"To spend time in #China at the end of #Xi’s 1st decade is to witness a nation slipping from motion to stagnation &, for the 1st time in a generation, questioning whether a #Communist superpower can escape the contradictions that doomed the #SovietUnion."https://t.co/7Li3B3w4AN
A single person or even a large rigid bureaucracy cannot react as efficiently and effectively as a free market.
So all one sees is shortages, rationing, and starvation.
Korean Person
6 months ago
setnaffa,
You shouldn’t be bad-mouthing those who pay your wages and bills.
GrayBlack
6 months ago
The big government faction in power (Harvard types) hates him and the radicals (CRT types) probably wants him humiliated and dead. The moderates of that camp (Clintonites) merely want him “re-educated.” Understandably, setnaffa is rather unsettled by big government.
I’ll have to disagree with him though on central planning. Every successful business is a centrally planned economy of which the business owner is the central planner. It is from that point of centrality that the business hierarchy can function unified around the owner’s plan. Military folks might recognize this as “commander’s intent.” Central authority is then delegated down the business hierarchy which results in decentralized, but still very much top down, business operations. At the government level this looks like a monarchy. The East India Company is a prime example of monarchical central planning.
Communist “central planning” fails precisely because there is no central planning. The economic decisions are made by committees that answer to committees that answer to committees ad nauseam. Without a central figure to make a central plan, there is no central authority to delegate to said plan. A problem that gets further compounded by none of the planners being owners of the things they are running and none of the workers being paid for the things they are doing. A classic too many chefs in the kitchen problem mixed with the tragedy of the commons.
This is a typical communist linguistic trick. What they call central planning is not central at all, it’s planning by a multiple stupidly large oligarchical committees. What they call liberation of the proletariat is really enslavement of the proletariat. What they call the abolishment of private property, is really just the looting of private property into the inner party hands. So on and so forth they twist and corrupt linguistics to suit their political needs.
ChickenHead
6 months ago
GrayBlack is smart and thoughtful and I wish he would comment more.
setnaffa
6 months ago
GrayBlack, you were more eloquent than me; but you also chose to appear to be a bit obtuse, without missing a beat.
Centrally-planned economies always fail. Companies always respond to market pressures or fail.
Thank you for the comment though. As CH stated, you are needed here.
GrayBlack
6 months ago
Was I being a bit obtuse?
Well sure, “centrally-planned economy” as defined by Marxist theory
production organized on the basis of common ownership [of property] by the nation of all means of production.
fails hard, but I can’t help but find it funny that the definition is in contradiction with the individual definitions of the words used. Break the term apart.
Centrally signifies a point of great importance. (there’s a lot I could go into how anti-Marxist the logic of centrality is, it’s opposite of common)
Planned means something was decide on in advanced. (Engels believed the state would wither away)
Economy is production, distribution, and trade.
Logical stringing together of those meanings, they effectively describe the job role of a CEO. Very capitalist, or if you squint hard enough very monarchical. Heck, you and I are both central planners (CEOs) of our own household economics. In that sense, central planning is really a bourgeois if not aristocratic concept, you know, the people the Marxists allegedly hate. In fact a centrally planned economy could just as easily, if not better be defined as:
production organized on the basis of private ownership [of property] by the national CEO of all means of production.
Huh? Did I not just describe South Korea’s economic organization during the Park Chung Hee era? They had 5 year plans too! Or even Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew? Or most of England’s monarchs from 1600 to 1900? Government is really just an enterprise in the production, distribution, and trade of order, and order is what secures property rights and thus economic prosperity.
Korean Person
6 months ago
It is funny to see sock puppets pat themselves on the back.
It is funnier that those who spout right-wing BS like the BS by GrayBlack are likely to be commended, while those who write logically but do not agree with GI Korea and the Setnaffarian are called “Chinabots.”
Centrally-planned economies always fail.
A single person or even a large rigid bureaucracy cannot react as efficiently and effectively as a free market.
So all one sees is shortages, rationing, and starvation.
setnaffa,
You shouldn’t be bad-mouthing those who pay your wages and bills.
The big government faction in power (Harvard types) hates him and the radicals (CRT types) probably wants him humiliated and dead. The moderates of that camp (Clintonites) merely want him “re-educated.” Understandably, setnaffa is rather unsettled by big government.
I’ll have to disagree with him though on central planning. Every successful business is a centrally planned economy of which the business owner is the central planner. It is from that point of centrality that the business hierarchy can function unified around the owner’s plan. Military folks might recognize this as “commander’s intent.” Central authority is then delegated down the business hierarchy which results in decentralized, but still very much top down, business operations. At the government level this looks like a monarchy. The East India Company is a prime example of monarchical central planning.
Communist “central planning” fails precisely because there is no central planning. The economic decisions are made by committees that answer to committees that answer to committees ad nauseam. Without a central figure to make a central plan, there is no central authority to delegate to said plan. A problem that gets further compounded by none of the planners being owners of the things they are running and none of the workers being paid for the things they are doing. A classic too many chefs in the kitchen problem mixed with the tragedy of the commons.
This is a typical communist linguistic trick. What they call central planning is not central at all, it’s planning by a multiple stupidly large oligarchical committees. What they call liberation of the proletariat is really enslavement of the proletariat. What they call the abolishment of private property, is really just the looting of private property into the inner party hands. So on and so forth they twist and corrupt linguistics to suit their political needs.
GrayBlack is smart and thoughtful and I wish he would comment more.
GrayBlack, you were more eloquent than me; but you also chose to appear to be a bit obtuse, without missing a beat.
Centrally-planned economies always fail. Companies always respond to market pressures or fail.
Thank you for the comment though. As CH stated, you are needed here.
Was I being a bit obtuse?
Well sure, “centrally-planned economy” as defined by Marxist theory
fails hard, but I can’t help but find it funny that the definition is in contradiction with the individual definitions of the words used. Break the term apart.
Centrally signifies a point of great importance. (there’s a lot I could go into how anti-Marxist the logic of centrality is, it’s opposite of common)
Planned means something was decide on in advanced. (Engels believed the state would wither away)
Economy is production, distribution, and trade.
Logical stringing together of those meanings, they effectively describe the job role of a CEO. Very capitalist, or if you squint hard enough very monarchical. Heck, you and I are both central planners (CEOs) of our own household economics. In that sense, central planning is really a bourgeois if not aristocratic concept, you know, the people the Marxists allegedly hate. In fact a centrally planned economy could just as easily, if not better be defined as:
Huh? Did I not just describe South Korea’s economic organization during the Park Chung Hee era? They had 5 year plans too! Or even Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew? Or most of England’s monarchs from 1600 to 1900? Government is really just an enterprise in the production, distribution, and trade of order, and order is what secures property rights and thus economic prosperity.
It is funny to see sock puppets pat themselves on the back.
It is funnier that those who spout right-wing BS like the BS by GrayBlack are likely to be commended, while those who write logically but do not agree with GI Korea and the Setnaffarian are called “Chinabots.”