Multiple discoveries are in fact very common in science and for much the same reason. Developments in related fields with different motivation help o… - Kenneth Arrow

The implications for planning are ambiguous. On the one hand, the optimal allocation under increasing returns will not be obtained under free markets. In fact, as I have already remarked, the competitive equilibrium is not even viable, and the outcome will be some kind of imperfect competition. But optimal allocation under increasing returns is difficult. For one thing, the optimisation requires the use of integer programming, a procedure intrinsically more complex than linear programming, and impossible to carry out for large systems even with the most powerful computers. Even more serious are the data demands. The information needed is widely dispersed among the industries and cannot be effectively communicated. It is for these reasons that decentralised decision-making with some element of monopoly is likely to be more efficient.

What can be concluded? We cannot be sure that the principles of democracy and socialism are compatible until we can observe a viable society following both principles. But there is no convincing evidence or reasoning which would argue that a democratic-socialist movement is inherently self-contradictory. Nor need we fear that gradual moves in the direction of increasing government intervention will lead to an irreversible move to “serfdom.”

Unfortunately, the word 'learning' is a very general word. It isn't a very specific theory and we can have a lot of learning models, and it's unlikely that any one is going to track. When you talk about learning, you talk about the human mind adapting to conditions, and we haven't nailed that down very well. This is always an objection to the whole idea of bounded rationality. Not that it's wrong, but if it's right, it doesn't actually tell you what to do. Rationality is unique. That isn't really quite true, but at least under many circumstances it is. To say that we're not at the top of a hill gives you a lot of variety as to where you might be. So the problem with bounded rationality is not that it's wrong. On the contrary, I think it's very apt to be correct. It's just that its predictions are a lot more vague than those implied by rationality. At the moment, I don't know what to do about that.