3 ms·
History has proven how destructive central planning and government intervention is. Yet, most would find such claim to be debatable or even unacceptable.
by dataker 11y ago
History has proven how destructive central planning and government intervention is.
Yet, most would find such claim to be debatable or even unacceptable.
- FullyFunctional 11y agoHuh, how does that follow? This was clearly a case of terrible planning and disastrous intervention. That doesn't mean that all planning and all intervention is bad. Frankly, no planning is bad planning.
- dataker 11y ago'Terrible planning' ends up being 'too much planning'. In the end, Venezuelans were certainly trying to 'have the right plan' and 'build a better Venezuela', but because of the complexity of the economy, they were not able to grasp the tiny details and failed on their mission.
- zxcvcxz 11y agoThis is why I don't think top-down socialism will work in the US, we're just too economically, politically, and culturally diverse for one system. Now, on a state level I think in some places it could definitely thrive, but for some reason the leftists want everything done on a federal level, making it much harder to institute social programs and make them work.
- brc 11y agoI believe the OP means governments know that central planning is a compete failure but they just can't help themselves. Like alcoholics, 'a few beers' won't hurt. It's the same with planning - just a little five year plan. It won't hurt.
- BurningFrog 11y agoCentral planning is a single point of failure.