4 ms·

Clearly leadership isn't sufficient. Central planning leadership under Mao led to poor results. Deng Xiaoping's reformation was to reduce centralized leadership

Clearly leadership isn't sufficient. Central planning leadership under Mao led to poor results. Deng Xiaoping's reformation was to reduce centralized leadership. Nor is central planning leadership necessary. The early United States overtook Great Britain as the largest economy with minimal central planning leadership.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Central planning is not sufficient, but your comment doesn't show that it is not necessary. Markets are fundamentally pretty different from when the US overtook GB as largest economy.
- statquontrarian 6y ago
  I've provided historical evidence, but you've just asserted something without evidence. A mercantilist in the 1700s could have made the same argument as you, and they would have been wrong. This is why political philosophy is important. The United States was largely an experiment in political philosophy and it succeeded... temporarily. Unfortunately, given that the modern world is largely run by either state-managed socialism or state-managed capitalism (neo-mercantilism), there will be no evidence to evaluate your hypothesis on Earth unless there is a mass depopulation (let's hope not). In my opinion, we will only have new political experimentation and innovation after we become a multi-planetary species. Political experimentation on Earth is too risky. Until then, pay your taxes to appease the increasingly dystopian and insatiable "leaders".
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Your characterization of the US as "centrally planned" seems incongruent enough with my starting assumptions that it's probably not worthwhile to have a conversation. There's no private property without "central planning" (as you characterize it) of some form.
    - statquontrarian 6y ago
      > it's probably not worthwhile to have a conversation. Please don't combine further arguments (which suggest you want to continue the dialogue) with a poisoning of the well. I've enjoyed our mini-conversation so far; if you don't, that's fine, but there's no added value in this part of your sentence. > Your characterization of the US as "centrally planned" In my opinion, the key metrics of central planning are the size of government (e.g. % GDP) and volume of its regulation. The point at which these become excessively centrally planned is hard to define. In my opinion, they have been consistently growing over the past few hundred years in the U.S. and are about 50% and excessive, respectively. I doubt they will cease to stop growing until collapse or malaise. > There's no private property without "central planning" (as you characterize it) of some form. I did mention "minimal" central planning; however, again, you're making an assertion of political philosophy. I do not believe private property requires central planning. See: The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer for example.
justicezyx 6y ago
> The early United States overtook Great Britain as the largest economy with minimal central planning leadership. There is no formal central planning. The early US presidents are very conscious of the prospect of the nation. They purposely expand the land, clear out regional security threats through wars, deliberately prioritize economical prosper over the claimed moral high grounds (slavery), foster rule by law and encourage participatory democracy. All these polices are markedly more coherent and centralized than modern day US policies. You should view totalitarian as a tool to achieve uniformity and consensus. But not disregard uniformity and consensus as being unnecessary foundation of strong nations. Plus, democracy is a mechanism to reach consensus in a human way, and should always be the most effective and efficient one, if citizens are informed and capable of independent thinking. The rationale men were not only the foundation of free market, they are equally important for democracy. When US leaders purposely dumb down their citizens, they are undermining the very foundation of the strength of democracy.

whimsicalism 6y ago

Central planning is not sufficient, but your comment doesn't show that it is not necessary. Markets are fundamentally pretty different from when the US overtook GB as largest economy.

statquontrarian 6y ago
I've provided historical evidence, but you've just asserted something without evidence. A mercantilist in the 1700s could have made the same argument as you, and they would have been wrong. This is why political philosophy is important. The United States was largely an experiment in political philosophy and it succeeded... temporarily. Unfortunately, given that the modern world is largely run by either state-managed socialism or state-managed capitalism (neo-mercantilism), there will be no evidence to evaluate your hypothesis on Earth unless there is a mass depopulation (let's hope not). In my opinion, we will only have new political experimentation and innovation after we become a multi-planetary species. Political experimentation on Earth is too risky. Until then, pay your taxes to appease the increasingly dystopian and insatiable "leaders".
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Your characterization of the US as "centrally planned" seems incongruent enough with my starting assumptions that it's probably not worthwhile to have a conversation. There's no private property without "central planning" (as you characterize it) of some form.
  - statquontrarian 6y ago
    > it's probably not worthwhile to have a conversation. Please don't combine further arguments (which suggest you want to continue the dialogue) with a poisoning of the well. I've enjoyed our mini-conversation so far; if you don't, that's fine, but there's no added value in this part of your sentence. > Your characterization of the US as "centrally planned" In my opinion, the key metrics of central planning are the size of government (e.g. % GDP) and volume of its regulation. The point at which these become excessively centrally planned is hard to define. In my opinion, they have been consistently growing over the past few hundred years in the U.S. and are about 50% and excessive, respectively. I doubt they will cease to stop growing until collapse or malaise. > There's no private property without "central planning" (as you characterize it) of some form. I did mention "minimal" central planning; however, again, you're making an assertion of political philosophy. I do not believe private property requires central planning. See: The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer for example.

justicezyx 6y ago

> The early United States overtook Great Britain as the largest economy with minimal central planning leadership. There is no formal central planning. The early US presidents are very conscious of the prospect of the nation. They purposely expand the land, clear out regional security threats through wars, deliberately prioritize economical prosper over the claimed moral high grounds (slavery), foster rule by law and encourage participatory democracy. All these polices are markedly more coherent and centralized than modern day US policies. You should view totalitarian as a tool to achieve uniformity and consensus. But not disregard uniformity and consensus as being unnecessary foundation of strong nations. Plus, democracy is a mechanism to reach consensus in a human way, and should always be the most effective and efficient one, if citizens are informed and capable of independent thinking. The rationale men were not only the foundation of free market, they are equally important for democracy. When US leaders purposely dumb down their citizens, they are undermining the very foundation of the strength of democracy.