• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    They had computers towards the end, of course, but they were extremely primitive. The kinds of disaster predictions you can do on a machine built to run Tetris are nothing compared to what can be done with today’s technology.

    Also, it’s not like markets can actually deal with disasters. Without at least some central planning disaster response and relief is impossible.

    • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Planning for relief disaster and a planned economy are incredibly different things. Planned economies do not handle disasters well at all as they didn’t prepare for that disaster in advance (typically because how can you plan for the one in a hundred million chance that x would happen).

      We largely have stuck with market based economies because they currently are much more responsive to changes.

      While computers have gotten more powerful there is zero evidence to support that we have gotten to the point where they could run a planned economy in any fashion.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        We largely have stuck with market based economies because they currently are much more responsive to changes.

        No, we still have market based economies because they make a few people very very rich.

        We needed markets before computers and instant mass communication. Things are different now

        While computers have gotten more powerful there is zero evidence to support that we have gotten to the point where they could run a planned economy in any fashion.

        What about the fact that market-based responses to COVID were universally worse than centrally planned responses?