Google = future Skynet? :P

It would not make a difference with today's technology, people would still mess with the data going in the system.

As opposed to how well we predict them? ;)

We don't have to. ;)

The price of light crude begs to differ :P

Holy shit, dude, I just made a silly remark. Way to overinterpret my post.

Er?
I mean, we don't have to form x-year plans. You don't know what You'll do in a week or a month, now try to plan Your life 5 years ahead. Then try to keep up to that plan when things go sideways.

This forum is infested with trolls. And a lot of them, try to mess with me. I made a lot of childish people here butt hurt in the past and their idea of revenge is trolling me for a year or two. And you did ask me if I meant a country that is hell on Earth for it's citizens is a stable and happy place... It sounds like something a low level troll would say. Not something a higher ranking troll would say though. They are a lot more sneaky. Should I just automatically assume, you were making a joke? OR would it better to ask? Well you told me you just made a silly remark so I'm dropping it. But I had to ask. You would be questioning people's replies too if you became of the target of multiple troll revenge campaigns.

One person can't, but societies can and do. They have for millenia. Markets deal in uncertainties and futures all the time! Really, contingencies and accounting for uncertainties will not be something that a centralised economy would differ in from a free-market-based one, like today's. If anything, a well-coordinated system would be able to minimise some of those uncertainties, even while it can do little about the other ones. But it will certainly remain aware of them.

Then we're dealing with a lot of room for human error, and that'll end up just like it did with ethe Soviet block. I doubt people make an iron plan for 5 years when opening a business these days. In this system a computer tells You what to do, sets Your quota, and Your price. I don't think we can call it a market. As to the well coordinated system, well, i started out saying, such a system is sctrictly scifi. Planned economy only works in very simple systems, such as games.

I'd have to agree, if only because there would be zero political will and funding behind it. For everything else, you're just looking at it too literally/simplistically. There's aspects of managed economies all around us today, and they work very well, usually much better than the total market. I'd urge you to consider the possibilities, rather than just discarding it as unthinkable.

We have a mixed system here, the public side is closer to "not working at all" than anything else. After taking almost 50 years of real socialism, and 25 years of a mixed system into account i'll have to politely decline. Thanks for the exchange, and have a great day. ;)

You're not the only one who's lived in the socialist "utopia". Having experienced a decent chunk of both worlds, I'd very much like it if people didn't rush to throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to centralised economies. If there's one thing the Warsaw pact lacked severely, it was real socialism.

It will never work. It will cause shortages and poverty. A central authority cannot calculate how many T-Shirts we need, or how many tonnes of rice to produce. Maybe some people don't eat rice. Some might want regular shirts. It would be impossible to regulate an economy centrally because there are n (number of people) * m (number of product types and variations) variables, and people's preferences change constantly. So as "wasteful" or bad the free market would be, it's still the most efficient way.

There is already a lot of computerized economy. From supply chain management to stock trading. However, there is a fundamental issue with prediction, even assuming you could develop such a huge machine and appropriate algorithms (not a given). We humans are by nature unpredictable, the paradox is easy to see. If the machine predicts something, we can choose to ignore it, selling shorter or buying higher because of whatever personal value.

Others already made similar points. It's an information theory thing.
First assumption is that human values can be computed.
Second assumption that human action cannot act against the computation.

But again, in practice we already have a lot of 'planned economy'. Not of the kind socialists usually mean when they use the expression, rather in assistance of market processes, making whatever the information more visible, faster. And to be honest, we also have a lot of planned economy in the more traditional sense. Social democracy is the rule rather than the exception, and I'd say the inefficiencies are obvious, though it does achieve some social economic homogeneity.

Human values, human action, you can't get around it unless you go full totalitarian.