People who are responsible for setting up incentive plans, of course.Who are you directing that to?
People who are responsible for setting up incentive plans, of course.Who are you directing that to?
Planning isn't unique to capitalism at all. The point of my post was to point out that there are reasons why central planning fails> One is that the central planning enthusiasts are mostly unskilled or incompetent in how to plan. Another big one is that they put the political agenda above the planning success and the conflicts cause failures. Most bureaucrats don't want to do the hard work to create large scale central plans and most ideologues want quick solutions that meet ideological needs. Those two items alone pretty much doom the Marxists to planning failures.I'm not seeing anything unique to capitalism there.
Off-topic tangent here.Planning isn't unique to capitalism at all. The point of my post was to point out that there are reasons why central planning fails> One is that the central planning enthusiasts are mostly unskilled or incompetent in how to plan. Another big one is that they put the political agenda above the planning success and the conflicts cause failures. Most bureaucrats don't want to do the hard work to create large scale central plans and most ideologues want quick solutions that meet ideological needs. Those two items alone pretty much doom the Marxists to planning failures.
In a capitalist environment the profit motive will usually override political motivation and creates an atmosphere where good planning can take place. At the building, factory, community level great plans are written and completed. This happens because of the narrow focus As you scale up into public private partnerships are regional development plans it gets harder because there are more players and more conflicting agendas.
Now, there are excellent large projects being done by governments, for example, fast trains in China, Japan, Europe etc. China in this instance is our Communist example, but the need for the fast train project is the growth in private business there. There would be no need for those trains if China had not been building a western style economy for the past 20 years. The success of the Chinese economy and it growth is tied directly to its role in supporting and imitating western capitalism. In some areas, the centralized power of of the state has enabled very fast development because there is no discussion or exchange of ideas among those affected by the project. They succeed by throwing money and labor at the project to force a quick outcome. They have big successes and big failures, but their planning process is actually terrible to non existent.
One area the millennials have neglected to both take the boomers to task on or to take advantage of, is the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of boomer owned companies for which the owners do not have a succession plan and when the boomer owner dies or retires, the business will close. There is a huge opportunity here.If there are old white people running businesses you patronize and which are engaged in something you think will continue for a decade or two more, you might inquire about how you could work your way into ownership.Successful people don't like to see their hard work just disappear and having someone carry on with their success can be very attractive.
Incentive/bonus plans can be used as employment enticement and when done correctly have been shown to improve productivity.
But when done incorrectly can lead to bad behavior. Pretty straight forward.
Planning isn't unique to capitalism at all. The point of my post was to point out that there are reasons why central planning fails> One is that the central planning enthusiasts are mostly unskilled or incompetent in how to plan. Another big one is that they put the political agenda above the planning success and the conflicts cause failures. Most bureaucrats don't want to do the hard work to create large scale central plans and most ideologues want quick solutions that meet ideological needs. Those two items alone pretty much doom the Marxists to planning failures.
Yes the same issues are challenges to all planning. If the goal is to create success projects that produce benefits, then capitalists will generally do a better job. If your Marxist dream is to have any chance of success, you better learn how to plan in a very practical way that is less tainted by ideology.And my point was that the very same things doom corporate planners to failure. Most companies fail eventually, and pretty much nobody is above politics. They are played out on the office floor and in boardrooms daily as much as they are on the national stage. Short term profit-orientation also mean execs want quick solutions all the time - because that's what they get paid for or what lets them keep their jobs today.
Well since it was part of the discussion I was having, you might notice that I was also talking about bonuses for other than senior leadership.But we were talking about incentive plans for senior leadership on a systemic level. You don't set those either, at least not a meaningful scale. They are set by the culture of modern-day capitalism.
Yes the same issues are challenges to all planning. If the goal is to create success projects that produce benefits, then capitalists will generally do a better job. If your Marxist dream is to have any chance of success, you better learn how to plan in a very practical way that is less tainted by ideology.
Can you demonstrate any central planning successes by Marxists that aren't tied to war efforts? War distorts things and it would be quite remarkable to require tying central planning success only to war time or crisis conditions.
Yes the same issues are challenges to all planning. If the goal is to create success projects that produce benefits, then capitalists will generally do a better job. If your Marxist dream is to have any chance of success, you better learn how to plan in a very practical way that is less tainted by ideology.
Can you demonstrate any central planning successes by Marxists that aren't tied to war efforts? War distorts things and it would be quite remarkable to require tying central planning success only to war time or crisis conditions.
And it's not the end of the world because the whole idea is that markets should kill companies off. But when we centralize planning in the hands of a government and it fails, it's vastly more catastrophic than Lehman Brothers failing. In one case, it's a feature. In the other, it's an enormous bug.Most companies fail eventually
Planning problems are universal, but market based capitalistic solutions have been much better than Marxist based ones. I'll ask again, please show me some examples of Marxist central planning that has been successful in reaching the goals it was set to reach. I'm an ignorant American; educate me. Show me some of those "still being played out" examples. Capitalism has a multitude of problems, but it also has improved life for billions of people.I think you're still missing the crux of the matter: Problems with planning are universal. Your bald assertion that capitalists do it better is unconvincing. It's just that failures of planning in Soviet-style command economies and in capitalistic economies have different ultimate results. You've seen those of the former, which is why you're so smug about it, but those of the latter are still being played out (though we've had multiple tastes of it by now). Lest you forget, that's why this thread was made - because by all indications, current and upcoming generations are pretty screwed.
One area the millennials have neglected to both take the boomers to task on or to take advantage of, is the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of boomer owned companies for which the owners do not have a succession plan and when the boomer owner dies or retires, the business will close. There is a huge opportunity here.If there are old white people running businesses you patronize and which are engaged in something you think will continue for a decade or two more, you might inquire about how you could work your way into ownership.Successful people don't like to see their hard work just disappear and having someone carry on with their success can be very attractive.
OK, but if if you want to own a business with less than $50M or so in sales, there are many to be had that are currently owned by Boomers. Owning a small company that has just a few million in sales can provide a very nice living.Most business activity is by companies that are not owned by individuals
And it's not the end of the world because the whole idea is that markets should kill companies off.