4 ms·

Then there's the fact that no one can know what any given person wants to buy at a given time, and therefore central planning is doomed to failure because you c

Then there's the fact that no one can know what any given person wants to buy at a given time, and therefore central planning is doomed to failure because you can't centrally plan "the right" prices for everything, and then you'll end up vastly misallocating resources, and there will be widespread destitution ala Soviet Union. In conclusion, central planning ultimately just completely fucks up any economy. Check out Venezuela for a recent example. So if 100% central planning results in a total catastrophe, then there should be no central planning at all, because any extent of central planning is harmful compared to less (or ultimately none at all).

panic 11y ago
So if 100% central planning results in a total catastrophe, then there should be no central planning at all, because any extent of central planning is harmful compared to less (or ultimately none at all). I don't think your argument works. If I drink a swimming pool full of water, I will die. Does that mean I should drink no water at all?
- sillygeese 11y ago
  Maybe it was poorly phrased. Here's another attempt. Any degree of central planning is harmful to us because: 1) it always represents an opportunity cost compared to people making choices themselves, and 2) the choices made by central planners are not made to benefit the masses (because otherwise they'd just let people make the choices themselves) What would be the point of being in a position to make decisions for other people, if you were just going to do your best to benefit others, instead of yourself?
danieltillett 11y ago
This problem applies to a non-central planned economy too. Someone somewhere has to make a decision of what people want to buy and make it in advance of the item being purchased (hence inventory). This is why most business use central planning. If they get the planning wrong they lose money and potentially go out of business. The question is can this be scaled up now economy wide now that we have much more advanced computational tools to predict and react swiftly to demand changes. I don’t know :)
- sillygeese 11y ago
  However you might want to define "central planning", there's a massive difference. The business people are using their own money, but central planners use everyone else's.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Actually most large businesses are using someone else's money - the shareholders. The same sort of agency problems that exist in centrally planned economies also exist in large public companies.
    - sillygeese 11y ago
      You got the point though, so it's kind of pointless to keep arguing, right? Whatever money is lost is someone's own money.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        I didn’t think we were even arguing, just discussing an interesting idea :) Our current economic system is remarkably similar to the centrally planned economy the socialist dreamed of creating. Most productive enterprises have no controlling owners - the ownership of most public companies is highly dispersed and much of it in the hands of pension funds, etc. About the only difference between a socialist “paradise" and what we have now is that the indirect ownership of the means of production is not evenly distributed within society.

panic 11y ago

So if 100% central planning results in a total catastrophe, then there should be no central planning at all, because any extent of central planning is harmful compared to less (or ultimately none at all). I don't think your argument works. If I drink a swimming pool full of water, I will die. Does that mean I should drink no water at all?

sillygeese 11y ago
Maybe it was poorly phrased. Here's another attempt. Any degree of central planning is harmful to us because: 1) it always represents an opportunity cost compared to people making choices themselves, and 2) the choices made by central planners are not made to benefit the masses (because otherwise they'd just let people make the choices themselves) What would be the point of being in a position to make decisions for other people, if you were just going to do your best to benefit others, instead of yourself?

danieltillett 11y ago

This problem applies to a non-central planned economy too. Someone somewhere has to make a decision of what people want to buy and make it in advance of the item being purchased (hence inventory). This is why most business use central planning. If they get the planning wrong they lose money and potentially go out of business. The question is can this be scaled up now economy wide now that we have much more advanced computational tools to predict and react swiftly to demand changes. I don’t know :)

sillygeese 11y ago
However you might want to define "central planning", there's a massive difference. The business people are using their own money, but central planners use everyone else's.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Actually most large businesses are using someone else's money - the shareholders. The same sort of agency problems that exist in centrally planned economies also exist in large public companies.
  - sillygeese 11y ago
    You got the point though, so it's kind of pointless to keep arguing, right? Whatever money is lost is someone's own money.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      I didn’t think we were even arguing, just discussing an interesting idea :) Our current economic system is remarkably similar to the centrally planned economy the socialist dreamed of creating. Most productive enterprises have no controlling owners - the ownership of most public companies is highly dispersed and much of it in the hands of pension funds, etc. About the only difference between a socialist “paradise" and what we have now is that the indirect ownership of the means of production is not evenly distributed within society.