Four: The “Inevitability” of Planning
Many planners argue that central planning is not just a good idea; they believe that it is necessary because of unavoidable changes in society, particularly due to technology. They suggest that competition is being pushed out and that we have no choice but to accept planning. This belief has spread widely but does not have strong evidence to back it up. The idea that monopolies and planning are unavoidable comes from a Marxist concept known as "concentration of industry." While it is true that monopolies have grown over time, these trends are not solely due to technological progress; they are largely shaped by governmental policies in different countries.
One common argument is that large companies are more efficient than smaller ones. It is said that modern methods of mass production allow big companies to produce goods at a lower cost per unit as they scale up production. This leads to the idea that small businesses can’t compete and will eventually fail, leaving only a few large companies. However, this idea does not consider that the advantages of bigger firms don’t always lead to the end of competition. Research indicates that even in industries where large firms exist, smaller businesses can still survive and thrive.
Monopolies often happen through agreements among companies and are supported by government actions, rather than simply a result of technology. Historical examples from countries like Germany and the United States show that the growth of monopolies has often been encouraged by intentional government policies. In Germany, for example, the government promoted monopolies as early as the late 19th century through various protective measures.
The claim that technological changes make planning necessary is also misleading. While some urban problems might need coordinated solutions, that doesn’t mean we should abandon competition. In fact, competition can effectively manage complex social and economic interactions. The price system under competition is key to organizing information in the economy. It allows businesses and consumers to respond to price changes, facilitating an adjustment process. The more complicated the economy gets, the more competition helps with coordination rather than planning.
Another argument ties technological advancement to the need for monopolies, saying that some new technologies may require protection from competition to grow. While this view can hold some truth, it often serves as a way for certain groups to justify monopolistic practices. Even when standardization might seem beneficial, it can limit consumer choice. Maintaining variety and individual freedom is crucial for long-term progress and innovation in society.
Many planners, especially those with technical backgrounds, push for planning because they feel that their individual goals are not being met under the current system. While some specialized needs could benefit from more attention in a planned society, this can lead to conflicts where different interests clash. Experts often assume that their specific field should be prioritized, which can create an unbalanced approach to planning.
The call for planning has strong backing from specialists who feel frustrated because they see many good ideas that could be implemented. However, implementing every specialist’s ideal could result in an unpredictable and chaotic society where the priorities of a few take over the needs of the larger community.
In summary, while some people believe that planning is essential due to growing technology and complexity in society, these arguments often overlook the importance of preserving freedom and competition. A society that embraces competition can be more adaptable and innovative over time. Planning can create problems and conflicts, so it is crucial to maintain a system that promotes individual choice and prevents a few from controlling the many. This can ensure that society remains dynamic and open to continuous improvement and change.
Many planners argue that central planning is not just a good idea; they believe that it is necessary because of unavoidable changes in society, particularly due to technology. They suggest that competition is being pushed out and that we have no choice but to accept planning. This belief has spread widely but does not have strong evidence to back it up. The idea that monopolies and planning are unavoidable comes from a Marxist concept known as "concentration of industry." While it is true that monopolies have grown over time, these trends are not solely due to technological progress; they are largely shaped by governmental policies in different countries.
One common argument is that large companies are more efficient than smaller ones. It is said that modern methods of mass production allow big companies to produce goods at a lower cost per unit as they scale up production. This leads to the idea that small businesses can’t compete and will eventually fail, leaving only a few large companies. However, this idea does not consider that the advantages of bigger firms don’t always lead to the end of competition. Research indicates that even in industries where large firms exist, smaller businesses can still survive and thrive.
Monopolies often happen through agreements among companies and are supported by government actions, rather than simply a result of technology. Historical examples from countries like Germany and the United States show that the growth of monopolies has often been encouraged by intentional government policies. In Germany, for example, the government promoted monopolies as early as the late 19th century through various protective measures.
The claim that technological changes make planning necessary is also misleading. While some urban problems might need coordinated solutions, that doesn’t mean we should abandon competition. In fact, competition can effectively manage complex social and economic interactions. The price system under competition is key to organizing information in the economy. It allows businesses and consumers to respond to price changes, facilitating an adjustment process. The more complicated the economy gets, the more competition helps with coordination rather than planning.
Another argument ties technological advancement to the need for monopolies, saying that some new technologies may require protection from competition to grow. While this view can hold some truth, it often serves as a way for certain groups to justify monopolistic practices. Even when standardization might seem beneficial, it can limit consumer choice. Maintaining variety and individual freedom is crucial for long-term progress and innovation in society.
Many planners, especially those with technical backgrounds, push for planning because they feel that their individual goals are not being met under the current system. While some specialized needs could benefit from more attention in a planned society, this can lead to conflicts where different interests clash. Experts often assume that their specific field should be prioritized, which can create an unbalanced approach to planning.
The call for planning has strong backing from specialists who feel frustrated because they see many good ideas that could be implemented. However, implementing every specialist’s ideal could result in an unpredictable and chaotic society where the priorities of a few take over the needs of the larger community.
In summary, while some people believe that planning is essential due to growing technology and complexity in society, these arguments often overlook the importance of preserving freedom and competition. A society that embraces competition can be more adaptable and innovative over time. Planning can create problems and conflicts, so it is crucial to maintain a system that promotes individual choice and prevents a few from controlling the many. This can ensure that society remains dynamic and open to continuous improvement and change.