"however, when it happens in market economies, it is not caused by planning for greater efficiency (saving money)."
I think the author addressed that, writing:
> "For the capitalist or even market-socialist firm, there is in principle a simple objective function: profit, measured in dollars, or whatever else the local unit of account is."
"I disagree with that .. I think the objective is"
I'm not sure what you disagree with. My incomplete summary? The author also goes into detail about the problems in determining the objectives. I mentioned them in passing in my last line.
"In theory, perhaps"
Well, yes. That's because it's a response to the theoretical statement you wrote: "You can have an efficient system but it's robustness (ability to withstand a failure or adapt to change) will be very low."
Do you have any evidence that this is a universal statement?
Anyone worried about possible environmental catastrophes as the result of greenhouse gas omissions must certainly be wondering what can be done to include that robustness factor in a market economy.
I think the author addressed that, writing:
> "For the capitalist or even market-socialist firm, there is in principle a simple objective function: profit, measured in dollars, or whatever else the local unit of account is."
"I disagree with that .. I think the objective is"
I'm not sure what you disagree with. My incomplete summary? The author also goes into detail about the problems in determining the objectives. I mentioned them in passing in my last line.
"In theory, perhaps"
Well, yes. That's because it's a response to the theoretical statement you wrote: "You can have an efficient system but it's robustness (ability to withstand a failure or adapt to change) will be very low."
Do you have any evidence that this is a universal statement?
Anyone worried about possible environmental catastrophes as the result of greenhouse gas omissions must certainly be wondering what can be done to include that robustness factor in a market economy.