3 ms·
Central planning probably had not hindered small scale production such as most military procurements (except ordinance). It really hurt them in the mass consume
by dilyevsky 3y ago
Central planning probably had not hindered small scale production such as most military procurements (except ordinance). It really hurt them in the mass consumer goods though... Rampant corruption and central government planning go hand-in-hand.
> Sure. There's a lot of stuff I wish we would nationalize, personally: basically everything that could reasonably be considered an essential, from healthcare to education to food to broadband, leaving aside things like video games, luxury cars, jewelry, blah blah. What is or isn't an "essential" is a necessarily moving target, evolving with society.
I for one would prefer essential services not to shutdown because of politics like what almost happened a week ago.
> However, I also have zero faith in Washington to execute anything remotely like that. Canada, maybe, or one of the Asian or Nordic governments...
Canada and europeans have historically failed to keep up with US despite (some would say "because") more government-centric approach. Exercise for the reader - which NATO countries are meeting its declared 2% millitary spending target if you don't include things like pensions.
- solardev 3y ago> Rampant corruption and central government planning go hand-in-hand. Yeah, but also seems to happen with big corporations. Power corrupts and all that. It's only human =/ > I for one would prefer essential services not to shutdown because of politics like what almost happened a week ago. Me too. I'd prefer the government not just randomly shut down every time the Republicans (it's always them, isn't it?) feel the need to virtue signal about some pop culture thing or another. Somehow most governments in the developed world manage to operate day to day without this constant threat. American exceptionalism rearing its ugly head again... > Canada and europeans have historically failed to keep up with US despite (some would say "because") more government-centric approach. Exercise for the reader - which NATO countries are meeting its declared 2% millitary spending target if you don't include things like pensions. For real? Who cares about NATO spending? Meanwhile they have functional governments, holidays, healthcare, education... the things that every citizen can use every day, and that you can afford when you're not trying to build up a 100x military that nobody else wants to pay for.