The rule is not authoritarian if you dont make it so, people could vote on priorities, and on algorithms deployed central planning is not central command, it may be confusing because only now we have the means to split them.
Innovation though is beeing traded to sustainability, but not altogether lost as ambition is inherent and people will follow vision when they see it.
I am not groupie of central planning I just see it as an eventuality... Unless and only unless we break through a new frontier and transcend the limits of earth.