No, you are saying "centrally planned economy" on their behalf. They are calling for extreme but temporary emergency measures to handle what may be the greatest economic crisis of our lifetimes.
Are you seriously confusing support for these measures with support for ending the market system in the United States? Can you see what a fantastical stretch that is?
You might want to make your comment again without using the phrase "planned economy". It doesn't matter that you're probably using it to mean "an economy under the active influence of a government through large work orders in response to a crisis"; many economically versed individuals will take a gigantic dump on you regardless because they figure you're dog-whistling communism, intentionally or not.
Just figured you may want to know, because you have a decent point.
No on is suggesting central planning, my friend. It's funny how proponents of capitalism always jump to erect this straw-man when any criticisms come up.
This is a trolling remark, right? Do you seriously believe a centrally planned economy can be superior to one in which economic activity is self-directed, decentralised and based on the price discovery model?
This is not a "hey, maybe we should require some stockpiles" like they do in Switzerland (didn't stockpile enough masks, sadly enough).
The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position.
Developed countries all find some balance between central planning and laissez faire, but they do so by assuming the free market as the default. Intervention and central planning is only applied to specific cases where there is a concrete public interest in doing so.
> has become, "we must centrally plan all economic activity according to political exigencies,"
Could you give some examples of popular Western politicians currently advocating for centrally planning all economic activity?
If you stretch "all direct CO2 emissions" to mean the same as "all economic activity", and "taxing after the fact" to mean same as "centrally planning", then maybe 10% of Western politicians and voters would support what you're afraid of.
There is a lot wrong with your statement. The US economy has parts that are centrally planned.
The PRC had enormous economic growth - and also a famine that killed millions of people. It was a centrally planned absolute catastrophe. Then in the 1970s, they realized that central planning wasn't going to keep working, so they moved to more of a free market approach - not totally, but much more than they had. And growth continued for several more decades.
> But the distribution portion of the economy for the US is compared to the centrally planned production if the other economy. It makes no sense.
Where are you getting this from? Certainly not from the parts you quote.
"Planners are neither motivated nor able to do either. They are the ones bringing the economic collapse."
Erm, no, its the briliant free market optimised supply chains that have failed and gave us this inflation.
The free-market has ensured that the entire continent of North America produced Zero medical masks in the first year of the pandemic because there is no meltblown production on the entire continent. There was zero stock because everyone is 'just in time manufacturing'
It is also free market that controls the velocity of money, and when people can't get the goods they need because they are all stuck on the other side of the olanet, they start outbudding each-other and yiu get inflation. Eve all central bankers stopped existing before this crisis, the inflation of consumer economy would be exactly the same
It is surprising to see these sentiments on a site ostensibly for entrepreneurs and builders.
If you'd prefer a centrally planned and regulated economy, that is a different discussion. From my side, I believe you should enjoy your views and the living situation which accompanies it.
Not interested in arguing the virtues of either approach here. Taking exception with the inaccurate characterizations is as far as I go. If you believe an economy driven by central bank policy is a free-market, I'm not sure there's much more we can say here.
Could you please point to any evidence of Sanders plans to replace a market economy with an entirely centrally planned economy? That's essentially been your assertion, and I'm not familiar of any sources making this claim.
Essentially, yes—they're both examples of centralized planning, where the conceit of politicians drives complex economic systems arbitrarily, resulting in chaos.
It's more than that: it's the government doing anti-market things such as forcing stores to sell products below cost, then lamenting that shortages are happening. That government has no concept of basic economics. Central planning has never worked -- ever. They need to read more Adam Smith and less Karl Marx.
Are you seriously confusing support for these measures with support for ending the market system in the United States? Can you see what a fantastical stretch that is?
reply