Is growth in the financial sector good for the economy?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

A good model would be an improvement on what we have now. But you need to talk to heterodox economists to get the good models, and that's unlikely to happen for political reasons.

Also don't forget the somewhat more intractable philosophical problem of whats actually good for you vs what you superficially want vs what you actually want, and our recent history of spending trillions on PR to intentionally confuse people about those three. I think we can safely assume that it'll be very cheap and easy to keep almost everyone unhappy about "the" central plan, which will be weaponized by factions.

Looking at how the disease of Puritanism has infected most of our culture pretty deeply, you can expect a similar meme infection in a centrally planned economy. So even assuming there is a "True" ideal state, we'll have infections and need an immune system. Merely computing faster or more complicated models is like assuming yeast are diseased and whales are disease free merely because of size and complication differential. What we do know from biology is the more mono-cultural and rigid something is, the more likely it is to get wiped out, and the analogy to central planning would be it'll inevitably get wiped out by meme diseases, so the best long term central plan might ironically be to not centrally plan.

I suppose, though, that you could at least use sufficiently advanced algorithms to monitor supply levels and inventories and sales to adjust prices so you can bring back some measure of the price-signaling mechanism that central planning has traditionally lacked... if the guy in charge isn't tempted to fiddle with prices for political reasons. Looking at some extant central-planning huggers like Tom Steyer (who wants to investigate/punish/tax oil firms because California regulations make gas more expensive than elsewhere in the nation) you can color me skeptical of the premise.

this is of course valid for humans, who have all kinds of flaws, some more than others. so you propose to give power to software, who by principle always has... flaws. imagine how juicy this thing would be for hackers, who would have billions-big incentives from shady business people to nudge decisions in their favors... silly naive people :)

What I would suggest - let some state of the art simulation run along the humans, and evaluate its decisions after some time passes, to clearly see who made the right one, in long term. after there is some long term perception that computer is clear winner (definitely not below 10-20 year mark of steady performance), we can move that way. and always, always have some sort of semi-neutral commitee to oversee and accept/reject all important stuff (with necessary reasoning, not on whims of current most powerful one). make it as transparent as possible. -- do you think this is real? no way, when looking at how shady today's politics are done, be it US, europe or any other place...