Central Planning vs the market

[Berzerker]

This doesn't need to be purely ideological , usually governments end up with a mixture just as people are divided on what should be controlled by the state and what should be left to some other mechanism like market forces. Rather than argue over anecdotes which is better in general terms?

If there is wisdom in allowing a select few make extremely important decisions about "supply & demand" for millions of people, why wouldn't central planning be better than the market "in general"?

Both systems respond to supply and demand, even central planners try to respond along "market" guidelines (cant fight mother nature too long) when reality dictates an ideological adjustment. So does the market respond to economic/consumer 'imbalances' faster and more efficiently than the political apparatus?

Our system combines both but I dont know for a fact that Congress "controls" a large enough chunk of the economy to qualify as central planning, but China would.

[Hauldren Collider]

Wait, government responds to market forces? No...

You can't fight reality forever, but that didn't stop the Soviet Union from hanging on for almost a century.

[Hauldren Collider]

Observation: How is this even a question? This is like asking if you believe in evolution or creationism. If you think it's the latter then you are impervious to evidence and should be ignored.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Shouldn't there be like gradations of "in between"?

[Berzerker]

sure, thats where most people are... I'm just trying to keep terms "general" rather than debate when the state should step in. If it does step in, why are the decisions of a select few better than the feedback between consumers and producers? It works both ways, a select few producers in the market could disrupt that information flow for some perceived or real gain, but that too is a form of central planning - just not with politicians doin the planning.

edit: actually I screwed up, I set up a poll before typing out the OP and decided to leave it out but forgot to remove it

[Al B. Sure!]

This doesn't need to be purely ideological , usually governments end up with a mixture just as people are divided on what should be controlled by the state and what should be left to some other mechanism like market forces. Rather than argue over anecdotes which is better in general terms?

If there is wisdom in allowing a select few make extremely important decisions about "supply & demand" for millions of people, why wouldn't central planning be better than the market "in general"?

Both systems respond to supply and demand, even central planners try to respond along "market" guidelines (cant fight mother nature too long) when reality dictates an ideological adjustment. So does the market respond to economic/consumer 'imbalances' faster and more efficiently than the political apparatus?

Our system combines both but I dont know for a fact that Congress "controls" a large enough chunk of the economy to qualify as central planning, but China would.

I don't think many, except for communists, would ever take issue with the pure principle of the market as the most efficient and productive means of allocation of resources. Disagreement lies in the identification and means to alleviate social problems (such as poverty, workers' rights, consumer rights, environmental concerns, etc.) that can arise from the market system.

[Berzerker]

if its wise to let a small group of people extract fuel from the market to alleviate societal problems, then why not more central planning? I'd think it would be the more efficient mechanism (and it may be for all I know). Albeit I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call a welfare or food stamps program "central planning", but certainly the subsidies etc to big Ag in conjunction with such programs would be.

[C0ckney]

I don't think many, except for communists, would ever take issue with the pure principle of the market as the most efficient and productive means of allocation of resources. Disagreement lies in the identification and means to alleviate social problems (such as poverty, workers' rights, consumer rights, environmental concerns, etc.) that can arise from the market system.

or other problems like when the banking system is close to collapse how much the government intervention we support. it's incredible how much 'central planning' people support in this instance.

[Whoha]

Central market is pretty decent.

[Al B. Sure!]

or other problems like when the banking system is close to collapse how much the government intervention we support. it's incredible how much 'central planning' people support in this instance.

Then there's trust-busting... tariffs to protect local industry... subsidies...

Nevertheless, I don't think anyone except for extremists really denies the principle of the market.

[Berzerker]

aren't we denying that when he ask for gov't intervention?

[Al B. Sure!]

aren't we denying that when he ask for gov't intervention?

Only in a variously limited capacity. The structure of the market remains intact.

A little massaging of it does not mean we'd be better off with complete central planning, anymore than a little sugar added to tea to improve the taste means a cup of sugar would be even better.

[Tupac Shakur]

Many of you don't seem to understand what "central planning" even means.

[Al B. Sure!]

Many of you don't seem to understand what "central planning" even means.

That's true. Central Planning is literally having a government bureau determine factory output each quarter a la the Soviet Union.

But that's my point. No one really thinks such a system is good. Everyone, even some European socialist, still assumes the value of the principle of the market.

[Berzerker]

I dont wanna limit it to ideology, to me central planning is the state making decisions instead of the market. That can happen throughout the economy as in totalitarianism or on specific issues of significance, like "energy" policy defined by taxes and subsidies and tariffs to "encourage" desirable behavior (like less driving due to high gas taxes, or buying domestic products as opposed to foreign stuff)