Is there any evidence that central planning on a much larger scale is drastically more efficient? We're talking about a whole country, after all. I take your point that companies themselves are usually centrally planned internally, but centrally planned economies haven't fared so well.
> Is there any evidence that central planning on a much larger scale is drastically more efficient?
If it were, why do we have more than one company?
> I take your point that companies themselves are usually centrally planned internally
Well, sort of. It is true that companies exist solely for the reason of exploiting efficiencies in central planning. If central planning was always inefficient, companies wouldn't exist! But, as I alluded to earlier, no company has found central planning to be efficient in all cases. Not even the largest company in the world centrally plans everything. Not even close.
As with most things in life, a bit of balance will serve you well.
Large companies are all decentralized. The ceo will set broad direction but they always leave details to the lower levels. Those lower levels often do things that are against the needs of a different division. Companies are reorganizing for efficiency all the time.
> Large companies are all decentralized. The ceo will set broad direction but they always leave details to the lower levels.
Typically, central planning does not imply micromanagement. The "broad direction" you speak of is the central planning.
> Companies are reorganizing for efficiency all the time.
But, of course, companies wouldn't exist if markets were perfectly efficient. The sole reason for companies is to exploit the efficiencies of central planning. But, of course, just as if markets were perfectly efficient there would be no companies, if central planning was perfectly efficient there would only be one company, so... Like always, there are tradeoffs that we have to find balance in.
Central planning is drastically more efficient, for example. It’s why large companies use it internally.