Nobody is against planning, the point is different plans should be allowed to compete, as long as people are willing to put a personal stake into their plan tha

Nobody is against planning, the point is different plans should be allowed to compete, as long as people are willing to put a personal stake into their plan that carries consequences. Hence capitalism. Central planning eliminates the personal stakes, the competition and most of the individual consequences for the planners. In practice a hybrid approach often has advantages, particularly for very large scale projects which are meeting a vital need and where direct competition would be wasteful but you can still have contractors bid for the work. Major infrastructure such as bridges, airports, power generation. Bureaucratic central planning (government) can play a role in that, but government should have it's own competitive forces and accountability in the form of democratic elections. Many like yourself do see waste in this system and you are right, in any competition, either economic or political there are losers as well as winners and sometimes outcomes can be somewhat arbitrary. Whatever system we use we must deal with corruption and exploitation. While a confirmed capitalist, I strongly support basic social welfare and services in the European model. This system has proved in practice again and again to be far, far superior to all the alternatives, or the least worst among them anyway.