Open source economic planning

I'll be honest lad, sounds like council communism with the internet.

You're spooked by what is called democracy now. Majority rules voting is extremely undemocratic. No one would choose to have a society where how much iron ore is mined is voted on.

Open source software is the perfect example. 99% don't give a shit as long as it works .9% add minor tweaks, and .1% do all the heavy lifting

I wanted you to post it in the Cockshott thread lmao

Why not? We'd vote on a packet containing the procedures that determine how much iron ore needs to be mined.
This way we help make sure that these procedures really benefit the masses.

Are permitted to contribute or contribute? Because those things are different.

Also, you don't need to have much qualifications for the decision-making on upper level. Most of the work is collection of information, rather than evaluation of it.

Planning must proceed through several steps. People have rough estimates about a lot of things, but rarely precise numbers. Asking them for precise numbers about the future is asking them to talk like they are certain about issues when they are not, and it's not much different from asking whether you still beat your wife.

Software used in planning should support vague input options by default, to keep the model close to what people really know and how people think and talk about issues, instead of forcing people to contort themselves to give inputs that sometimes have to be bullshit just to fit within the formal straight-jacket a dumb design forces on them. For yes-no questions, the options "don't know" and "does not apply" must be part of the default design. For quantity estimates, the default should be that users can state an upper and lower bound. Not giving these options needs good justification. That the person writing a software for millions of people wants to skip doing some work here is not a good justification.

Quantity estimates could be set by median voting and related counting methods (by that I mean anything that orders answers from small to high and follows a rule on which end to start going over the answers and a percentage of answers you have to pass over before stopping and choosing that answer as a result). Decision bundles with many if-then relations in them don't really work with voting, here it makes sense to have individual leaders coming up with what to do. This argument for leadership is about a structural problem in decision making by groups and has nothing to do with claiming the leader must be more wise than average. It's really hard to figure out whether somebody is a good leader because different people in leading positions face very different challenges (even when it's the same position at different points in time), making comparisons very hard, so meritocracy here is largely an illusion, but you still need a leader. Leaders have an easier life than doers, and there is no shortage of people who wish to command around others, so there is no need to attract applicants for this with a salary higher than average (engineering is a different story).

There could be one or several point systems for budgets that people don't have, only institutions, to "rent" means of production and "buy" resources from a common pool, using artificial markets. But you can't reliably plan with budgets if price flexibility knows no limits. Suppose the value of 1000 Resource Points is fixed, so that an institution with the right of using RPs faces a fixed price for a resource basket with a specific mix of steel, petrol, and some other common inputs, but the prices of these inputs relative to another can change based on institutional demand. That means the price of the steel that forms a fraction of the things in the basket can never go higher than the price of the entire basket unit, as no subset of what's in the basket unit could be more expensive than the fixed price of the entire basket unit. So you can derive an upper bound for the maximum price of a quantity of a particular mix of inputs by figuring out how many basket units you would have to obtain to also get your mix as a subset present within that. There can be more constraints: A system of expiring tokens for a given pile of things can have players representing institutions with different rights, e.g. a substance that is dangerous might be only supplied to a few specific players representing institutions with proper storage facilities. It follows that the token "price" for this substance can't exceed the total token amount held by just this set of players. So, it's possible to figure out restrictions on "price" movements without any modelling of mental states of the players, instead just deriving that from the rules of the game.

Products and services could be grouped into tiers, so that production processes in high-importance tiers have prioritized access to resource pools.

Who decides who are 'people with qualifications in said field'? Do we vote for them? How is this different from a representative democracy?

Very nice post, user.

Software needs hardware to run and we all know Nazi's can't make shit without it best ng convoluted and closed source. For example, the main devs of GRsecurity killed the project by doing that.

Where do we need the estimates? I'm supposing we'd use a labor-token system to track general consumption behavior, like Cockshott proposes. Then we just study the behavior of consumers and try to prevent under- and overstocking.
I might be missing something obvious.

I imagine economy data-points being public. All goods are tracked throughout the economy in real time according to a unified protocol, and this information is broadcast throughout a decentralized network. Then, instead of using a powerful planning agency, the computation of the plan can be distributed and mutually checked.
Sensitive data can be overlooked by a number of agencies mutually performing a function of independent observer.

Estimates about the future, one year, two years, four years, ten years, twenty. You can't automate away that by applying a simple rule to current demand data.

Why not everybody?

Do we need to democratically determine numeric values here? It's much more reasonable to leave it to scientists. Whatever you do, you do need some model to predict it, and just aggregating people's vague impressions seems like a poor model.

How about we have different institutes and independent researchers make different studies and pass these through a form of liquid-democratic peer-review? They could perform all kinds of opinion-polling if it is necessary. Then the best-trusted models are taken as a basis for planning commitments, which are again openly scrutinized, until we get something that satisfies the population (or their delegates, the population doesn't need to be directly involved). Perhaps this can be a continual process, where new proposals for future investments are judged on the basis of the available information.

Over time we'd discover which methods of predicting future demand are the most effective, making this process much less chaotic than it is initially.

Do we need to democratically determine numeric values here? It's much more reasonable to leave it to scientists. Whatever you do, you do need some model to predict it, and just aggregating people's vague impressions seems like a poor model.

How about we have different institutes and independent researchers make different studies and pass these through a form of liquid-democratic peer-review? They could perform all kinds of opinion-polling if it is necessary. Then the best-trusted models are taken as a basis for planning commitments, which are again openly scrutinized, until we get something that satisfies the population (or their delegates, the population doesn't need to be directly involved). Perhaps this can be a continual process, where new proposals for future investments are judged on the basis of the available information.

Over time we'd discover which methods of predicting future demand are the most effective, making this process much less chaotic than it is initially.

Yes. I wasn't thinking about modelling the weather, but decisions about building up capacities, and these are always also political decisions with a ton of value judgements and not just about physically measuring some problem and then engineering around it.

Well an example of what I had in mind would be like the following.
You know stuff like that.
Because engineers are qualified.
Another example
You know stuff like that.
By having them pass a certification exam
There should also be a time period in which the decision is made.
Say 1 month for each decision or something like that.
And it'd all be posted in a website.

This is super vague and borderline "So like the freemarket gives jobs and people work, boom, paradise"
Nope. Technocracy is bad. """Specialists""" are just as capable of having class interests as everyone else. They will act to benefit themselves. Why would they know what people need, anyways? What does Paul Cockshott know about the needs of a Marine Science outpost in the Arctic? What do 10000 Paul Cockshotts acting independently know? The answer is nothing.
This is too messy. This is just a huge bureaucratic machine. People are going to all have their ideas about how to do things, and they are all going to make new plans! Out of 10000 people, I bet one thousand plans will be made. Then, each one will have to be reviewed to decide the best one. And God help you if anyone gets a bright idea about how to fix the plans… 1000 plans was totally a lowball. This would never work.
No, it wouldnt. This is just "enlightened scholar" class shit. And cumbersome. At least Plato had only one philosopher king.

Sorry, but under socialism your mum will need to take a different job as sex work won't be allowed anymore, schizo user.

Attached: Alunya holding you.jpg (457x572, 31.58K)

Paul Dickblast was just an example of someone knowledgable about economy, and even better, Computer Science. You guys used to upset me when you said stupid stuff like this. Now I just get this little pit feeling in my lungs.
Haha. I too have relations with your mom. Epic.

>Now I just get this little pit feeling in my lungs
That's a common symptom from sucking donkey dick.

Nobody is stopping someone from becoming certified
Well marine scientists would know
If the plan gets majority vote its approved if its vetoed it doesn't and a new plan is made.
It'd be more inefficient and cumbersome true, but it'd also be more democratic.

It's totally possible that people will be deprived of degrees based on their politics since having one will involve political power. Giving someone a degree will always be a political decision so it will be impossible to make it a neutral process. This is why I think that at least major decisions should decided by the people.

All knowledge is useful but should not be used to constraint an open source system, we should seek maximum flexibility and by that I mean that no matter the hierarchy of the principles that rule the rules below, it should be able to be subject to edition even this very same idea. The speed, the diversity of the experiments, the modes of voting, or even different and weirder methods, anything that our imagination can conceive should occur and all the ways to verify and justify knowledge. No language game is a priori true! It should be a system that in principle is as simple as it can possibly be so that it can accomodate for almost all possibilities, and actively work towards them as an actively open mind, one that keep accelerating its way to a multifaceted world of dynamic utopias, the perfect environment for creativity all because we decided to not ignore the other voices and thus to actively search to elucidate those blindspots as efficiently as it is possible, it's just the passion for alternatives that should drive us forward: say, you could even at this point in time perhaps look for people that are able to synthesize knowldge and search for conensus on whether the knowledge does represent the view of such ensemble of people. But that's just one way, you can assign some internet-based forum or something that allows people to ask questions about each part of every idea so that we can better listen and ground everyone's opinions logically and use the one that can best achieve the greatest objectives (that is, we should try not to be pedantic except for the unseen greater good), we could vote on values and propose different solutions to eachieve those values. All of you, all of your opinions are valid, and useful and true in their way but we have to discover in what way precisely, each one works and it's all part of an enormous system that doesn't necessarily need a bureaucracy because it's not a closed finished system but rather an increasingly open system that keeps expanding, that keeps flourishing the beauty of the collective! Starting all the way from some such default design! :D

I think there should be a referendum for budget allocation.

Attached: _44094063_tax_spending_gra416.gif (416x215, 9.43K)

gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html