Is the dominating set problem restricted to planar bipartite graphs of maximum degree 3 NP-complete?

So if the "Socialist Calculation Problem" is real why isn't this a problem for the FED?

• It appears that Mises has been proven correct in regards to the calculation problem for communists, that the government, or anyone else for that matter, is unable to properly set prices and quantities of goods to reflect consumer demand, because value is subjective and, in collective form, impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy. So, this has me wondering, that if this is true for consumer goods in general, why isn't a problem for the FED? Does their latest inability to see the financial crisis coming prove that they indeed have the same problem? Are they actually able to properly set the quantity of money, and in theory the price of money, to avoid the excesses and shortages that plagued the former Soviet economy? Why or why not?

• Answer:

  "So, this has me wondering, that if this is true for consumer goods in general, why isn't a problem for the FED?" It is a problem for the Fed. They also can't figure out whether they're producing too much, too little, or the right amount of money or credit. They also have the added problem, that there is a direct conflict of interest between the Fed on the one hand, and the public who are "consuming" their "services" on the other. It is in the interest of the Fed, their political masters, the banks, and the whole industry of economists who have a vested interest in the Fed, to favour permanent inflation. But this works by diluting the stock of money, and robbing the ordinary people, at the rate of inflation. "Does their latest inability to see the financial crisis coming prove that they indeed have the same problem?" Yes. "Are they actually able to properly set the quantity of money, and in theory the price of money, to avoid the excesses and shortages that plagued the former Soviet economy?" No. They have exactly the same problem that plagued the former Soviet economy, for all the same reasons. Both the artificial boom and the resulting depression are examples of the excesses and shortages, as concerns money, that typified the former Soviet economy, and any attempt at central planning. "Why or why not?" Because to set the quantity of money "properly", we have to ask first, what is the definition of properly? Interest, the price of borrowing money, is because everyone universally prefers the satisfaction of a given want sooner, rather than later. If I offer you $10,000 now or in 20 years time, or in one year's time, which do you choose? Well everyone else is the same. This time preference is a universally true proposition of human action: it it wasn't, we'd never eat, we'd never get dressed, we'd never work. The market phenomenon of Interest arises because both the lender and the borrower put a higher value on consuming now than waiting until the future. The lender, by lending, agrees to delay his gratification, and because of time preference, that is valuable. It's worth money. How much, depends on the borrower's time preference. It's different for different people, and it's changing all the time. And same with lenders. However prices on a competitive market tend toward equilibrium. This means that person A, wondering whether to pay 10% interest on a loan, looks around and sees what other people are paying. If he sees they're paying 7%, he doesn't borrow at 10, but keeps looking for a lender who will lend at 7. So the price *tends* to equilibrate (but it never *reaches* equilibrium, because new data are always entering the market, new values, new innovations, new risks, new droughts, and so on.) So the basic data to set the interest rate "properly" are the *subjective* evaluations of all the people using money. And remember society doesn't stop at the border - the state does, not society. So the basic problem facing the Fed, is the same as that facing any central planners including the Soviets. How can the chairman, or a committee of boffins, possibly know the subjective evaluations of dispersed hundreds of millions of people, which in any event are constantly changing? Answer: they can't. When you think about it, it's a ridiculous idea, and there is neither any a) reason, or b) evidence for thinking that they can. Thus the Fed can't do it in theory, let alone in practice. On the other hand, what's happening is that the government grants permission to do what would otherwise be illegal as fraud - namely, counterfeit - that has explaining power. The banks gain permission to profit from lending out money credits unbacked by money on deposit, thus making money out of thin air. The government gets a cut of the loot; for example the Fed itself gets 6% - and they can use this to fund aggressive war and handouts to pet favourites. And the ordinary Joe pays for it a) in the direct loss of purchasing power b) in the destruction of his savings c) in the distortion of the whole structure of production towards loss-making activities (that appear profitable owing to the rising prices) d) in the privileges given to his neo-feudal overlords e) in the bankruptcies, unemployment and hardship caused from the resulting depression e) in the waste and destructiveness of war, handouts to big corporations, and the rise of fascism promoted by inflationary policies.