Reply #4: Makes sense. [View All]

[RandomThoughts]

The basic concept of planned society to avoid consolidations and failures in capitalism is easiest seen when production capability surpasses demand.

When production is much lower then demand, capitalism's faults of 'scarcity need' are fulfilled by condition, not by an attempt of capitalism.

The shift to more production then demand some decades or centuries ago however introduced central planning in the form of monopolies for profit to create scarcity and consumerism, and many other planned models for profit, or even war or other items to create demand. That form of central planning fails.

When he mentions central planning he does not mention who should do that planning except a comment about 'society' Another problem exist when capitalism buys that 'society planning sector' by buying elected officials.

So the question is how to form a societal unit that can monitor or adjust society without it falling back into profit motive trap, and then consolidations.


The answer is less productive, less profitable, and less efficient. Many smaller companies and employee owned companies, and government of equal size to monitor and regulate those companies not dependent on money for election.

But not less productive by intent, but because duplications in many companies makes things less profitable, so mega companies like wallmart being more profitable are the problem, since the issue should not be profit.

How do you move it out of 'profit first'? Leaders should care more about society then making a profit, that removes the shareholder model, unless worker owned. Since if worker owned then the worker situation becomes more important then the profit.

The central planning model should be the coercive hammer to break up companies, and reduce their size and profit. Simple rules about size and profit would solve that, but that model being less efficient, tariffs would have to be in place to stop a better system from falling into race to the bottom. So free trade is wrong also.


Basically there has to be enforcements on maximum wages, and maximum sizes of companies. Why there use to be 90% tax bracket. Then when people hit a certain wealth, they stop working, and retire, or work without the money concept being the goal.

The shareholder problem is vast, since breaking up 'ownership' is difficult, it can be done over generations by taxation, or it can be done by revolution or removal of value of something like money, or removal of claims of ownership, squater rights on foreclosed properties.

But anyways, what he says makes sense, and anyone that hears that would agree, the fear many have is the 'central control' because it begins to set prices and stuff like that. The price setting is not needed, just break up the biggest of companies, and use the taxes on high wages to pay for start ups in sectors that society needs, not for profit but for the betterment of society, health, energy, education, entertainment, parks, food, and any other needs.

Central planning works, but if it is just, it should be open to civilian review by not being hidden, and society should be educated to understand, or at least have a form of representative government not ran by threats of harm, or desire for power and money.