central planning is not incompatible to democratic concesus, central planing of economy is orthogonal to society's method of rule.
ok lets recap, nash equilibrium existence does not guarantee
1 stability of the eq
2 optimality of the eq
3 reachability of the eq
4 persistance of the eq
now tell me why one should invest playing a game with uncertain outcome? for some illusion of freedom of tv-imposed choice?
This is somewhat akin to:
A: - If you want to jump from an air plane, the only way to have a possibility to reach the ground safely, is with a parachute
B: - Jumping with a parachute doesn't guarantee:
1) that it will open
2) that the ropes will not mangle
3) that down under you will not fall into a lake and drown
now tell me why on earth I should use a parachute with an uncertain outcome ? Let's jump without !
sorry not the same, parachutes have gone through vigorous testing, while "free market" doesnt have a great success record, besides I gave you a jet pack.
my criticism on the theoretical grounds of free market (magic nash equilibrium) is simply to point that free market is not the final sollution, and that we should also reach for and experiment with other ways