Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

How ridiculous is it that every word similar to "decentralized" re-directs to Participatory Economics? The same on this page it reads: "Libertarian socialists, Syndicalists, Trotskyists, orthodox Marxists and democratic socialists advocate de-centralized participatory planning." de-centralized participatory planning re-directs to Participatory Economics as if it is the only form of de-centralized planning! I am a libertarian socialist and oppose Parecon because it is a bureaucratic absurdity, it is not even libertarian socialist. Neither have I heard of any anarchist who supports Parecon: it is non-movement. What I'm tryin' to say: deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goti123 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; participatory economics is only one proposal for decentralized planning, and a rather recent one at that. Libertarian socialism embraces more than decentralized planning - some libertarian socialist philosophies advocate free market mechanisms, and others advocate self-management in place of planning/markets. The article should be more clear on this point.Battlecry (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALL Economies since the stone require forward planning. Planning is necessary activity not just in Soviet type economies but in all economies. The question is who does it and towards what end. Vilhelmo (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite correct. All economies have aspects of planning, but planning is not the overarching framework in say capitalism or mercantilism. Planning in capitalism is limited to within the firm, to regulation and within hedge funds/venture capital. The last point is one that The People's Republic of Walmart makes. Interactions between firms are mostly limited to market mechanisms. Some non-market coordination does happen, for example over email, but explicit cooperation between firms may be regarded as collusion and forbidden by antitrust laws. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" As a coordinating mechanism for socialism and an alternative to the market, planning is defined as a direct allocation of resources; contrasted to the indirect allocation of the market.[1] "

This is nonsense. First of all, there is a libertarian bent to the article (NPOV). Second of all, there is economic planning in fascism, which not a form of socialism at all. Thirdly, why are we reminded that economic planning is "an alternative to the market"? This is libertarian ideological posturing and on top of that, it confuses 'the market' with 'the free market'. The 'free market' itself is an ideological construct, because in reality, there is no such thing. All unregulated markets become monopolies, which are not free. It takes government regulation to ensure competition, protect copyright and business contracts, provide public services, and ultimately to prevent monopoly formation (see the breakup of Standard Oil by Theodore Roosevelt, for example).

There is no "libertarian" bent to this line. The subject of the article is the allocation mechanism of planning, which exists in contrast to market-based allocation. It is true that not all forms of socialism are based on planning, and the article does not claim that socialism = planning. The libertarian NPoV is the view that conflates all planning with central planning, and this article clearly avoids this NPoV. The "planning" within fascism and modern capitalism is something entirely different (this is covered in this article under the subsection "Planning in capitalism") from the concept of socialist planning and even Soviet planning, both of which are intended to replace market-based allocation and resource valuation. And government regulation and intervention is a completely different subject from economic planning (the article Economic interventionism covers this topic). -Battlecry 04:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Hoffmann has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is quite macro in perspective. Bar one section on Intra-firm and intra-industry planning. Today many firms have bigger economies than some nations, this could be added to that section.

I would discuss more about transaction cost economics.

Perhaps also add some Herbert Simon thinking on organization, which is a kind of planning. His account from boundedly rational is different to institutional accounts.

Simon, H. (1991). Organizations and Markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Hoffmann has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Swee Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann & Lee Chew Ging, 2004. "Coordination and Incomplete Information: an Experimental Study," Occasional Papers 6, Nottingham University Business School.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]