3 ms·

If central planning is so inadequate, why are all the most successful capitalist corporations using it? I don't know any highly profitable company that operates

If central planning is so inadequate, why are all the most successful capitalist corporations using it? I don't know any highly profitable company that operates in a decentralised way. They are very hierarchical, with organisational power concentrated at the top.

xtian 6y ago
The most famous example is when Sears was internally organized around free market ideology by an Ayn Rand adherent. It did not go well. Declining profits drove a viscous cycle of back-stabbing and secrecy among competing units inside the company. My impression is that the people who argue against central planning always rationalize backwards from a pre-established conclusion. The fact is that the experiment has never been allowed to proceed on a national scale without violent undermining from the forces of private capital, both internal and external.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > My impression is that the people who argue against central planning always rationalize backwards from a pre-established conclusion. If you study the origins of central planning and the birth of the progressive movement in the early 20th century, you'll see that private capital loved central planning. Notions of ultimate efficiency through experts directing organizations through central planning went hand-in-hand with a lot of evil stuff. The obsession with perfection through "science" and tending to the "societal organism" was really contra the idea of free markets, individual rights, etc. They drew on evolution in precisely the worst way(narcissism and hubris). Whereas Hayek draws on evolution to say that culture and society develops through independent actors discovering traditions, organizations, etc. Through the observation of many people/organizations attempting things and either failing or succeeding, society picks up things to copy and reproduce - the lesson being that we can't direct evolution, it emerges!
  - xtian 6y ago
    I agree, it’s well documented that private capital loves fascism and totalitarianism. I’m speaking of socialist central planning though. The idea that free-marketism provides the ideal environment for human freedom and societal development is just demonstrably false in so many ways.
- trunc8 6y ago
  While his company and name seem to trigger a whole lot of people, Charles Koch has applied such a free market philosophy throughout his company, which is undoubtedly successful. I would recommend reading his book (Good Profit) to get a viewpoint of his approach, though unfortunately bias will preclude many from this.
  - xtian 6y ago
    Do you have any sources which aren't the person in charge congratulating themselves?
CWuestefeld 6y ago
He deals with this kind of question explicitly. Humans have evolved to be able to work efficiently at tribal sizes - this is Dunbar's Number. So yeah, you'll see organization around this size doing very well. But as companies grow beyond that, you'll see them turn into the hulking dinosaurs that can no longer operate agilely. Hayek talks about the error of trying to use in government that in-built but limited capacity for managing relationships at too great a scale.

xtian 6y ago

The most famous example is when Sears was internally organized around free market ideology by an Ayn Rand adherent. It did not go well. Declining profits drove a viscous cycle of back-stabbing and secrecy among competing units inside the company. My impression is that the people who argue against central planning always rationalize backwards from a pre-established conclusion. The fact is that the experiment has never been allowed to proceed on a national scale without violent undermining from the forces of private capital, both internal and external.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> My impression is that the people who argue against central planning always rationalize backwards from a pre-established conclusion. If you study the origins of central planning and the birth of the progressive movement in the early 20th century, you'll see that private capital loved central planning. Notions of ultimate efficiency through experts directing organizations through central planning went hand-in-hand with a lot of evil stuff. The obsession with perfection through "science" and tending to the "societal organism" was really contra the idea of free markets, individual rights, etc. They drew on evolution in precisely the worst way(narcissism and hubris). Whereas Hayek draws on evolution to say that culture and society develops through independent actors discovering traditions, organizations, etc. Through the observation of many people/organizations attempting things and either failing or succeeding, society picks up things to copy and reproduce - the lesson being that we can't direct evolution, it emerges!
- xtian 6y ago
  I agree, it’s well documented that private capital loves fascism and totalitarianism. I’m speaking of socialist central planning though. The idea that free-marketism provides the ideal environment for human freedom and societal development is just demonstrably false in so many ways.
trunc8 6y ago
While his company and name seem to trigger a whole lot of people, Charles Koch has applied such a free market philosophy throughout his company, which is undoubtedly successful. I would recommend reading his book (Good Profit) to get a viewpoint of his approach, though unfortunately bias will preclude many from this.
- xtian 6y ago
  Do you have any sources which aren't the person in charge congratulating themselves?

CWuestefeld 6y ago

He deals with this kind of question explicitly. Humans have evolved to be able to work efficiently at tribal sizes - this is Dunbar's Number. So yeah, you'll see organization around this size doing very well. But as companies grow beyond that, you'll see them turn into the hulking dinosaurs that can no longer operate agilely. Hayek talks about the error of trying to use in government that in-built but limited capacity for managing relationships at too great a scale.