^^

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!

But the way you interpreted it into this conversation didn't make sense

@VoVoDoCo
You've yet to prove that it was the planners that drew these plans

The central government of policy makers aren't "planners," a planner is a bureaucrat who're to a minor extent detatched from the party and the leader.

Many of such economic policies were drawn up by Hitler's economist at Hitler's beheast, in other words, no real planners were actually used to create Hitler's economy.

Semantics

Semantics? Not really.

We're not debating semantics, I'm just using the term planner in a correct manner.

Protectionism certainly wasn't a result of consumer choices. It was a result of the government.

Ahah.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, which textbook definition of planner arevyou using?

Source please

Oxford.