zlacker

>>jbegle+(OP)
Huge indictment of capitalism that we have an unbelievably high level of productive capacity and can't do any of these things: make hospital equipment including ventilators; produce enough masks; keep hospitals open (there has been a steady trend of closures brought on by financialization (profiteering) and mergers); train adequate numbers of hospital staff; and the most ridiculous so far is every business is desperately trying to stay open even for non-essential things, like Amazon.

Profiteering is undercutting every possible thing. The profit motive over a democratically planned economy is horrible most of the time but really becomes a mess in a crisis.

>>0x262d+Bh
> The profit motive over a democratically planned economy is horrible most of the time but really becomes a mess in a crisis.

Why not have bread lines only in a crisis, when you can have them all the time instead?

>>lliama+an
You know, there's a vast spectrum of economic policy options between central planning and laissez faire, and you don't even have to be consistent about which gets picked for each industry. I think the OP was advocating for a different spot on that spectrum for certain things, not one of the extremes for everything.

>>ardy42+yr
This is not a "hey, maybe we should require some stockpiles" like they do in Switzerland (didn't stockpile enough masks, sadly enough).

The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position.

Developed countries all find some balance between central planning and laissez faire, but they do so by assuming the free market as the default. Intervention and central planning is only applied to specific cases where there is a concrete public interest in doing so.

>>lliama+cJ
> The OP was literally advocating for a centrally ("democratically") planned economy. Having production dictated by the political process as the default is the extreme position.

No. You just seem to have reacted reflexively seeing the word "planned" placed next to the word "economy," without seeking any clarification or understanding or even really putting it in context.

The OP was clearly focused on criticizing prioritization of profit-seeking over all other interests, and the corrosive effect that has had on our ability to respond to this present crisis.

> Developed countries all find some balance between central planning and laissez faire, but they do so by assuming the free market as the default. Intervention and central planning is only applied to specific cases where there is a concrete public interest in doing so.

And you know what? This crisis is uncovering a lot of areas where less laissez faire and more government intervention would have been "concretely in the public interest."

The market system is an imperfect means to an end, not an end itself.

>>ardy42+5U
> No. You just seem to have reacted reflexively seeing the word "planned" placed next to the word "economy," without seeking any clarification or understanding or even really putting it in context.

I don't how one could see the phrase "planned economy" and not think the OP meant something other than "planned economy". One can criticize profit motive and not promote a planned economy. The OP is literally a self-professed Trotskyist[0].

> And you know what? This crisis is uncovering a lot of areas where less laissez faire and more government intervention would have been "concretely in the public interest."

Please do tell.

> The market system is an imperfect means to an end, not an end itself.

No one said it was an end unto itself.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22698823