Yes, you need cells with central dna and even superorganisms with some shared, some not shared dna, but with the undersatnding that diversity and competition at the higher levels is needed for longer-term continuance of the system as a whole.
A kid spending her pocket money at the candy shop is a form of central planning. Neither are central planning as the term is used when talking about economic systems though.
The objection to communism isn't that people plan things. It's that the planners face no competition and the results of their plans are inescapable.
Well, guess what happened when Sears implemented an internal free market system:
> Major innovation needs collaboration, not competition. For innovation, internal markets have the same problem as hierarchical bureaucracies. Managers vote their resources for innovations that bolster their current fiefdoms and careers. The safest strategy is to stick to the status quo. Ms. Kimes’ article gives multiple examples where competing managers at Sears looked after their own units at the expense of the interests of the firm as a whole.
> Now, what was that you were saying about central planning?
I was saying that central planning that has no competition and everybody is forced to follow is the usual complaint about central planning, which has nothing to do with people and groups privately choosing to plan and collaborate.
Well, I just showed that forcing people to compete while not having a plan to "escape" stifles innovation. So, there's your sequitor.
In the future, I would really prefer that you either save the snark, assume good faith, and at least try to keep up with the points being made, or just keep it all to yourself and don't reply to me, alright? I will gladly do you the same courtesy. Breaking things down into teeny tiny pieces grows tiresome quickly.
> Well, I just showed that forcing people to compete while not having a plan to "escape" stifles innovation.
That doesn't relate to what I wrote, which is why it is a non sequitur. Rather than just say "what about 'blah'", try actually addressing my comment coherently.
And you didn't show such a thing anyway. People aren't forced to compete, as can be seen even in the example you gave, not to mention all the collectives, unions, partnerships, companies, groups, corporations, etc., around us.
> In the future, I would really prefer that you either save the snark, assume good faith, and at least try to keep up with the points being made, or just keep it all to yourself and don't reply to me, alright? I will gladly do you the same courtesy. Breaking things down into teeny tiny pieces grows tiresome quickly.
Please.
"Now, what was that you were saying about central planning?"
That is the height of rude and bad-faith snark after posting something that did not even attempt to address my comment which was criticism of communist central planning, and I said nothing about forced competition or that people should be prevented from cooperating, so you can dismount your high horse.
Since you are obviously having trouble comprehending what I've written, I'll break it down real simply for you: leave me the hell alone or I'm going to contact the admins about your harassment. Is that clear enough?
I'm comprehending what you've written, I just think it's nonsense and hypocrisy.
I've also not initiated any discussion with you that you didn't start, so if you don't like reading my responses then you can take your own advice on that one too. Please do contact the admins if you find yourself unable to cope with that.
