Is there any real difference between . . .

[untermensche]

Just take one of your examples, the transistor.

It wasn't invented in Bell labs but it was improved and made marketable there.

But why did Bell labs exist?

Because the government granted AT&T a monopoly.

At the bottom we find government planning and control.

It's not an example of planning, unless you think the government made AT&T a monopoly so that they would invent the transistor. It's not central planning, to give money and let them decide what to do with it... that would be decentralized planning.

This was an example of government control.

If AT&T had to compete it never would have had the resources to develop the transistor.

And products that arise due to monopolies certainly aren't the product of so-called free enterprise.

 

[untermensche]

Again, it all depends on the level of democratic control over that government.

Unfortunately the same small group of families that dominates the US economy also controls the government.

The question is; Is oligarchy preferable to democracy?

So those families are preventing you from starting a business? The Waltons put a horse head on your pillow, did they?

Oligarchical control of the economy and the government is about who gets to decide where the resources of the nation go and what they are used for.

The oligarchy decides that trillions will be spent on wars and the military and the politicians who carry their water do as commanded. And this includes Obama.

The people have no say in this.

 

[NobleSavage]

The government invests in some basic research and development and the private sector refines and expands it for profit. You bet. And the private sector on its own invests and researches in a technology and the government uses it for its own purposes (radio, transistor, insulin shots, smart phones). You bet. It's a good system and we all benefit. It's not central planning, though.

Just take one of your examples, the transistor.

It wasn't invented in Bell labs but it was improved and made marketable there.

But why did Bell labs exist?

Because the government granted AT&T a monopoly.

At the bottom we find government planning and control.

What makes you think Bell Labs would not have existed if it weren't for the government sanctioned monopoly? Many companies have private labs. You do know that sometimes private companies fund university labs as well? Not to mention that in all but a few cases coming up with the idea is the easy part, it's all the rest that is the real hard work.

 

[untermensche]

What makes you think Bell Labs would not have existed if it weren't for the government sanctioned monopoly? Many companies have private labs. You do know that sometimes private companies fund university labs as well? Not to mention that in all but a few cases coming up with the idea is the easy part, it's all the rest that is the real hard work.

All we know is that the transistor was developed in labs run by a huge company that was granted monopoly protection by the government.

That is the nanny state, not so-called free enterprise.

 

[Trausti]

What makes you think Bell Labs would not have existed if it weren't for the government sanctioned monopoly? Many companies have private labs. You do know that sometimes private companies fund university labs as well? Not to mention that in all but a few cases coming up with the idea is the easy part, it's all the rest that is the real hard work.

All we know is that the transistor was developed in labs run by a huge company that was granted monopoly protection by the government.

That is the nanny state, not so-called free enterprise.

It (AT&T - predecessor) was granted monopoly protection as to its phone lines, not transistors or other products.

 

[Harry Bosch]

A central economy is basically an oligarchy of one. The more competition in the economy the better the economy.

Loren is correct. Oligarchs win by offering better service and lower prices. Central planners win by throwing all competitors into the gulag.

 

[untermensche]

All we know is that the transistor was developed in labs run by a huge company that was granted monopoly protection by the government.

That is the nanny state, not so-called free enterprise.

It (AT&T - predecessor) was granted monopoly protection as to its phone lines, not transistors or other products.

Yes, and that protection allowed them to have the resources to develop the transistor.

 

[PyramidHead]

It (AT&T - predecessor) was granted monopoly protection as to its phone lines, not transistors or other products.

Yes, and that protection allowed them to have the resources to develop the transistor.

But that wasn't the explicit intention of the protection. Central planning would be if the government ordered AT&T to invent the transistor. The nanny state is not the same as a centrally planned economy (the latter is the topic of this thread).

- - - Updated - - -

A central economy is basically an oligarchy of one. The more competition in the economy the better the economy.

Loren is correct. Oligarchs win by offering better service and lower prices. Central planners win by throwing all competitors into the gulag.

Or just depriving them of resources and assigning them to other tasks. It need not always be the gulag.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, and that protection allowed them to have the resources to develop the transistor.

But that wasn't the explicit intention of the protection. Central planning would be if the government ordered AT&T to invent the transistor. The nanny state is not the same as a centrally planned economy (the latter is the topic of this thread).

I already said that this was an example of government protection not government planning.

But government protection against competition is not free enterprise.

Nobody can claim the transistor arose due to free enterprise.

The same can be said for computers and cell phones.

 

[Trausti]

It (AT&T - predecessor) was granted monopoly protection as to its phone lines, not transistors or other products.

Yes, and that protection allowed them to have the resources to develop the transistor.

Well, the government did not centrally plan the telephone or AT&T's phone lines then - can the private sector get credit for that? Or is everything henceforth due to central planning, like AT&T's current data plan?

 

[Harry Bosch]

But that wasn't the explicit intention of the protection. Central planning would be if the government ordered AT&T to invent the transistor. The nanny state is not the same as a centrally planned economy (the latter is the topic of this thread). - - - Updated - - - Or just depriving them of resources and assigning them to other tasks. It need not always be the gulag.

But the only way to "deprive people of resources or to reassign them" is to use force.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, and that protection allowed them to have the resources to develop the transistor.

Well, the government did not centrally plan the telephone or AT&T's phone lines then - can the private sector get credit for that? Or is everything henceforth due to central planning, like AT&T's current data plan?

The private sector does a lot of research and development. The home computer was developed in the private sector after the government had done all the necessary research to make that possible.

I am not claiming the government does everything.

I am claiming that government research is the foundation of the economy, not private sector research.

And without all this "central planning" the economy would be far less vibrant and dynamic.

An economy divorced from government action and oversight and a degree of control is a smaller economy, not a better economy as some like to claim.

The problem now is that the government is spending far too much on the development of weapons systems and too little on the development of something more practical like alternative energy.

 

[Togo]

Yes, and that protection allowed them to have the resources to develop the transistor.

But that wasn't the explicit intention of the protection. Central planning would be if the government ordered AT&T to invent the transistor. The nanny state is not the same as a centrally planned economy (the latter is the topic of this thread).

I was under the impression that AT&T's Bell labs was coordinating research with the government and military, in a similar manner to the way research is pooled between various state-owned monopolies and government-favoured private firms today.

Certainly having the government directly subsidise costs, share government research with private firms, and enforce a monopoly to the firm's benefit, would make the research 'not free-enterprise'.

 

[PyramidHead]

But that wasn't the explicit intention of the protection. Central planning would be if the government ordered AT&T to invent the transistor. The nanny state is not the same as a centrally planned economy (the latter is the topic of this thread). - - - Updated - - - Or just depriving them of resources and assigning them to other tasks. It need not always be the gulag.

But the only way to "deprive people of resources or to reassign them" is to use force.

Like anything else the government does, force may be used as a last resort. If I get a letter from the state telling me I forgot to pay my car taxes, I don't equate that with being thrown in a dungeon. If I continue to not pay the taxes, the consequences will escalate, of course. My point was simply that it doesn't necessarily end up like that, which is why I don't buy the whole "men with guns" libertarian canard about enforcing legislation.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Like anything else the government does, force may be used as a last resort. If I get a letter from the state telling me I forgot to pay my car taxes, I don't equate that with being thrown in a dungeon. If I continue to not pay the taxes, the consequences will escalate, of course. My point was simply that it doesn't necessarily end up like that, which is why I don't buy the whole "men with guns" libertarian canard about enforcing legislation.

Paying taxes to a democratically elected government is totally different from having 'all' my assets taken by a small group of unelected thugs.

 

[PyramidHead]

Like anything else the government does, force may be used as a last resort. If I get a letter from the state telling me I forgot to pay my car taxes, I don't equate that with being thrown in a dungeon. If I continue to not pay the taxes, the consequences will escalate, of course. My point was simply that it doesn't necessarily end up like that, which is why I don't buy the whole "men with guns" libertarian canard about enforcing legislation.

Paying taxes to a democratically elected government is totally different from having 'all' my assets taken by a small group of unelected thugs.

Who says they are unelected? Maybe I mistook your comment, but I didn't realize centrally planned economies couldn't be run by democratically elected officials.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A central economy is basically an oligarchy of one. The more competition in the economy the better the economy.

Loren is correct. Oligarchs win by offering better service and lower prices. Central planners win by throwing all competitors into the gulag.

It depends on how many oligarchs there are. When the numbers are small you get collusion. When there are more, the collusion tends to fall apart. (Look at OPEC for an example where things are done legally and thus openly, you can see the repeated failures to follow the party line.)

 

[Underseer]

Loren is correct. Oligarchs win by offering better service and lower prices. Central planners win by throwing all competitors into the gulag.

It depends on how many oligarchs there are. When the numbers are small you get collusion. When there are more, the collusion tends to fall apart. (Look at OPEC for an example where things are done legally and thus openly, you can see the repeated failures to follow the party line.)

You and Harry are both offering lazy excuses for allowing a small elite to rule everyone else.

You think the corporations you worship don't do everything they can to compete unfairly, including using the government or other unfair tactics to destroy the competition?

You have far more faith in the powerful than I will ever have.

 

[untermensche]

The oligarchs collude with each other to lessen competition and they stifle competition from anyone else.

If people claim they supply superior products for better prices then competition is not important at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It depends on how many oligarchs there are. When the numbers are small you get collusion. When there are more, the collusion tends to fall apart. (Look at OPEC for an example where things are done legally and thus openly, you can see the repeated failures to follow the party line.)

You and Harry are both offering lazy excuses for allowing a small elite to rule everyone else.

You think the corporations you worship don't do everything they can to compete unfairly, including using the government or other unfair tactics to destroy the competition?

You have far more faith in the powerful than I will ever have.

They try to compete unfairly but so long as there are a reasonable number of players in the game it doesn't work very well.