> One doubt about the evidence might lie in the comparability of estimates obtained from separate studies, although Table 1 addresses this issue by matching studies with similar methodologies. One study, Koopman (1989b), employs observations on both centrally planned and market economies, thus providing direct comparability. He uses observations for 1960-79 for Soviet republics and a matched sample of Canadian provinces, U.S. states, and Finland, and employs a translog functional form that allows for differences in technology between Soviet and non-Soviet regions. The average level of technical efficiency in Soviet agriculture is estimated at 93 percent, while it is 92 percent for agriculture in the market economies.
I forget the sci-fi author and books, but a central theme was that AI results in a de-facto centrally planned economy, even though the AIs themselves are using free-market like behaviors.
You'd be happy with a "competent" planner telling you where you could work, what you could earn, where you could live, how many kids you could have, etc?
And that doesn't happen now in the US? Your boss does all of these things. Sure, you can quit, but there goes your health insurance and good luck finding another job unless you're in the Hacker News demographic.
I don't know about you, but my boss has no say in how many kids I have or specifically where I live, and any effort he makes to impact these things is not enforced by the state.
Central planning does not require micro-management and one could easily imagine a system where central planning provides a person with more options than what a free market provides a lower income individual.
Since people tend to want more, and since we're all subject to boundary conditions posed by nature, compromises need to be made in certain cases. A good example is the driving situations in Japan/China where if you have an even numbered license plate you can only drive on certain days.
Also, central planning != micro management. Just general guidelines similar to things like building codes. But really, not sure how it would really work.
More to the point, is your neighbor going to be happy? Is the new immigrant going to be happy? Are your children going to be happy?
Many people might think they can say yes to that question as their personal opinion, but I think it's easier to understand how it's hard for people to answer "yes" in general. For one thing, everybody always thinks they deserve more. It matters very little how much they already have.
Qualifications, minimum wage, property laws... 3 out of 4 of those things at the moment have government bounds on them in some sense or another, and that with fairly questionable planning.
Edit: Oh right, yeah, duh: minimum age before you can decide for yourself whether you have an abortion or not.
http://econweb.umd.edu/~murrell/Articles/Can%20Neoclassical%...
> One doubt about the evidence might lie in the comparability of estimates obtained from separate studies, although Table 1 addresses this issue by matching studies with similar methodologies. One study, Koopman (1989b), employs observations on both centrally planned and market economies, thus providing direct comparability. He uses observations for 1960-79 for Soviet republics and a matched sample of Canadian provinces, U.S. states, and Finland, and employs a translog functional form that allows for differences in technology between Soviet and non-Soviet regions. The average level of technical efficiency in Soviet agriculture is estimated at 93 percent, while it is 92 percent for agriculture in the market economies.