now*

its amazing how you never concede even one point

ok, let me say it again

the USSR failed for MANY reasons, I just listed a few other reasons. if you said one of the main reasons was the centrally planned economy I would agree. they failed to find an efficient way of centrally planning. one of the main reasons central planning did not work was the detailed planning of everything and the inability to liquidate losing buisnesses and factories. that is first of all does not mean that every central planned system will fail, secondly there were other factors, like the fact that ussr had to use more than 40% of its money to keep up with the rearment done under reagaen, which also cost (if i remember correctly) 1 trillion dollars in US debt to europe.



I know you agree that centrally planned systems can work. otherwise you would be against firedepartments, police departments, the army and the justice system.

Boogy; you obviously haven't read the whole thread; stop trolling me :p

Maybe we just agree to disagree Mrk. It sounds like what you are saying is that you think the USSR could have succeeded as a centrally planned nation if not for a bunch of individual circumstances. I completely disagree and I think it takes a lot of hubris to think that any government is capable of planning the lives of each and every person. It is simply not possible to do. Not even Google or Microsoft could pull something off like that; yet you seem to think that a bunch of bureaucrats can; I view that as simply naive.

Btw; I view governments as a necessary evil; meaning sure; they centrally provide police; justice system; and army. But you are incorrect if you think that I view these as efficiently done. But it is a necessary evil; without the government providing those services; it would be anarchy.

The greatest atrocities ever perpetrated on the planet have been performed by governments. It is a very dangerous beast; and it must be kept chained down at all times.

Keep feeding your beast if you want; but you will reap what you sow. Eventually it will become so powerful that it doesn't need you anymore. You fallacy is thinking that government actually has your best interest in mind.

Deadcode: "I looked it up again; and you are right; it is 77k; but I was also wrong on the USA average; now it is 230k."

GG Boogy. Now show me an instance of you saying I'm right and you are wrong. Oh wait; that has never happened.

Hypocrite: the man who murdered both his parents... pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan. ~Abraham Lincoln

:p

dead, let me clearyfy my position about the USSR, I believe it would not have collapsed if it had not been for the multitude of reasons. but the main reason was its more or less imperialistic power asspiration, its oversized military, its involvement in a global cold war, its political structure that created alot of corruption (one main reason is that there was not democratic structure so that the powerstructure was unaccountable for its actions and they could hide the corruption), its inability to close down failed buisnesses and its desperate strive to be self sufficient.

I have heard someone say that they could have been able to pull of the central planning with modern computers able to much more correctly plan how to produce, combined with factories that did not delibiratly produce badly (like a factory only producing right shoes in order to meet its quota).

I would think these problems can each have been bigger problem than the fact that the economy was centrally planned. (to reiterate, bad central planning was a worse problem than the fact that the economy was planned, chinas economy is much more effiently centrally planned(/controlled) than the ussr ever was)


"....government is capable of planning the lives of each and every person. It is simply not possible to do."

this is hardly close to what socialiced medicine is. centrally planned socialiced medicine is about standards and where to build what.

Guess we must agree to disagree because there is pretty much nothing in your last post that I agree with.

Central planning in my eyes is not only immoral and unethical (you are literally manipulating people's lives) but it simply isn't sustainable.

China in my eyes will either collapse or move further towards capitalism. Europe is in the process of collapsing because of it's usage of central planning. USA is in the process of collapsing because of it's usage of central planning. USSR collapsed; as stated before.

Let me ask you a question. You stated that you think central planning would work if we had computers all doing it for us. My question is why are you so adamant about finding a solution that involves basically everyone's lives run by computers (which is silly because ultimately there is still a human ruler).

Why can't people just be free to make their own choices? Don't you find central planning to be unethical? If not; why not? Also where do you think rights come from? And who gives you the right to dictate how others live their lives?

And by the way; as a software engineer; I'm completely baffled that you think that computers would even be able to handle this type of thing. Central planning doesn't fail because of lack of speed of the bureaucrats. It fails because it is impossible to have all the variables necessary to determine the proper amount of production. It is just simply impossible to monitor all those variables.

Ultimately the result of your hubris is millions of people starved to death; because you made a mistake in planning. This my friend is what Hayek called "Fatal Conceit". An excessively favorable opinion of one's own abilities; that leads to the death of many millions.

Don't you worry about the worst off in our society? Doesn't it bother you that those who for whatever reason cannot afford health insurance go without regular medical care? The private sector does not address this ethical issue. You say "central planning" is unethical; I think unbridled capitalism is.

Are you so caught up in your ideology that you can't see the underclass of uninsured people in this country as a moral disgrace?