Michael Albert wrote:
> Well, no...this is not what happens. Rather it is an back and forth --
> technical word is iterative -- process between consumers and
> producers,
> and computers only massage information to provide feedback as to what
> the totals are, what it means for relative valuations, etc. etc.
this iterative process takes time, no?
> > But: if the planning program doesn't work perfectly (since
> > nothing does), don't coordinators at the planning agency have
> > to step in and fix the results, either in the plan or in its
> > application? doesn't this mean that we could see the rise of
> > a coordinator class, exploiting its central role in the
> > system to gain greater power?
>
> No. I don't think so. But I will be interested when you take a look at
> the model -- if you get a chance to do so -- what you think.
If the process takes time, then it's possible that the iteration would be finished long after it should be. Commune A wants to produce X and buy Y, but can't do so until the planning process is done? they can then trade with commune B, which is also jumping the gun. That opens the door for needing the coordinator class to clean up the situation if A acts before the plan is set.
Reading Albert & Hahnel, it seems that the planning process is a substitute for the Walrasian auctioneer or _tantonnement_ (as with Lange's version of socialism). My point above is that the actual operations of the plan might allow what some refer to as "false trading" (trading at non-equilibrium prices).
> But, in addition, even if facilitators of the planning
> process -- people
> who work in infomration handling operations, etc., did have to do
> something that wasn't simply hueristic and algorithmic...and I think a
> parecon might well decide to let them -- this would not permit them to
> rise in class status. They still have only balanced job complexes and
> are only remunerated like everyone else, etc.
If they have an information advantage, why can't they use that advantage? Can't their balanced job complex as a whole take advantage?
> Take a look at the book -- honestly -- it does deal with such matters.
okay.
Jim Devine