Is there any real difference between . . .

[ksen]

an economy centrally planned by the government and an economy essentially run by a few families that control most of the wealth?

 

[Jayjay]

an economy centrally planned by the government and an economy essentially run by a few families that control most of the wealth?

Yes.

The problem with oligarchs is that they are so filthy rich, that they have no reason to really strive for efficiency, so economies in oligarchies tend to suck. Ukraine for example. But a government, even if centrally planned, still in principle have at least the motivation to always do better. In practise though central planning is so abysmal that the results might be indistinguishable from an oligarchy.

 

[untermensche]

an economy centrally planned by the government and an economy essentially run by a few families that control most of the wealth?

It depends on the government and the level of democratic control over that government.

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the US economy is based on central planning. It exists as it does because of massive government directed spending on research and development. Without that central planning the economy would be something else entirely, probably something closer to the economy of capitalist Guatemala or Indonesia.

 

[NobleSavage]

an economy centrally planned by the government and an economy essentially run by a few families that control most of the wealth?

Oh fun, a definitional argument. In option A how is the government organized? In option A can the planning committee do something like create enterprise zones like in China? In option B how many families are a few? In option B do the families collude or fight? Can the families in option B be benevolent or do they have to be evil capitalists? In option A is the committee going to try and do something like control the prices of every good sold? In option B do the families have nuclear weapons?

 

[NobleSavage]

an economy centrally planned by the government and an economy essentially run by a few families that control most of the wealth?

It depends on the government and the level of democratic control over that government.

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the US economy is based on central planning. It exists as it does because of massive government directed spending on research and development. Without that central planning the economy would be something else entirely, probably something closer to the economy of capitalist Guatemala or Indonesia.

The US gov. budget is what 3-4 trillion and the GDP is 16 trillion? I'm thinking, no, it's not centrally planned.

 

[ksen]

In option B how many families are a few?

In the US system there are 535 legislators so let's say 535 families.

 

[Trausti]

an economy centrally planned by the government and an economy essentially run by a few families that control most of the wealth?

Eh, just compare Russia today with the Soviet Union of 30 years ago. An oligarchy is far from ideal, but the store shelves are full and the people enjoy a measure of economic liberty. But why this comparison?

 

[untermensche]

It depends on the government and the level of democratic control over that government.

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the US economy is based on central planning. It exists as it does because of massive government directed spending on research and development. Without that central planning the economy would be something else entirely, probably something closer to the economy of capitalist Guatemala or Indonesia.

The US gov. budget is what 3-4 trillion and the GDP is 16 trillion? I'm thinking, no, it's not centrally planned.

It is based on central planning and wouldn't exist without it.

No capitalist economy has ever had much success without massive central planning.

 

[Trausti]

The US gov. budget is what 3-4 trillion and the GDP is 16 trillion? I'm thinking, no, it's not centrally planned.

It is based on central planning and wouldn't exist without it.

No capitalist economy has ever had much success without massive central planning.

So Adam Smith's Scotland was the result of central planning?

 

[untermensche]

It is based on central planning and wouldn't exist without it.

No capitalist economy has ever had much success without massive central planning.

So Adam Smith's Scotland was the result of central planning?

Most certainly.

And also based on the closing of markets to foreign competition.

 

[NobleSavage]

In option B how many families are a few?

In the US system there are 535 legislators so let's say 535 families.

With 535 families I'd bet against central planning with respect to a better life for the average guy.

 

[Trausti]

So Adam Smith's Scotland was the result of central planning?

Most certainly.

And also based on the closing of markets to foreign competition.

'K. How are you imagining "central planning"? My example is the former Soviet Union. Neither the US today or Scotland 300 years ago is anything like that. What example are you employing for comparison?

 

[untermensche]

Most certainly.

And also based on the closing of markets to foreign competition.

'K. How are you imagining "central planning"? My example is the former Soviet Union. Neither the US today or Scotland 300 years ago is anything like that. What example are you employing for comparison?

If you define central planning as the government has total control that is one thing.

If you define it as the government taking actions that keep the economy afloat that is another.

The US economy came close to totally collapsing in 2008. The government propped it up and saved it from itself.

How is this not a centrally controlled economy?

 

[NobleSavage]

The US gov. budget is what 3-4 trillion and the GDP is 16 trillion? I'm thinking, no, it's not centrally planned.

It is based on central planning and wouldn't exist without it.

No capitalist economy has ever had much success without massive central planning.

How is it based on central planning? You think the government hands out business plans to the top corporations? More than half of government spending is on social welfare and that doesn't generate any money. The government depends on the private sector for taxes. I wouldn't even say it's a layered cake with government on top and private sector on the bottom. It' more of a marble cake all mixed together. All manner of powerful interests have their own plans and their own agendas.

 

[Jayjay]

'K. How are you imagining "central planning"? My example is the former Soviet Union. Neither the US today or Scotland 300 years ago is anything like that. What example are you employing for comparison?

If you define central planning as the government has total control that is one thing.

If you define it as the government taking actions that keep the economy afloat that is another.

The US economy came close to totally collapsing in 2008. The government propped it up and saved it from itself.

How is this not a centrally controlled economy?

I think the question was, what's your comparison point of a non-central planning government? It seems that your definition applies to pretty much any government.

 

[NobleSavage]

'K. How are you imagining "central planning"? My example is the former Soviet Union. Neither the US today or Scotland 300 years ago is anything like that. What example are you employing for comparison?

If you define central planning as the government has total control that is one thing.

If you define it as the government taking actions that keep the economy afloat that is another.

The US economy came close to totally collapsing in 2008. The government propped it up and saved it from itself.

How is this not a centrally controlled economy?

If it is centrally controlled then the government is at fault for the collapse in 2008.

 

[Trausti]

'K. How are you imagining "central planning"? My example is the former Soviet Union. Neither the US today or Scotland 300 years ago is anything like that. What example are you employing for comparison?

If you define central planning as the government has total control that is one thing.

If you define it as the government taking actions that keep the economy afloat that is another.

The US economy came close to totally collapsing in 2008. The government propped it up and saved it from itself.

How is this not a centrally controlled economy?

Government regulation of, and sometimes intervention in, the economy is not central planning. Or at least not what most people would think of as "central planning." Government did not design the iPhone and schedule the launch of new Apple products. Government did not centrally plan Google or its privacy-violating glasses, smart car, or Android OS. Government did not plan for McDonald's to have an extra value menu. Government did not decree that a florist open down my street.

 

[untermensche]

It is based on central planning and wouldn't exist without it.

No capitalist economy has ever had much success without massive central planning.

How is it based on central planning? You think the government hands out business plans to the top corporations? More than half of government spending is on social welfare and that doesn't generate any money. The government depends on the private sector for taxes. I wouldn't even say it's a layered cake with government on top and private sector on the bottom. It' more of a marble cake all mixed together. All manner of powerful interests have their own plans and their own agendas.

How it works is through the defense department and the military industrial complex.

Take something like computers.

The government does ALL the grunt work. It does all the necessary basic research and development. Once something marketable is possible the private sector takes over.

Call it what you want, but that is not the so-called free market at work. It is government planning at work.

 

[untermensche]

If you define central planning as the government has total control that is one thing.

If you define it as the government taking actions that keep the economy afloat that is another.

The US economy came close to totally collapsing in 2008. The government propped it up and saved it from itself.

How is this not a centrally controlled economy?

Government regulation of, and sometimes intervention in, the economy is not central planning. Or at least not what most people would think of as "central planning." Government did not design the iPhone and schedule the launch of new Apple products. Government did not centrally plan Google or its privacy-violating glasses, smart car, or Android OS. Government did not plan for McDonald's to have an extra value menu. Government did not decree that a florist open down my street.

If the government has to step in and keep the economy afloat, as it constantly has to do, then that is an economy with a foundation of government action, not private enterprise.

 

[laughing dog]

an economy centrally planned by the government and an economy essentially run by a few families that control most of the wealth?

Eh, just compare Russia today with the Soviet Union of 30 years ago. An oligarchy is far from ideal, but the store shelves are full and the people enjoy a measure of economic liberty. But why this comparison?

Why not compare the communist Yugoslavia with the current remnants?