>Cold War
>use central planning to get people to the Moon
>build up a spectacular army using the state budget and central planning
>attract brilliant minds and learn make nuclear weapons and nuclear power thanks to central planning
>imply to the rest of the world that this somehow proves how inefficient central planning is, and how free markets are superior
Americans, explain yourselves. How the fuck is generating great innovation and achievements using your form of central planning prove that free markets are better at everything? Most of great innovation (the Internet, nuclear power, tactile screens, etc.) came from the state, not the private sector.
>>960310
>growth of a massive tumour-like military-industrial complex
>poisoning the well of any even slightly leftwing ideas
>inspiring a false sense of invincibility that has led to imperial over-reach
Defeating the USSR without firing a single nuke is an impressive achievement, but the Cold War was a massive waste of resources all round.
>>960348
>waste of resources
Most of modern technology would be impossible without the US (and to extent Soviet) central planning employed during the Cold War.
This ranges from nuclear power and the Internet to LCD displays and your tactile shit gadgets.
>>960310
Central planning is a great way to throw money at technological/scientific projects, but not a great way to sustain societies in the long term.
>>960422
Free markets are not a great way to sustain societies either. Given the fact that resources are limited and that free markets always result in constant increase in consumption (which was mathematically demonstrated), the kind of growth offered by free markets is simply unsustainable in the long term.
We will just end up consuming all the resources and killing each other over the remains.
As of now a combination of both - central planning and free market, seems to work well. But central planning needs to be done more to guarantee the growth of innovation and sustainable use of energy for the private sector.
The Chinese finally started doing this just recently, and it seems to be working well. Denmark does this as well, and kept doing this for a while.
>>960479
Denmark is not similar to China. Denmark has a relatively free market, where it's easy to fire people, but a generous welfare state with especially good training for out of work people. China is a protectionist state that is heavily invested in the "private" sector with much worse social services.
"Just how fucked are you? Find out with this handy wallet-sized aircraft distance estimator!"
>>960535
Good job at completely ignoring my argument, and instead inventing and criticizing your own.
Denmark uses central planning to a great extent to fulfill its sustainable energy quotas, because free markets are inefficient at it - this is the main point of my argument.
Other points of my argument can be grasped by... reading the actual post I made, and not inventing your own bullshit and then criticizing it.
Also, you make it seem like one has to choose between either free markets or central planning. This is a false dilemma - a common logical fallacy.
Central planning can co-exist with very free markets, as there can be both a powerful public and a big private sector.
>>960554
Are you trying to make fun of this because it was made by the state?
The Internet, the smartphones, mobile communication (this requires satellites and orbital launch - guess how it was developed), LCD screens and pretty much most of modern technology wouldn't be developed if it wasn't for the public sector and central planning.
If, say, Apple had to invest into the development of all the technologies that were needed for its iPhone, it would go bankrupt. It should be grateful that a powerful, centrally planned, innovation generating public sector once existed.
My main point is that there has to be a powerful and centrally planned public sector for high levels of scientific and technological innovation to exist. Most private companies can't afford to invest heavily into Research and Development, but the state can do that, and had been shown to do so well.
>>960310
If you think about it, digitization makes central planning easier and more efficient than ever. The biggest corporations basically act as central planners in their given market(s), or at least they would like to do so.
>tfw still not living in space exploration age
>tfw still not colonizing planets
>tfw have to deal with issues like illiterate muslims and rapefugees instead
I didn't imagine future like this
>>960676
The problem with that argument is that First no one ever claimed the state cannot do anything right (except anarchists)
Of course if you throw enough money at a project you can build something, but that doesn't mean that those programs are not racked with inefficiencies. We have the technology to go to the moon, but no one does, because there is no economic motive to do so.
The soviet union collapsed not because its military was weak or its technology was bad, but because their centralized economy simply could not provide people with the necessities, and their top down social structure alienated more and more of the population until they couldn't take it anymore
se
>>960348
>>growth of a massive tumour-like military-industrial complex
I disagree with OP, central planning is shit, but if you're American, this plank is complete hypocrisy. Americans don't have universal healthcare, but they have railguns and several of their dozen security agencies spy on their own citizens.
>>960310
Putting men on the moon doesn't mean a whole bunch when you cant even build a decent fridge.
>How the fuck is generating great innovation and achievements using your form of central planning prove that free markets are better at everything?
Where that the case then the soviet union would have ecplisped the US technologically, yet instead their electronics where backwards and highly limited and in space matters far more dangerous to the crew. Not only that but by centralising power like that you get insanity like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism taking pride of place.
>The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism were built on Lamarckan heritability of acquired characteristics.[1] Lysenko's theory rejected Mendelian inheritance, the concept of the "gene" and departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection.[2] Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds are spontaneously transmuting into food grains, and that 'natural cooperation' was observed in nature as opposed to 'natural selection'.[2] Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and agriculture that never came about.
>The campaign was supported by Joseph Stalin. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were sent to prison or fired or executed as a part of this campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents. The president of the Agriculture Academy was sent to prison and died there, while the scientific research in the field of genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.[2] Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines was also negatively affected or banned.[3]
Societies based on State Central planning consistently fail when it comes to doing anything other than waging war or maximising employment
>>960479
>We will just end up consuming all the resources and killing each other over the remains.
Remeber when the Free Market destroyed one of the largest inland bodies of water on earth? oh wait that was central planning.
>Formerly one of the four largest lakes in the world with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet irrigation projects.By 2007, it had declined to 10% of its original size.....The region's once-prosperous fishing industry has been essentially destroyed, bringing unemployment and economic hardship. The Aral Sea region is also heavily polluted, with consequential serious public health problems.
