5 ms·

Except the cases where central planning works, like (DUH!) Minitel (until the internet came, it didn't fail, it just got upgraded, duh), going to the Moon (dist

Except the cases where central planning works, like (DUH!) Minitel (until the internet came, it didn't fail, it just got upgraded, duh), going to the Moon (distributed attempt at reaching the moon, also known as the living pyramid), justice system (as soon as you introduce the ability for appeal), the Internet, DNS system (it may be not centralized, but it is centrally planned), Google, Apple, and your own consciousness. Central planning never works.

randallsquared 15y ago
[...] and your own consciousness. I can't tell if the "central planning" you refer to with respect to consciousness is supposed to be a homunculus or an intelligent designer, but either way I disagree. Brains are pretty well distributed, and various degrees and kinds of brain damage have shown that no specific location is an inherently privileged "command center" of the brain; [different] people have continued to be thinking people without each part of it.
- LaGrange 15y ago
  I agree, I actually meant "central planning" as in "your behavior is centrally planned by your brain". "Consciousness" was a pretty awkwardly chosen word, obviously.
iwwr 15y ago
The problem is not that central planning fails to build a certain thing (like a bridge or a road), but that it diverts resources from more productive uses. Things that are built or created are visible, but they obscure the things that might have been created otherwise. We never actually get to know the ways resources might have been allocated otherwise; and indeed these other things may be mundane and boring, yet they are the consequence of the free choices of individuals. Of course, it can be argued that governments don't just do investments, that they can provide services that may be impossible to obtain otherwise. But when we wonder into real investment territory (like a particular bridge), we have to be able to produce a R.O.I. What we have to consider is that the alternative uses of the capital will contribute to economic growth and in a longer timeframe, the glamorous visible things like a space program may actually pay for themselves. Not only that, these expenditures will be self-sustaining and long lasting. Or otherwise said, money spent on space (and other visible things) without a R.O.I. is actually detracting from future growth and delaying actual practical space exploration.
- Duff 15y ago
  Problem is the wrong word. It's different. In central planning, the dynamics are different. Whomever influences the planners ultimately makes the decisions. The quality of those decisions depends on your perspective and the motivation of the influencers. In a pure capitalist model, you follow the money. Whomever has money influences the decisions. There's no right or wrong answer. Oftentimes valuable things appear as unintended consequences of government or commercial projects. It's hard to declare the internet to not be an example of central planning -- it was built to connect Federally funded labs at universities with Federal dollars. The labs existed to provide (indirectly or directly) research to serve defense and space (which i consider to be a subset of defense) interests. The difference between the French thing and the Internet is that key stakeholders in the government and academia saw the potential of computer networks as a driver of commerce at an opportune time. If that conclusion was made in 1978, we'd have the French thing on a terminal leased from AT&T or a baby bell. Equating a telecom system to a railroad, bridge, road, etc from a government POV was a big leap -- but the timing was probably more important and less obvious.
- Klinky 15y ago
  More productive is subjective. There is a lot of private capital spent on inane stuff. Also "central planning" is too broad a stroke. Are we talking about national central planning, i.e. government programs or are we also going to include central planning in corporate hierarchies, household hierarchies, software design or even things like activities directors in retirement facilities. All valid ways of describing centralized planning. Centralized planning is neither big nor small, you can have it at almost any level & it's success depends on the people involved. Which is why the vague statement made by the OP is somewhat confusing.

randallsquared 15y ago

[...] and your own consciousness. I can't tell if the "central planning" you refer to with respect to consciousness is supposed to be a homunculus or an intelligent designer, but either way I disagree. Brains are pretty well distributed, and various degrees and kinds of brain damage have shown that no specific location is an inherently privileged "command center" of the brain; [different] people have continued to be thinking people without each part of it.

LaGrange 15y ago
I agree, I actually meant "central planning" as in "your behavior is centrally planned by your brain". "Consciousness" was a pretty awkwardly chosen word, obviously.

iwwr 15y ago

The problem is not that central planning fails to build a certain thing (like a bridge or a road), but that it diverts resources from more productive uses. Things that are built or created are visible, but they obscure the things that might have been created otherwise. We never actually get to know the ways resources might have been allocated otherwise; and indeed these other things may be mundane and boring, yet they are the consequence of the free choices of individuals. Of course, it can be argued that governments don't just do investments, that they can provide services that may be impossible to obtain otherwise. But when we wonder into real investment territory (like a particular bridge), we have to be able to produce a R.O.I. What we have to consider is that the alternative uses of the capital will contribute to economic growth and in a longer timeframe, the glamorous visible things like a space program may actually pay for themselves. Not only that, these expenditures will be self-sustaining and long lasting. Or otherwise said, money spent on space (and other visible things) without a R.O.I. is actually detracting from future growth and delaying actual practical space exploration.

Duff 15y ago
Problem is the wrong word. It's different. In central planning, the dynamics are different. Whomever influences the planners ultimately makes the decisions. The quality of those decisions depends on your perspective and the motivation of the influencers. In a pure capitalist model, you follow the money. Whomever has money influences the decisions. There's no right or wrong answer. Oftentimes valuable things appear as unintended consequences of government or commercial projects. It's hard to declare the internet to not be an example of central planning -- it was built to connect Federally funded labs at universities with Federal dollars. The labs existed to provide (indirectly or directly) research to serve defense and space (which i consider to be a subset of defense) interests. The difference between the French thing and the Internet is that key stakeholders in the government and academia saw the potential of computer networks as a driver of commerce at an opportune time. If that conclusion was made in 1978, we'd have the French thing on a terminal leased from AT&T or a baby bell. Equating a telecom system to a railroad, bridge, road, etc from a government POV was a big leap -- but the timing was probably more important and less obvious.
Klinky 15y ago
More productive is subjective. There is a lot of private capital spent on inane stuff. Also "central planning" is too broad a stroke. Are we talking about national central planning, i.e. government programs or are we also going to include central planning in corporate hierarchies, household hierarchies, software design or even things like activities directors in retirement facilities. All valid ways of describing centralized planning. Centralized planning is neither big nor small, you can have it at almost any level & it's success depends on the people involved. Which is why the vague statement made by the OP is somewhat confusing.