In a matter of fact, the argument that a plan economy lead to increased taxes and protectionism is outside of reality. Hitler in fact reduced taxation, despite having a plan economy.

*"Taxes, like trade policy, is a tool that the central planner can't wield efficiently."*

Even more so, you need to provide evidence that countries like Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and France (Under Dirigisme) gave the central planners the ability to draw taxes and put up protectionist barriars.

@Deleted User arent you 12?

@rory
Aren't you autistic?

@Deleted User
Taxes were an example. And I'm aware that Hitler lower taxes. I didn't even mention a raise in taxes.

GG @VoVoDoCo, you just advanced to level 3!

@VoVoDoCo You stated that planners needed to be able to manipulate taxes. But from what I'm aware of, most countries that has used some form of central planning only gave the planners the ability to regulate the economy, not to draw taxes or even put up protectionist barriers.

I'm the one that initially brought up privatization. You think I don't know about their tax rate?

*"That's not moving the goalposts. That be like if I talked about how Another planned economies policies affected taxes and you said, "We're talking about central planning, not taxes." Taxes, like trade policy, is a tool that the central planner can't wield efficiently."*
^ Your statement, where's the word "privitization"?

Now you're trying to move back to an argument I've already refuted.

Seeing as i'm better read on Fascist Italy's economic planning, I can confirm that such things as tax-rates weren't in the hand of the Corporative council.

^^

Now you're moving back again.

Stop backtracking.

That's where I brought up taxes

*"That's not moving the goalposts. That be like if I talked about how Another planned economies policies affected taxes and you said, "We're talking about central planning, not taxes." Taxes, like trade policy, is a tool that the central planner can't wield efficiently."*

This is where you did.

You asked where the word privatization was

**"taxes, like trade policy, is a tool that the central planner can't wield efficiently."** So you're saying you didn't say this?

I'm asking a second time, or else we'll just end the discussion here, provide any evidence that the countries in question actually allowed planners to put up protectionist barriers.

I'm on @VoVoDoCo side

The arguing wasn't revolving around taxes. You said we weren't discussing protectionism. Therefore I wasn't allowed to bring it up. I was saying that was like saying that I couldn't bring up taxes. It's absurd.

Nobody cares, people who got the majority behind them tend to be in the wrong @rednaxela

Wow

@VoVoDoCo
Then don't mention it.

It's that simple

Just the fact that your brain works that way is sad

If you don't want it to be discussed or used against you, don't write it.

"oh this has a lot of support? Must be bad"

"Stopping murder? A lot of people support that. Must be bad"

@rednaxela

But your way of thinking is absolutely idiotic

What was your argument then @Deleted User

You've yet to demonstrate that.

Just because someone has a lot of support dies not mean they are in the wrong

That people are too ignorant and unknowing to actually draw sound economic and social policies, and that if people were given all the power to do so, a country would gradually enter an era of stagnation.

In other words, if the majority were to choose a country wouldn't be doing well

Okay. That makes sense.

GG @rednaxela, you just advanced to level 9!