No, central economic planning has traditionally been viewed as disastrous.
Doesn't mean it "is" or "always will always be".
In fact, you undoubtedly live to some extent under the auspices of some form of central economic planning right now. Why? Because at some point it was realized complete lack of central economic planning is disastrous.
But you are really arguing against government controlled rent prices no? I tend to probably agree in most cases.
And, heh, I've seen it argued persuasively that the U.S. now operates with the same degree of inefficiency (i.e. resources allocated less than optimally, not responsive to market conditions, etc.) of a centrally planned economy, just due to the concentration of money now. Sort of a de-facto central planning, even though it certainly isn't one in name.
I tried to find the links where I saw this, couldn't. I'll keep looking.
It's disastrous due to game theory dynamics that apply to all large societies. It will always be disastrous.
The spontaneous order of an unregulated, freely configured economy, is the only way to utilize the vast volume of knowledge that is diffused throughout the population. Protection of private property and market rights is the absolute best way to both allocate capital for maximum economic returns, and maximize incentives for productive activity.
> Why? Because at some point it was realized complete lack of central economic planning is disastrous.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that was the reason. You're making a reckless leap of logic to rationalize and justify authoritarianism (central economic planning).
