Why do some people still advocate Soviet-type centrally planned

because liberals, they cant into logic, only emotions

China does it and its communist based government runs a pretty competitive capitalist country.

>>1392743
>lolbertarians
just as a bad as communists

>>1392743
You can have internal markets that operate efficiently and aren't centrally planned but provide state services.

It's not a black and white concept.

>>1392758
Further to that, you don't seriously believe that private enterprises are efficiently run and should be looked up to? Because once you leave college and enter the working world, boy will you be in for a shock.

>>1392759
The private sector is, on average, ran far more efficiently than the public sector. The reason for this is because the private sector uses rational accounting and pricing, which allows for rational production levels which maximize efficiency.

This isn't the case for the public sector. Unless it adopts market-like practices, in which case it would be market socialist accounting.

File: 1453389912244.jpg (67KB, 537x620px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 537x620px

>>1392743
>Are liberals mentally retarded?

Yes.

>>1392770
Massive improvements can be made in both. Public sector's biggest problem is being used a political football, it's hard to build systems which are efficient while also planning for resilience when political winds change.

The private sector has massive issues with managerial incompetence and poor employee productivity. This seems to have come to a head in recent years where no thought is given to employee health and related productivity and the only important metric becomes time on the clock.

Managerial problems stem from the traditional and inflexible corporate ladder climbing mentality, where people are promoted into positions of seniority which they aren't suited to. The keep getting promoted until they get to a job they can't perform well enough in to get the next promotion. So they get stuck at that job level when actually they were better at their previous role (which they were 'promoted' out of).

Private enterprise is 'better' on paper. In reality a low of companies have huge flaws which are ignored because addressing them reduces short term gains for shareholders.

>>1392784

This is dead on but at least cancerous private companies die while cancerous public services continue indefinitely

>>1392784
Up until recently companies that ran like shit could fail and go out of business. That provided some motivation to keep their houses in order. Government largely does not have that problem because when they fail they can always blame big business. Government management of talent and resources is an absolute joke.

>>1392810
The civil service is actually very effective at managing talent. Resourcing is often a difficult one to measure because there aren't really objective goals and it's easy to pick and choose your data to slate public financing.

Talent nurturing in the British civil service is often seen as the gold standard. It's only at local government levels that it falls apart. Central governments are by necessity pretty efficient machines.

When you consider the scope of work the civil services undertakes it's a pretty well run machine. Local governments are largely shit but that's a structural problem in my opnion.

>>1392819
I've had a couple federal positions in the U.S. and it was an unmitigated cluster fuck from beginning to end and top to bottom. Maybe the U.K. runs more smoothly but based on my experience the only things I expect consistently out of goverment are service shortages and budget overruns. Accountability is pretty much non-existent and the most talented people will routinely leave to make more money in the private sector.

>>1392828
We've followed you guys in Canada and how you manage your public services. We have the same issues in my opinion in terms of a lack of accountability but this isn't necessarily a problem of public services more of a problem of how these public services are managed. Accountability is key in public services, the good thing public vs private in this regard is we can technically see what they are spending on what. Having strong accountability agencies and keeping receipts are key. There is still a strong demand here for these services so the solution is often just throw money at them and not making them better and stronger. At the same time there is a strong confusion in Canada towards public services which has made things worse. Governments often come in and are indifferent so they don't care about restructuring the institutions, they cut funding, move money to the private sector, and then another government comes in and throws money at them from public pressure. The public needs to demand not only an increase in funding, but also restructuring these institutions to make them more efficient. The people who make and influence policy often don't give a shit about these institutions and don't depend on their services so it won't come from them. It's a serious and growing problem with a democracy more than anything.

>>1392828
The UK civil service is considered one of the best employers to work for.

America has become a race to the bottom in terms of labour standards by all accounts.

>>1392850
Government jobs over here are considered great for some people as well. They are a literal gravy train provided you don't actually have any drive or ambition to change anything.

>>1392877
There's a perception of that somewhat here. And it can be true when you look at local government departments.

The proper civil service however focuses heavily on employee development and it's pretty impossible to treat it as a gravy train without being found out.

>>1392743
I think you're straw-manning man... where are you running into people actually advocating a soviet style command control economy outside of obscure corners of the internet filled with neo-Stalinists?
I actually think Soviet style development has some merits despite all its flaws... the most obvious issue being they created a massive entrenched powerful bureaucracy with vested interests that were resistant to any change or innovation.
Central planning today would be of no value in first world countries where you have an educated population but I would probably advocate Soviet style planning in some backwards African shithole as a way to rapidly industrialize and rise living standards as long as you could avoid the totalitarian political apparatus and actually get input for production decisions from the population.

for the lulz here's a book published by the government of the USSR : "Centralised Planning of the Economy" for would be central planners everywhere
https://archive.org/details/CentralisedPlanningOfTheEconomy

>>1392743

Because they wat political power and are willing to sacrifice economic efficiency to get it.