huh

the chinese collectivist farming had to revert back to pseudo private property because they were all starving

Correct; they had massive shortages.

ussr grew a lot after abandonment of nep

Right.

nah, i'm just fucking around.
kinda wish Mark David Chapman had gotten Yoko as well .... how do you fuck that up?

He missed

They turned into the inevitable, a Fascist State, combining the policy of both Socialism and Capitalism.

That's always the death of Communist idealism.

Every time.

Oh I thought you were talking about Beatles withouth John

@Death in June

Fascism is economically variable

In policy, yes, but that's not what matters.

In theory and practice

@Weez It isn't.

It's just one man's dream.

You can't centrally plan economies for a long period of time.

Currently, sure.

No matter if it is under communism or fascism.

Anyway, going back to you, @yordanyordanov.
"Why don't we INBUID it through systems of hierarchy where the most competent rises due to his skills?"
You're advocating for meritocracy. I couldn't disagree with this, but that's what already happens in competitive markets. Let's not exclude the labor markets, either.

it depends on what you're planning

firms make use of central planning

some things are more suited for more centralized levels of planning

And it doesn't have to be centralized planning, to the extent we're commonly familiar with.

I think there is a place for a meritocratic economy if regulation is SELF-IMPOSED, rather than centralized?

Can you imagine a hierarchy of regulations within a hierarchy of laws.

Much like a constitution is above any laws and it's the supreme authority ever, so can you imagine a hierarchy of laws with the central being the constitution but the lower levels of the hierarchy being written by professional guilds themeselves?

Take the Obama-era policy of a simple regulation subjecting restaurants to the legal liabilities of another, simply due to on commonality: utilizing the same distributor or supplier. Firms of economic scale, major corporations, benefit from this as they have the advantage of their own suppliers or distributors, or the revenue justifying the legal expenditures of the regulations they're now subject, while most small businesses, within this industry, would go belly-up, while their market-share is absorbed by the firms of economic scale, @Death in June. It's a highly subtle manner to plan the economy and lead credence to corporatism.

We already have real life analogues of that in legal practice with some disputes and some regulations acting on municipal levels and arbitrage courts.

as far as fascism goes tho there was really only one government that lasted for any length of time that proclaimed itself to be fascist

that doesn't really sound like central planning

that's just putting regulations on the market

No, it's an indirect means of planning.

Now, extrapolate that out, to the extent businesses often can't enter a market without a subsidy.

They must then lobby regulators.

There's your planned economy.

Every economy is planned @Jeremy

The critical question is HOW MUCH?

It's the SCALE , not the planning itself that's crucial here.

That depends on your definition of planning, but at what cost?