6 ms·

Only by straw-manning the idea. What you've written there doesn't disprove anything. We've seen in real life that a large corporation can plan a proportion of a

by zzbzq 3y ago

Only by straw-manning the idea. What you've written there doesn't disprove anything. We've seen in real life that a large corporation can plan a proportion of an economy. What you have to prove, in order to repudiate central planning, is prove that there exists some maximum proportion of an economy that can be planned. And even then, a simple workaround would be to artificially recreate such maximums within the central structure. I think you're just not very imaginative.

karaterobot 3y ago
> We've seen in real life that a large corporation can plan a proportion of an economy. What you have to prove, in order to repudiate central planning, is prove that there exists some maximum proportion of an economy that can be planned. If the examples of large corporations planning a proportion of an economy count as an argument for why central planning could work, then surely the examples of actual, centrally-planned economies failing should count as arguments for why they don't. I mean, don't toss out the actual examples for the metaphorical ones.
- stelonix 3y ago
  You mean examples why they didn't. Just because Starship exploded at launch it does not prove all Starships are going to explode. Likewise, if you have a handful of trials of planned economy it does not imply the whole concept is infeasible. Stating otherwise is fallacious.
  - etrautmann 3y ago
    Ah yes, on the 205th try we'll finally nail this impossibly complex and moving target.
- assbuttbuttass 3y ago
  The problem with that argument is you have to argue that the USSR failed because of central planning, when the reality is their centrally planned economy succeeded in industrializing a majority-peasant agricultural country, defeating the nazis in world war 2, and launching a man into space. I'm not blind to the many flaws of the soviet union, but it's a bit absurd to point to it as a failure of central planning.
foobiekr 3y ago
The difference is that the corporation can die. Not so government programs.
- pc86 3y ago
  Government programs are cancelled all the time.
  - foobiekr 3y ago
    Not because they failed, though.
monero-xmr 3y ago
A corporation can execute the creation of consumer or producer goods for sale to the market, earning a profit greater than the sum of the inputs. Corporations execute on that specific mission with a goal of maximizing profit. A side-effect of this (in a truly free market) is to ensure the customer, who should be able to freely to purchase from any producer, is maximally satisfied. It also follows that a corporation will try and reduce their costs on all possible axes - from inputs, to labor, to production time, to tax mitigation, etc. If you try to extend "producing goods" to "every good possible for all people", it cannot possibly work, because a corporation cannot even satisfy the needs of consumers within their narrow band of production (or else competitors wouldn't exist, and further enhancements of products would be unnecessary).
- cced 3y ago
  > greater than the sum of the inputs Oh please, they get to rob workers of necessities of life and capitalize on their pity wages. Take a look at Walmart employees on food stamps and talk about producing value equal to more than the sum of the parts; the government is subsidizing their food.
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    That is a political decision that the USA made, and one could that also be changed through the political process - by subsidizing all manner of social benefits (healthcare, housing, food, and so on) the US government enables private businesses to hire employees at a lower wage without social upheaval. I would argue this is inferior to providing no social benefits whatsoever in order that corporations would have to bear more of the cost, rather than indirectly through taxes.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  1. we do not charter corporations so that they may chase profits, we charter them because we believe that without limited liability, certain things that we as a society (or as a monarch) want done will not happen. If that was not the case, we would not have corporations at all, simply partnerships between various sized groups of individuals who decided to risk their personal fortune (in all senses) on some venture that could not be accomplished alone. 2. in situations of monopoly or close to it, corporations do in fact indulge in central planning for an entire economy. You may choose to put your faith in the idea that their chasing profits mean that their decisions will be the ones we would make as a society, but there's no inherent reason for this to be true. There are often multiple pathways to the same profit, with different side effects and different levels of organizational commitment; as a society we might prefer a corporation to pick one route, but it picks the other.
bretticus 3y ago
> We've seen in real life that a large corporation can plan a proportion of an economy. No we haven’t. Look at the list of Fortune 500 companies today vs 50 years ago. The landscape is completely different. IBM was the most innovative company in America and now it's seen as a dinosaur. Corporations die each year. It’s cutthroat; your business is more likely to fail than succeed. The idea that Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell could do a better job planning the economy is laughable
RandomLensman 3y ago
Corporations fail a lot in their plans. On top, not certain that the planning aspect is what gives rise to corporations in the first place (vs., e.g, transaction costs between independent actors if there where no corporation).
olalonde 3y ago
That's redefining what "centrally planned" means. Corporations are subject to competitive pressures: they rapidly lose their ability to "plan" when they stop "planning" well. There's no comparable mechanism when it comes to top-down government planning.
refurb 3y ago
Considering the number of large corporations that go bankrupt, I think it's pretty good they can't plan a proportion of the economy. They aren't planing anything, they are responding to the environment. Sometimes they get it right and profit, other times they get it wrong and fail.

by zzbzq 3y ago

karaterobot 3y ago

> We've seen in real life that a large corporation can plan a proportion of an economy. What you have to prove, in order to repudiate central planning, is prove that there exists some maximum proportion of an economy that can be planned. If the examples of large corporations planning a proportion of an economy count as an argument for why central planning could work, then surely the examples of actual, centrally-planned economies failing should count as arguments for why they don't. I mean, don't toss out the actual examples for the metaphorical ones.

stelonix 3y ago
You mean examples why they didn't. Just because Starship exploded at launch it does not prove all Starships are going to explode. Likewise, if you have a handful of trials of planned economy it does not imply the whole concept is infeasible. Stating otherwise is fallacious.
- etrautmann 3y ago
  Ah yes, on the 205th try we'll finally nail this impossibly complex and moving target.
assbuttbuttass 3y ago
The problem with that argument is you have to argue that the USSR failed because of central planning, when the reality is their centrally planned economy succeeded in industrializing a majority-peasant agricultural country, defeating the nazis in world war 2, and launching a man into space. I'm not blind to the many flaws of the soviet union, but it's a bit absurd to point to it as a failure of central planning.

foobiekr 3y ago

The difference is that the corporation can die. Not so government programs.

pc86 3y ago
Government programs are cancelled all the time.
- foobiekr 3y ago
  Not because they failed, though.

monero-xmr 3y ago

A corporation can execute the creation of consumer or producer goods for sale to the market, earning a profit greater than the sum of the inputs. Corporations execute on that specific mission with a goal of maximizing profit. A side-effect of this (in a truly free market) is to ensure the customer, who should be able to freely to purchase from any producer, is maximally satisfied. It also follows that a corporation will try and reduce their costs on all possible axes - from inputs, to labor, to production time, to tax mitigation, etc. If you try to extend "producing goods" to "every good possible for all people", it cannot possibly work, because a corporation cannot even satisfy the needs of consumers within their narrow band of production (or else competitors wouldn't exist, and further enhancements of products would be unnecessary).

cced 3y ago
> greater than the sum of the inputs Oh please, they get to rob workers of necessities of life and capitalize on their pity wages. Take a look at Walmart employees on food stamps and talk about producing value equal to more than the sum of the parts; the government is subsidizing their food.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  That is a political decision that the USA made, and one could that also be changed through the political process - by subsidizing all manner of social benefits (healthcare, housing, food, and so on) the US government enables private businesses to hire employees at a lower wage without social upheaval. I would argue this is inferior to providing no social benefits whatsoever in order that corporations would have to bear more of the cost, rather than indirectly through taxes.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
1. we do not charter corporations so that they may chase profits, we charter them because we believe that without limited liability, certain things that we as a society (or as a monarch) want done will not happen. If that was not the case, we would not have corporations at all, simply partnerships between various sized groups of individuals who decided to risk their personal fortune (in all senses) on some venture that could not be accomplished alone. 2. in situations of monopoly or close to it, corporations do in fact indulge in central planning for an entire economy. You may choose to put your faith in the idea that their chasing profits mean that their decisions will be the ones we would make as a society, but there's no inherent reason for this to be true. There are often multiple pathways to the same profit, with different side effects and different levels of organizational commitment; as a society we might prefer a corporation to pick one route, but it picks the other.

bretticus 3y ago

> We've seen in real life that a large corporation can plan a proportion of an economy. No we haven’t. Look at the list of Fortune 500 companies today vs 50 years ago. The landscape is completely different. IBM was the most innovative company in America and now it's seen as a dinosaur. Corporations die each year. It’s cutthroat; your business is more likely to fail than succeed. The idea that Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell could do a better job planning the economy is laughable

RandomLensman 3y ago

Corporations fail a lot in their plans. On top, not certain that the planning aspect is what gives rise to corporations in the first place (vs., e.g, transaction costs between independent actors if there where no corporation).

olalonde 3y ago

That's redefining what "centrally planned" means. Corporations are subject to competitive pressures: they rapidly lose their ability to "plan" when they stop "planning" well. There's no comparable mechanism when it comes to top-down government planning.

refurb 3y ago

Considering the number of large corporations that go bankrupt, I think it's pretty good they can't plan a proportion of the economy. They aren't planing anything, they are responding to the environment. Sometimes they get it right and profit, other times they get it wrong and fail.