Are we just gonna ignore the fact that the whole critique of centralization is that its inefficient, ineffective, and unresponsive to peoples needs?
Like as capitalism is becoming more monopolistic, its becoming increasingly bad at delivering goods that people actually want and just becomes better at supressing and controling them. You know the same critisism thats pointed at autoritarian communism.
I don’t think this is the W you think it is.
Yeah we are because that critique is not based in reality, and people who still believe it can be safely ignored because they’re opining on a subject they have no clue about.
Out of curiosity, do you think the USSR collapsed because all its own citizens thought the government was doing too good a job?
China introduced private corperations and capital because they increased efficiency and production.
Are you saying every government whose ever tried tons of central planning just messed up or randomly decided to scale it back just for funsies?
Given that 70% of people were against dissolution of USSR, that’s pretty obviously the case. Meanwhile, China is very obviously a centrally planned system, and US government moans about it incessantly. The fact that China allows private corporations doesn’t mean it’s not centrally planned as anybody with a functioning brain would understand. China literally puts out 5 years plans for its economy.
Here’s how your market based economy is doing against Chinese central planning:
Are you saying every government whose ever tried tons of central planning just messed up or randomly decided to scale it back just for funsies?
No, I’m saying that’s just bullshit you made up that has no basis in facts. In fact, not only does central planning work well at government level, but it doesn’t even work at company level as was clearly demonstrated when Walmart outcompeted Sears using central planning https://www.versobooks.com/en-ca/products/636-the-people-s-republic-of-walmart
Maybe spend a bit of time educating yourself on the subject instead of making a clown of yourself here.
China has some more central planning than the US, but they lean on the same market mechanisms that the US does when it comes to most solutions, ie tax penalties/incentives and subsidies. An excellent example is their smog reduction plans.
Its also great you linked an article about Chinese steel because they do the same stuff there
There isn’t a party planner in every steel mill determining output, they let individual companies react to market forces they shape with tax structures and subsidy.
People’s republic of Walmart
Good thing Walmart wasn’t supplanted by Amazon who delegates most of whats sold to 3rd party sellers. They certainly havn’t copied that for their online sales, right?
All the core industry in China is state owned, and it accounts for roughly half the economy. Meanwhile, using markets within a centrally planned system is not in any way contradictory with central planning.
There isn’t a party planner in every steel mill determining output, they let individual companies react to market forces they shape with tax structures and subsidy.
You have an incredibly naive understanding of how central planning works. The party makes a general plan and guides the development of industry to fit that plan. Central planning doesn’t mean you have a single person sitting there and directing every single aspect of the economy.
Good thing Walmart wasn’t supplanted by Amazon who delegates most of whats sold to 3rd party sellers. They certainly havn’t copied that for their online sales, right?
You think Amazon isn’t centrally planned? 😂
Also, actual capitalists understand that virtues of markets and competition is just a bullshit story they sell to the rubes https://archive.is/z43lo
I mean if central planning can be redefined to mean decentralized capitalist markets, I’ve got a book gor you to read too.
My dude, did you even read the Peter Theil article you linked? His entire speil is in no way congruent with your point. He’s basically just saying the rent seeking from a gaining a monopoly can make high risk investments worth it. His argument is still grounded in market logic. He leaves out the people who started high risk companies they thought would be monopolies but turned out to be undesireable.
And I don’t even agree with his point, neither Google nor Amazon needed massive capital to hit the market, they needed massive amounts of capital to operate at a loss to squash their early competition to create a monopoly; something that can only be done by the horrible market distortions of a governmnet or rampant late-stage capitalist billionaires with equivalent piles of money.
Edit: I would also point out Theil is a believer in autocracy, known widely for literally owning a company whose product is disinformation, and is shilling to prevent the breakup of his monopolies. I wouldn’t trust him under any circumstances.
That isn’t the critique of monopolies. It’s well established that vertical integration and size can achieve efficiencies that are impossible at smaller scales. The critique is that once few entities have cornered a market, they can extract profit that’s needed for the rest of the economy to function well. A corollary is that they don’t do what people need then them to do because it isn’t as profitable. If you remove profit as the variable to optimize for, the whole equation changes and you can end up with the efficiencies while serving the needs of your customers.
Monopolies in econ 101 are called inefficient because they generate excess profits. Inefficiency refers to profits that are extracted. Not inefficiency in the colloquial sense of the word.
Vertical integation and scale are not inherently monopolistic. Some monopolies formed because they exploited these advantages, but there are competative industries today where several vertically integrated companies compete.
Monopolies in econ 101 are not called inefficient because they extract profit. They’re inefficient because they don’t respond to market forces. Since they control all supply, they can disregard demand.
