Another valid analogy with large corporations is if central planning was the optimum strategy, then extreme micromanagement from the top would be the optimum bu

Another valid analogy with large corporations is if central planning was the optimum strategy, then extreme micromanagement from the top would be the optimum business strategy. Surely it would take top level supercomputers and programmers to run an entire country, but any random MBA with an Excel spreadsheet could run a business more successfully than a business without TPS reports and content-free numbers. So observationally, micromanagement and management by metric number should be a sign of a highly profitable and successful company, yet its usually associated with dying companies or companies only kept alive by what boils down to corruption (monopolies, licensing, regulation, revolving door between .com and .gov, etc). If there was a solid argument WRT scaling explaining why the result would be different at extreme scale vs business scale then the picture might be brighter for central planning. There are also growth rate issues where your two examples are unfortunately companies experiencing an implosion of mindshare, people run from those companies as fast as they can, not run toward them. That is probably just an unfortunate coincidence but does look bad for central planning PR. There must be some "cool companies" that centrally plan and are successful? Or maybe there aren't?