5 ms·

Ahh.. the unintended consequences of central planning.

by j_m_b 11y ago

Blackthorn 11y ago
You can't really knock this one on central planning alone, more that central planning didn't really understand the context of the society around them when they made the policy. If China hadn't been so insanely patriarchal, a one-child policy wouldn't have given parents there an incentive to abort their baby girls.
- 300bps 11y ago
  You can't really knock this one on central planning alone, more that central planning didn't really understand That sums up the problem with central planning. There are too many variables for any individual or organization to track let alone make decisions on.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    It's more accurate to say this is the problem with central planning in the large ("command economies" in the context of a nation state) where issues with calculation and signal distortion start to set in. Otherwise central planning in the small with the likes of cooperatives or business plans is pretty uncontroversial, as they harbor less externalities.
    - hydrogen18 11y ago
      You say this is a problem with "central planning in the large". That is just a problem with central planning. Otherwise the opposite would be "central planning in the small". One person selecting the dinner location for four friends doesn't constitute central planning.
LiweiZ 11y ago
The planners don't care about the consequences. They have their fortune overseas. It's rather a failure of decoupled interests between them and the the rest of people. [edit]: typo
glesica 11y ago
Yeah, they're basically just like the unintended consequences of relying entirely on markets.
mullen 11y ago
I am pretty sure when China started the one-child policy, they knew what would happen. The Chinese are not stupid.
- MrZongle2 11y ago
  No, the Chinese are no less intelligent than any other group of people. Their leaders, on the other hand, could be incredibly stupid. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Great_Leap_Forward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Great_Leap_Forward
  - mullen 11y ago
    Not a good comparison since everything Mao did was about politics not about bettering the lives of anyone else but himself. The Cultural Revolution was his creation and he created it so that he could have a huge mob to attack who he want attacked. Mao did nothing great or forward thinking except die. After he died, the real modern changes come to China.
snowwrestler 11y ago
I think it remains to be shown whether these consequences were unintended. The point of the one-child policy was to limit population growth. A gender imbalance which leads to women being more independent and marrying later advances that goal very well.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  Trust me. Population limiting was intended but gender imbalance was Definitely NOT intended.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Furthermore, the number of females determines the size of the next generation to a far greater extent than the number of males. Or at least that's the way it works for most mammals. All they really need now is some way to get rid of their least-fit excess males, so they don't get all angry and rebellious on them. What the central planners really need now is some sort of grand, state-funded enterprise wherein a few million young, unmarried men would get killed, without too much blame accruing to the state. Now what sort of project could do that? I feel somehow that building up reef islands in the South China Sea might somehow be relevant, but I don't imagine that an oceanic construction crew would kill more than a dozen or so workers per year, and people would blame lax safety standards.... Hang on. I need to put my foil hat on.... Ah. Got it. They need to start a war with someone who is well-supplied with military technology, but not actually another superpower, or too closely allied with one, because that could quickly spiral out of control. Option 1 is China versus Malaysia-Vietnam-Philippines. Option 2 is China versus India. Option 3 is to cultivate an Uighur terrorist attack, and use that as pretext to invade Afghanistan, which has faithfully served as meat grinder for so many superpowers already. Or maybe they could just use fluoride and phytoestrogens to make those males infertile, or use high-flying planes to spray chemtr--whoops, this hat needs to come off now.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
Without central planning though, the entire situation would be an unintended consequence. Centralization has both benefits and drawbacks just like an unregulated situation. In california we're trying to build a high speed train across the state. It's taking years for this happen with no end in sight. It's largely due to lack of funding and a lot of decentralized opposition. In china, thanks to centralized planning, they can build the same public project in two years.

Ahh.. the unintended consequences of central planning.

by j_m_b 11y ago

Ahh.. the unintended consequences of central planning.

You can't really knock this one on central planning alone, more that central planning didn't really understand the context of the society around them when they made the policy. If China hadn't been so insanely patriarchal, a one-child policy wouldn't have given parents there an incentive to abort their baby girls.

300bps 11y ago
You can't really knock this one on central planning alone, more that central planning didn't really understand That sums up the problem with central planning. There are too many variables for any individual or organization to track let alone make decisions on.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  It's more accurate to say this is the problem with central planning in the large ("command economies" in the context of a nation state) where issues with calculation and signal distortion start to set in. Otherwise central planning in the small with the likes of cooperatives or business plans is pretty uncontroversial, as they harbor less externalities.
  - hydrogen18 11y ago
    You say this is a problem with "central planning in the large". That is just a problem with central planning. Otherwise the opposite would be "central planning in the small". One person selecting the dinner location for four friends doesn't constitute central planning.

LiweiZ 11y ago

The planners don't care about the consequences. They have their fortune overseas. It's rather a failure of decoupled interests between them and the the rest of people. [edit]: typo

glesica 11y ago

Yeah, they're basically just like the unintended consequences of relying entirely on markets.

mullen 11y ago

I am pretty sure when China started the one-child policy, they knew what would happen. The Chinese are not stupid.

MrZongle2 11y ago
No, the Chinese are no less intelligent than any other group of people. Their leaders, on the other hand, could be incredibly stupid. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Great_Leap_Forward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Great_Leap_Forward
- mullen 11y ago
  Not a good comparison since everything Mao did was about politics not about bettering the lives of anyone else but himself. The Cultural Revolution was his creation and he created it so that he could have a huge mob to attack who he want attacked. Mao did nothing great or forward thinking except die. After he died, the real modern changes come to China.

snowwrestler 11y ago

I think it remains to be shown whether these consequences were unintended. The point of the one-child policy was to limit population growth. A gender imbalance which leads to women being more independent and marrying later advances that goal very well.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
Trust me. Population limiting was intended but gender imbalance was Definitely NOT intended.
logfromblammo 11y ago
Furthermore, the number of females determines the size of the next generation to a far greater extent than the number of males. Or at least that's the way it works for most mammals. All they really need now is some way to get rid of their least-fit excess males, so they don't get all angry and rebellious on them. What the central planners really need now is some sort of grand, state-funded enterprise wherein a few million young, unmarried men would get killed, without too much blame accruing to the state. Now what sort of project could do that? I feel somehow that building up reef islands in the South China Sea might somehow be relevant, but I don't imagine that an oceanic construction crew would kill more than a dozen or so workers per year, and people would blame lax safety standards.... Hang on. I need to put my foil hat on.... Ah. Got it. They need to start a war with someone who is well-supplied with military technology, but not actually another superpower, or too closely allied with one, because that could quickly spiral out of control. Option 1 is China versus Malaysia-Vietnam-Philippines. Option 2 is China versus India. Option 3 is to cultivate an Uighur terrorist attack, and use that as pretext to invade Afghanistan, which has faithfully served as meat grinder for so many superpowers already. Or maybe they could just use fluoride and phytoestrogens to make those males infertile, or use high-flying planes to spray chemtr--whoops, this hat needs to come off now.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

Without central planning though, the entire situation would be an unintended consequence. Centralization has both benefits and drawbacks just like an unregulated situation. In california we're trying to build a high speed train across the state. It's taking years for this happen with no end in sight. It's largely due to lack of funding and a lot of decentralized opposition. In china, thanks to centralized planning, they can build the same public project in two years.