Centrally planned economies are just as good as capitalistic economies

I see that no on on Sup Forums has valid counter arguments against communism other than power abuse. The current generation of youngsters is absolutely pathetic.

Other urls found in this thread:

bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-10/china-takes-on-state-owned-firms
ft.com/content/2b6d92cc-946c-11e7-bdfa-eda243196c2c
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>calculation problem
>incentive problem
>implying the (((party))) will let the state wither away

>implying anyone needs to argue against an ideology which has repeatedly ran its own self into the ground
LOL

>>calculation problem
None with super computers.
>incentive problem
None with adequate exchange rates.
>implying the (((party))) will let the state wither away
Power abuse is not a valid argument against the economic foundation of communism. Power abuses happen even in capitalism.

>>implying anyone needs to argue against an ideology which has repeatedly ran its own self into the ground
>you have no arguments.
I didn't think so either.

>b-but what if we just had a magical computer that could calculate everything ever
No

READ COCKSHOTT

>>b-but what if we just had a magical computer that could calculate everything ever
>No
Yes.

The left can't meme

No real price no real economy.

/thread

Read a book faggot. Pic related.

>No real price no real economy.
Prices don't define an economy. The goods and services produced define it.

>Read a book faggot. Pic related.
My post says that people on Sup Forums have no valid counter argument against communism except power abuse by communist leaders. You're reinforcing that claim.

ill only support communism if everyone else agrees to laugh at you while you starve to death.

>ill only support communism if everyone else agrees to laugh at you while you starve to death.
I'm talking about the fundamental principle behind centrally planned economies. You're conflating that with poor central planning by the Soviets. You don't have any argument.

A common counter argument is that 'true communism' hasn't been tried yet. By that logic, true national socialism hasn't been tried yet

>if ~~I~~ was running communism then itd work right!

Fuck off faggot

i just want to watch you die and laugh about it.
also robo marx wont work unless your super-duper-computer is also telepathic.

oh, they all did it wrong - but you'll do it right! you expect me to believe you, why?

You don't read a lot, do you?

>A common counter argument is that 'true communism' hasn't been tried yet
All I'm saying is that communism leads to power abuse is not a valid counter argument. Power abuse occurs even in capitalistic economies.
>By that logic, true national socialism hasn't been tried yet
Sure, I can agree with that.

...

because he has a computer that will tell him what the soviets did wrong. duh.

>>if ~~I~~ was running communism then itd work right!
>Fuck off faggot
I didn't think you had any valid ideas either.

>>>calculation problem
>None with super computers.
And a human has to set up the calculations and assumptions you retard.
Garbage data in, garbage data out.

don't forget what goes in the options field

Price calculation
Resource allocation
Labor incentives

There. Three reasons your faggotry doesn't work that don't mention power. Fuck off and die.

>oh, they all did it wrong
>because he has a computer that will tell him what the soviets did wrong.
What a moronic interpretation. I said computers can help in planning and now we have better computational capabilities than during the cold war.
>but you'll do it right! you expect me to believe you, why?
Look, I'm just arguing for the soundness of centrally planned economies. I'm here to argue on logic. I don't EXPECT you to believe me. I'm here to discuss and I'm open to valid counter arguments. Not shit tier arguments like communism leads to starvation or genocide - those are specific to power abusing individuals, not a tenet of communism - communism doesn't require you to starve people or genocide them.

>You don't read a lot, do you?
I'm a retired econ prof. I've read a lot and continue to read a lot. Either way, you don't have a valid counter argument.

>And a human has to set up the calculations and assumptions you retard.
>Garbage data in, garbage data out.
So your issue is with humans implementing communism, and not with communism itself, correct? Because if it's humans then I can present inefficiencies even in capitalistic, libertarian, social, or fascist economies.

>Price calculation
>Resource allocation
>Labor incentives
All taken care of by central planning.
>Three reasons your faggotry doesn't work that don't mention power.
Where? You haven't even mentioned a single one.

Those who can't do...teach
Fuck off commie

It's still with communism but this is another issue.
It's fundamentally oppressive and restrictive to individual rights.

>communism doesn't require you to starve people or genocide them.

no it doesn't. those things happen because you have no idea how to organize the allocation of resources. you could keep exposing your own ignorance of the calculation problem or you could go learn something. up to you, but heres a starting point: the calculation problem was never about "processing power" or "computational abilities".

>Those who can't do...teach
>Fuck off commie
So you have no argument against the economic foundation of centrally planned systems other than that I'm a teacher? Ok.

> super computers.
none with socialism

>It's fundamentally oppressive and restrictive to individual rights.
Because communists abuse power more than capitalists?

>those things happen because you have no idea how to organize the allocation of resources.
Once again you're bringing in humans who can't faithfully implement a centrally planned economy. If your argument is that resource allocation cannot be solved, then that's not true. We have models that can solve them and we now have the computational power to do so - which the soviets did not have.

Do you, or do you not have an argument against centrally planned economies that does not involve human incompetence? Because human incompetence exists in every economic system, and it's not unique to centrally planned economies.
>the calculation problem was never about "processing power" or "computational abilities".
It was always about processing power. In economics, the great debate refers to the collection of papers between 1910s and 1940s where people debated the superiority of centrally planned economies vs superiority of free markets. In the end, both sides agreed that there was no difference if the centrally planned economy had the computational processing ability to solve the problem of prices - general equilibrium.

>> super computers.
>none with socialism
Are you saying centrally planned economies cannot give rise to super computers? That's not true.

Only edgy 15 year olds and cringeworthy faggots believe communism will ever work

You forgot occultists and star trek fans

Value is subjective. robo marc wont work unless he can read minds.

robo marx

>Only edgy 15 year olds and cringeworthy faggots believe communism will ever work
>You forgot occultists and star trek fans
You two sound like edgy 15 year olds who have no counter arguments, but have internalized all the capitalistic kool-aid that extols capitalism. I hope you two realize that both your economies are on the verge of collapse. The U.S. economy is propped up by the petrodollar, and due to Brexit, Britain is now exposed to real market pressures for which it's no longer prepared.

>Value is subjective. robo marc wont work unless he can read minds.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about determining prices based on supply and demand. NASDAQ computers accomplish that for online trading. It's perfectly feasible for determining the prices of all goods in the economy - A.I. traders who set the prices based on supply and demand.

I don't know why you need to read people's minds for that.

Communism might not require you to starve people or oppress them, but it's an inevitable outcome because communism does require everyone in the system to be working towards the same goal, some idealistic "common good". Human nature doesn't work that way, people have different motives and want different things from life.

It's clear capitalism is the best system because it best suits human nature. It allows individuals to make their own choices, mistakes and successes, and rewards or punishes them accordingly depending on how they benefit the rest of society.

The problem with planned economies is that they assume the one doing the planning knows best. Be it a computer, some algorithm, the party secretary, whatever, you can't predict what people want or need. You also can't ever know what resources are to be allocated because not all resources are physical or can be measured (what makes one teacher better than another for example?)

Communism and centrally planned economies assume everyone is the same. Capitalism assumes nothing and let's people be the masters of their own destiny, let's them negotiate with eachother for mutual benefit.

>demand
>I don't know why you need to read people's minds for that.

so then the computers are the ones seeking to improve their material conditions through voluntary exchange of goods and services?

That's because majority of Sup Forums are politically illiterate retards that don't give a shit about policy as long as they get to be dicks to brown people.

They only like trump because he's unhinged and openly racist. As long as that's the case, Trump could ban all guns, move the US capital to Israel and publish a video of himself sucking Putin's dick and they'd still support him.

>The U.S. economy is propped up by the petrodollar

indeed and saudi arabia is instrumental in that, however if you were paying attention you'd know that they also recently granted citizenship to an AI named sophia, which is the divinity of wisdom that the templars worshipped. and if you dont know who they were you should probably do a quick search on who founded the modern banking system in the first place hundreds of years ago.
you still want to argue who is more informed about this or do you want to learn?

You can't override the biological imperative that man has to hunt to survive. Capitalism allows an individual to keep what they earn and best fits our competitive nature. Socialism is a nice ideal and all but unworkable in reality because the system requires 100% dedication, which is essentially slavery since choice is abolished completely.

>because communism does require everyone in the system to be working towards the same goal, some idealistic "common good"
No, why do you amateurs keep peddling this on Sup Forums? Centrally planned economies don't expect people to work for some idealistic common good, they expect them to work in return for goods and services from the state.

The idealistic common good you refer to is propaganda - which the soviets failed at and which the capitalists succeeded at.
>Human nature doesn't work that way, people have different motives and want different things from life.
Centrally planned economies don't advocate for a uniform preference profile among its populace. It only advocates for the production to be centrally planned.
>It's clear capitalism is the best system because it best suits human nature.
Once again, you're peddling talking points recycled on Sup Forums.
> It allows individuals to make their own choices, mistakes and successes, and rewards or punishes them accordingly depending on how they benefit the rest of society.
That's not true. Capitalism has always, inevitably, lead to monopolies, and given that corporatists have access to political power - plutarchies.

Capitalism doesn't work in the long run because companies that have a dominant portion of the market share make it harder and harder for new participants to enter the market.

What you're peddling is an idealized version of capitalism - the perfect market.
>Be it a computer, some algorithm, the party secretary, whatever, you can't predict what people want or need.
Simple algorithm - A.I. traders bid for prices and sell goods and services at appropriate prices. People then have to produce the goods and services promised.
>You also can't ever know what resources are to be allocated because not all resources are physical or can be measured (what makes one teacher better than another for example?)
The same logic applies to capitalistic markets. What measures exist for intangibles?

>>I don't know why you need to read people's minds for that.
>so then the computers are the ones seeking to improve their material conditions through voluntary exchange of goods and services?
Yes, A.I.'s who work on the suppliers behalf bid as high a price as possible, and A.I.s who work on the buyers behalf bid as low a price as possible. The prices that match get paired. It happens on NASDAQ all the time (by that I mean that's how NASDAQ works).

You can now extrapolate this real time trading to long term planning - what's the population, average consumption, how much must be produced to accommodate the population.

Agreed man. Honestly, I'd see more arguments for a centrally planned government. One that counts all the food required, and distrubutes it as required. Only issue at the moment is cost, which is decreasing.

In theory, corporations should do this, but they don't, instead just making as much as is profitable, meaning we get fed MUCH more than necessary.

Currently, in some nations, liberalism has made it so they just ship out their food, increasing prices domestically, which screws over the poor people.

The calculation problem is not just a lack of processing power it is the inability to even gauge what prices of goods should be relative to one another without millions of independent actors making decisions. It is not just a mathematical problem but a qualitative one as well.

The creative destruction of a free market forces businesses to adopt new and better practices or else they go broke while a planned economy is stagnant and prays that somebody else discovers something so that they can immediately copy it.

Value is subjective. until you understand this you understand nothing.
"Moreover, in his later rebuttal to the champions of the Pareto-Barone equations, Mises points out that the crucial problem is not simply that the economy is not and can never be in the general equilibrium state described by these differential equations. In addition to other grave problems with the equilibrium model (e.g.: that the socialist planners do not now know their value scales in future equilibrium; that money and monetary exchange cannot fit into the model; that units of productive factors are neither perfectly divisible nor infinitesimal-and that marginal utilities, of different people cannot be equated-on the market or anywhere else), the equations "do not provide any information about the human actions by means of which the hypothetical state of equilibrium" has been or can be reached. In short, the equations offer no information whatever on how to get from the existing disequilibrium state to the general equilibrium goal."

an extremely powerful AI would manage an economy much better than the (((free market)))

>indeed and saudi arabia is instrumental in that, however if you were paying attention you'd know that they also recently granted citizenship to an AI named sophia
You are a teenager, aren't you? Your attention span is non-existent. I'm arguing for the economic principles of centrally planned economies, and you've digressed into the petro-dollar. Well done. I spoke of the petrodollar to counter your nonsense criticisms of centrally planned economies by stating that the U.S. and U.K. economies are not healthy either.

Now you've digressed completely and gone into the banking system.
>you still want to argue who is more informed about this or do you want to learn?
You know, if you just want to get this off your chest, go ahead. I'm not going to stop you.

not unless it can read minds

you're just a troll. there is no way to know the price of a good or service without free exchange. There is no way to efficiently allocate resources where they are needed most without the price system.
The only "incentive" laborers have under central planning is the incentive not to be shot for non-compliance.
Fuck yourself and everything you stand for.

How many pencils is the Chicago Illinois downtown school district going to need next year?

If your answer to this is anything but yes I'm surprised you have the brain capacity to still be breathing

...

An centrally-planned economy cannot take into account the immediate desires and demands of the population into account beyond basic statistical measures and in result, it produces too much or too little, creating both waste and shortage at the same time.

Given that price is the ultimate measure of demand and value,any system that removes itself from the price consideration for its cost-effectiveness is bound to fail through sheer fact of lack of utility - no one will be interested in products that are overproduced and no one will be able to get hold of goods that are under-produced.

The idea that an economy can be centrally planned without a price mechanism is a faulty one and any computer-oriented system won't be able to cope with the shifting demands of people and trends that can be unpredictable.

Communists live in a world of ideas and conveniently ignore history that informs them that all their past attempts at creating their utopia failed miserably and have caused untold misery.

The meme flag is throwing me off. You aren't advocating for any kind of communism at all. You're advocating for National Socialism. Literally a Nazi. The central planning is hiding in the top-right corner. I look forward to the Fuhrer A.I.

>U.S. and U.K. economies are not healthy either.

When did i say they were?

>You can't override the biological imperative that man has to hunt to survive.
The last time I checked, hunting was controlled by central planning in western countries.

Also, we've gone off the path of forest based evolution since the discovery of farming. Our evolutionary process now follows political ideologies. Those who fit a political ideology survive, and those who don't die.

Stop with this hunter gatherer half cooked ideas.
>Capitalism allows an individual to keep what they earn and best fits our competitive nature.
Are you talking about ideal capitalism where capitalists have no access to government power? Because that's never been implemented either, and in modern times all capitalistic nations have ended up in the hands of oligarchs. So no, your point is useless here.
>Socialism is a nice ideal and all but unworkable in reality because the system requires 100% dedication, which is essentially slavery since choice is abolished completely.
It's the same with Capitalism. Once people stop drinking the kool-aid, you have revolutions where the rich are lynched.

Also, capitalistic countries have failed ultiple times economically, and the only reason they keep going is due to perpetual debt created by central banks.

So what's your point here? Ideal capitalism works? I can agree with that. Or are you saying that capitalism works and there's proof? Because there isn't.

" To begin with, what are the “economic” consequences? First—and this is the immediate general effect of all types of socialism—there is a relative drop in the rate of investment, the rate of capital formation. Since “socialisation” favours the nonuser, the nonproducer, and the noncontractor of means of production and, mutatis mutandis, raises the costs for users, producers, and contractors, there will be fewer people acting in the latter roles. There will be less original appropriation of natural resources whose scarcity is realised, there will be less production of new and less upkeep of old factors of production, and there will be less contracting. For all of these activities involve costs and the costs of performing them have been raised, and there are alternative courses of action, such as leisure-consumption activities, which at the same time have become relatively less costly, and thus more open and available to actors. Along the same line, because everyone’s investment outlets have dried up as it is no longer permissible to convert private savings into private investment, or because the outlets have been limited to the extent to which the economy is socialised, there will therefore be less saving and more consuming, less work and more leisure. After all, you cannot become a capitalist any longer, or your possibility of becoming one has been restricted, and so there is at least one reason less to save! Needless to say, the result of this will be a reduced output of exchangeable goods and a lowering of the living standard in terms of such goods.-cont

>The system that shall be used by humans is good if only it weren't for humans

This is self parody at this point

No. You'd rather want a bunch of human computers working together.

Consumption controls prices which control what people decide to produce.

And since these lowered living standards are forced upon people and are not the natural choice of consumers who deliberately change their relative evaluation of leisure and exchangeable goods as the result of work, i.e., since it is experienced as an unwanted impoverishment, a tendency will evolve to compensate for such losses by going underground, by moonlighting and creating black markets.
Secondly, a policy of the socialisation of means of production will result in a wasteful use of such means, i.e., in use which at best satisfies second-rate needs and at worst, satisfies no needs at all but exclusively increases costs. The reason for this is the existence and unavoidability of change! Once it is admitted that there can be change in consumer demand, change in technological knowledge, and change in the natural environment in which the process of production has to take place—and all of this indeed takes place constantly and unceasingly—then it must also be admitted that there is a constant and never-ending need to reorganize and reshuffle the whole structure of social production. There is always a need to withdraw old investments from some lines of production and, together with new ones, pour them into other lines, thus making certain productive establishments, certain branches, or even certain sectors of the economy shrink and others expand. Now assume—and this is precisely what is done under a socialisation scheme—that it is either completely illegal or extremely difficult to sell the collectively owned means of production into private hands. This process of reorganising the structure of production will then— even if it does not stop altogether—at least be seriously hampered! The reason is basically a simple one, but still of the utmost importance.-cont

Because the means of production either cannot be sold, or selling them is made very difficult for the selling caretaker or the private buyer or both, no market prices for the means of production exist, or the formation of such prices is hindered and made more costly But then the caretaker-producer of the socialized means of production can no longer correctly establish the actual monetary costs involved in using the resources or in making any changes in the production structure. Nor can he compare these costs with his expected monetary income from sales. In not being permitted to take any offers from other private individuals who might see an alternative way of using some given means of production, or in being restricted from taking such offers, the caretaker simply does not know what he is missing, what the foregone opportunities are, and is not able to correctly assess the monetary costs of withholding the resources. He cannot discover whether his way of using them or changing their use is worth the result in terms of monetary returns, or whether the costs involved are actually higher than the returns and so cause an absolute drop in the value of the output of consumer goods. Nor can he establish whether his way of producing for consumer demand is indeed the most efficient way (as compared with conceivable alternative ways) of satisfying the most urgent consumer needs, or if less urgent needs are being satisfied at the expense of neglecting more urgent ones, thus causing at least a relative drop in the value of the goods produced. Without being able to resort unrestrictedly to the means of economic calculation, there is simply no way of knowing.” -HHH

>capitalistic countries
>central banks

pick one and only one. or do you want to start an argument about government issued, legal tender, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking?

go back to /r/fullcommunism nigger

Every time it is tried it results in mass murder and starvation. Name one example communism has worked.

Free helicopter rides for communists.

And I'm a retired Space Marine who was born without nipples

My argument against communism is exactly power abuse, humans are greedy by nature, thinking there will ever be a system ruled by humans where power abuse ins't present is just dumb, since shit is gonna happen anyway I choose to have a merit based shit instead of a equality based shit.

>The calculation problem is not just a lack of processing power
It is.
> it is the inability to even gauge what prices of goods should be relative to one another without millions of independent actors making decisions.
Look, I've explained how NASDAQ trading works multiple times on this thread. Just go check it for yourself.
>The creative destruction of a free market forces businesses to adopt new and better practices
This is an ideal implementation of the free market - something we've never seen - because in real life free markets have been implemented via capitalism - which has led to the rise of monopolies. Or are you now going to argue with me on the ideal implementation of capitalism?
>while a planned economy is stagnant
The Soviets advanced in aerospace, math and economics just as fast as us, if not faster.
>prays that somebody else discovers something so that they can immediately copy it.
So there's no industrial espionage in capitalism? And there's no "inspiration" in capitalism? I mean, Lean Manufacturing was a U.S. discovery right? Not a Toyota concept? That's your argument, correct? That no one in capitalism copies best practices?

Is k triple h. robo marx will save us all.

>Value is subjective. until you understand this you understand nothing.
Value of goods and services? No, you can converge to the correct prices via simulated trading.
>""Moreover, in his later rebuttal to the champions of the Pareto-Barone equations, Mises points out that the crucial problem is not simply that the economy is not and can never be in the general equilibrium state described by these differential equations."
Why do you quote stuff without context? Von Mises' critique of Gen Eq models was one of many. After this quote economists started researching on principal agent models to rebuild the Gen Eq models from ground up, and now we have better Gen Eq models (stochastic and deterministic).

>correct prices

according to what criteria?

>No, you can converge to the correct prices via simulated trading.
lolwut? how would you calculate the scarcity of anything?

A centrally planned economy gives communists more power to abuse.

Clearly abuse of power is something inherent to humans, but the more power you put in the hands of a human, the more there is to abuse. Private property curtails the ability of those in power to abuse, since those below them still have the power represented by their property.

...

>so the only issue with communism are constraints existing in reality that we will never resolve unless for a and in it self dramatic unpredictable and uncalculatable shift altering completely how humans perceive and approach reality? there are literally no other arguments! Sup Forums BTFO! communism isnt retarded and works muh retarded edgy pseudointellectualauthor told me so! its a book so it cant be just wrong and retarded like me!

you dont understand. that was done by people. our new AI masters will have compassion and empathy programmed into them and would never do that.

But they effectively can at this point, if you've been paying attention.

They can aggregate data about your preferences and predict with high accuracy what ads and goods you'll be susceptible to. Some of this was leaked recently about AI chatbots using forums to encourage people to return to certain video games. This is happening at a very hidden level but is becoming ever more powerful.

What kind of weak willed faggots get scammed by an ai to play battlefront or destiny or any other shitty lootbox dispenser that triple a gaming has become?

also advertising =/= centrally planning an entire economy

What are you talking about? Half of Chinese state-runner companies are in deficit!
bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-10/china-takes-on-state-owned-firms

>SOEs are huge, and so are their liabilities. They're responsible for non-financial corporate debt equal to 90 percent of gross domestic product. Facing limited competitive pressure, they've driven the worst of China's debt-led excess: Return on assets for these firms in 2016 was a paltry 2.9 percent, compared to 10.2 percent in the private sector.

>One reason is that China's banking industry, which is itself almost exclusively state-owned, channels loans to SOEs in the expectation that they'll have an implicit government guarantee. SOEs provide only 16 percent of China's jobs and less than a third of its output, but they receive an astonishing 30 percent of all loans. With credit so easily available, they have little incentive to economize.

I have been doing a paper on private-owned Chinese refineries, called also "teapots". It is just crazy how the government try to kill you to favour their inefficient state companies.

Read this article: ft.com/content/2b6d92cc-946c-11e7-bdfa-eda243196c2c

>"Beijing’s push to use crude import quotas and licences as a tool to spur consolidation within China’s independent refining sector is working to correct an industry that has grown “out of control”."

Each Chinese province fakes its statistics to not get any blame from the central government. China was shit and there was nothing, they started opening to the world by being more "market-friendly" so they got a temporary great GDP growth which is starting to be stagnant.

If they do not reform, they will crash and burn.

You're changing the goalposts. AI can effectively 'read peoples' minds' through the aggregation of their habits. Such data is currently being used for advertising, but it's clear it could also be used to plan an economy, as it can know people's preferences better than they do (and it already does).

>we just need a flawless infallible all knowing entity stating absolute universal truths for communists to follow to solve one of the many immediately recognizable logical core contradictions and flaws of the delusional and nonsensical pipe dream and at best infantil suggestion labeled "communism" normal humans without damaged brains or ill intents keep pointing out us

Pathetic. Sage and hide.

>All taken care of by central planning
The burden of proof is upon you. What evidence do you have that central planning will take care of this? No pointing out some book for us to read. Tell us in your own words.

>you're just a troll. there is no way to know the price of a good or service without free exchange
And yet stocks are traded on NASDAQ without human intervention. The A.I. on the side of the seller bids as high a value as possible, and the A.I. on the side of the buyer bids as low a value as possible. The bids that match are paired.
>There is no way to efficiently allocate resources where they are needed most without the price system.
I'm now convinced that you're a troll.
>The only "incentive" laborers have under central planning is the incentive not to be shot for non-compliance.
I'm not going to defend the abuse of power by communist leaders, but it's not an argument either.
>Fuck yourself and everything you stand for.
Yeah, I didn't think you had anything of substance either.

>Communists abuse power more than capitalists.
>If your answer to this is anything but yes I'm surprised you have the brain capacity to still be breathing
Ok, never mind.

>aggregation of their habits

Right so the only information available is what actions people take. not what personal, individual economic calculation they made to decide to act. that is what your robo marx will never be able to calculate.

just kys ignorant commie, please.
If you're not commie because young and ignoran, then you're old and very stupid.
>centralized economy my ass. TJ

>An centrally-planned economy cannot take into account the immediate desires and demands of the population
Accomplished through real time bidding.
>it produces too much or too little, creating both waste and shortage at the same time.
What you're defining is externalities. The hallmark of capitalism is externalities.
>Given that price is the ultimate measure of demand and value,any system that removes itself from the price consideration for its cost-effectiveness is bound to fail through sheer fact of lack of utility - no one will be interested in products that are overproduced and no one will be able to get hold of goods that are under-produced.
Real time trading of goods using supply and demand by A.I.s
>The idea that an economy can be centrally planned without a price mechanism is a faulty one
Is this some robotic talking points everyone's decided to parrot? Where does it say that centrally planned economies must ignore the prices of goods and services to be called centrally planned?

>Or are you now going to argue with me on the ideal implementation of capitalism?

Strawman numero uno. It's about which system does it better. There's a reason why a vast majority of the top companies from 100 years ago are gone and why Google had a meteoric rise to the top.

>The Soviets advanced in aerospace, math and economics just as fast as us, if not faster.

Lol. Even if I generously grant you this (false) assumption, at best, they would have achieved this at enormous expense to other fields. It's why TVs, cameras, phones, the internet, etc were all being invented in the West and why the USSR went broke trying to keep up.

>So there's no industrial espionage in capitalism?

Strawman numero dos. One example does not a trend make. There will always be remarkable people that manage to nrek through the shackles holding them back.

>The system that shall be used by humans is good if only it weren't for humans
I said the economy can be planned by computers. How did you interpret this as a centrally planned economies are for computers?
>This is self parody at this point
You're not even holding back on your lies at this stage, are you?