Central Planning vs the market

[SlowwHand]

the market

[Tupac Shakur]

I dont wanna limit it to ideology, to me central planning is the state making decisions instead of the market.

This thread is retarded, then.

[Dinner]

There is a continuation with pure central planning and pure free market and everything in between. The hard truth is no country has ever been pure one or the other and even the US has some central planning or control. The extremists will never admit it but we need a mix of both and the arguments are really about degrees rather then purely one or the other. The US could benefit from a bit of national industrial policy especially since China and to a lesser extent India have been using their national industrial policies to kick our asses. Take for instance the recent problem with rare earth elements; China subsidized the **** out of one of it's state owned mining companies to under cut every other producer in the world so that China's one state owned company ended up producing over 90% of the world's REE and once the near monopoly was achieved it began using access to REEs as a weapon. First they used it against Japan last winter (during a dispute over the Spraitley islands) and now they're restricting exports to the rest of the world essentially telling electronics makers to either set up shop in China or to go without the REEs they need. The US shouldn't allow this type of monopoly so we should be subsidizing our own REE production and encouraging everyone else to do the same since China isn't playing by Free Market rules and instead is attempting to monopolize a strategic resource for mercantilist purposes. That's a form of central planning but one we desperately need to do if we don't want to be dependent upon a foreign power with its own agenda.

[Berzerker]

I dont wanna limit it to ideology, to me central planning is the state making decisions instead of the market.

This thread is retarded, then.

then here's your chance to shine

[Ben Kenobi]

*munches popcorn*

[Tupac Shakur]

China and to a lesser extent India have been using their national industrial policies to kick our asses.

2009 World Bank GDP figures (nominal, millions $)

United States - 14,119,000
China - 4,985,461
India - 1,377,265

World Bank 2009 per capita GDP figures (nominal, $)

United States - 45,989
China - 3,744
India - 1,192

How exactly are China and India kicking America's ass?

[Berzerker]

There is a continuation with pure central planning and pure free market and everything in between. The hard truth is no country has ever been pure one or the other and even the US has some central planning or control. The extremists will never admit it but we need a mix of both and the arguments are really about degrees rather then purely one or the other. The US could benefit from a bit of national industrial policy especially since China and to a lesser extent India have been using their national industrial policies to kick our asses. Take for instance the recent problem with rare earth elements; China subsidized the **** out of one of it's state owned mining companies to under cut every other producer in the world so that China's one state owned company ended up producing over 90% of the world's REE and once the near monopoly was achieved it began using access to REEs as a weapon. First they used it against Japan last winter (during a dispute over the Spraitley islands) and now they're restricting exports to the rest of the world essentially telling electronics makers to either set up shop in China or to go without the REEs they need. The US shouldn't allow this type of monopoly so we should be subsidizing our own REE production and encouraging everyone else to do the same since China isn't playing by Free Market rules and instead is attempting to monopolize a strategic resource for mercantilist purposes. That's a form of central planning but one we desperately need to do if we don't want to be dependent upon a foreign power with its own agenda.

I've noticed many diversions from the market are in response to diversions from the market, a tariff on imports or exports is countered by subsidies and/or tariffs somewhere, etc... Thats an interesting argument, fighting fire with fire - a state subsidy to counter a market distortion created by another state to achieve a less corrupted market. Hmm... TY for making the thread less retarded

[Tupac Shakur]

You really don't see how retarded Oerdin's post was?

[giblets]

There is a continuation with pure central planning and pure free market and everything in between. The hard truth is no country has ever been pure one or the other and even the US has some central planning or control. The extremists will never admit it but we need a mix of both and the arguments are really about degrees rather then purely one or the other. The US could benefit from a bit of national industrial policy especially since China and to a lesser extent India have been using their national industrial policies to kick our asses. Take for instance the recent problem with rare earth elements; China subsidized the **** out of one of it's state owned mining companies to under cut every other producer in the world so that China's one state owned company ended up producing over 90% of the world's REE and once the near monopoly was achieved it began using access to REEs as a weapon. First they used it against Japan last winter (during a dispute over the Spraitley islands) and now they're restricting exports to the rest of the world essentially telling electronics makers to either set up shop in China or to go without the REEs they need. The US shouldn't allow this type of monopoly so we should be subsidizing our own REE production and encouraging everyone else to do the same since China isn't playing by Free Market rules and instead is attempting to monopolize a strategic resource for mercantilist purposes. That's a form of central planning but one we desperately need to do if we don't want to be dependent upon a foreign power with its own agenda.

So your point is that central planning allows countries to engage in rent seeking behavior and attempt to screw the other countries? And this is somehow a good thing? If everyone tries to do it then we all lose.

[Berzerker]

You really don't see how retarded Oerdin's post was?

nope, not based on the 1 sentence I didn't even address anyway

sure better than your contribution, sorry

[Tupac Shakur]

Yes, my facts are certainly worse than Oerdin's monster paragraph of incorrect statements.

[Berzerker]

this was your contribution

"This thread is retarded, then."

your "facts" came afterward and were directed at 1 sentence from Oerdin that I dont even care about - you'd know that if you read my response. It dont matter if China is kicking our ass "now" or will be in ~20 years, the trend is obviously in favor of asians so I consider your rebuttal both valid and nitpicking.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz, you don't consider the demographic dividend to be in play? China's going to have a huge labour crunch.

[KrazyHorse]

China and to a lesser extent India have been using their national industrial policies to kick our asses.

2009 World Bank GDP figures (nominal, millions $)

United States - 14,119,000
China - 4,985,461
India - 1,377,265

World Bank 2009 per capita GDP figures (nominal, $)

United States - 45,989
China - 3,744
India - 1,192

How exactly are China and India kicking America's ass?

This. "Becoming less bad" != "Outperforming"

The wonderful progress China and India have been making lately (as in the last couple of decades) is due ENTIRELY to the changes they've made to LIBERATE their markets.

[KrazyHorse]

It's like a swimmer underwater dropping some lead weights and beginning to float up. A guy at the surface is still in a better position, and it's not the remaining lead weights that are helping the underwater guy float...

There's this tremendous misunderstanding between levels and growth rates. Growth rates are good because they lead to higher levels, but I'd rather be living in the US with a stagnant (but large) GDP per capita than in China with a growing (but still small) GDP per capita.