> But who guaranteed you a non depressing future? Why contingency plan? Your USSR analogy is apt but I think it makes my case. The USSR was planning the steel

> But who guaranteed you a non depressing future? Why contingency plan? Your USSR analogy is apt but I think it makes my case. The USSR was planning the steel production and its uses. Electricity is the single most useful good with the most diverse downstream uses. I am not saying we should command all the uses of the electricity! But command-economying the electricity production itself is the a no-brainer. One 6m and then 7m and then 8m all the way up to 20m. that is building increasingly bigger reactors with an efficient supply chain. You're over-using markets and doing so in a circular way with your argument. You are confusing actual uncertainty around the world with the uncertainty that comes from the decentralized, loosely coordinate market-governance mechanism itself! Some things are uncertain, and market are really great for small-scale experiments or "annealing" society. But or the brain-dead obvious things like "we need tons more electricity, rail, and dense housing ASAP!" there is no reason to rely on markets. A good society has a socialist foundation and capitalist superstructure: guarantee the basics, but have fun with the rest. That is already how rich people enjoy capitalism (wealthy family entrepreneurs are not so leveraged), let's just scale that out to everyone. We can't all be top X% wealth, but we can all live with less uncertainty.