> For the left and the right, major multinational companies are held up as the ultimate expressions of free-market capitalism. Their remarkable success appears to vindicate the old idea that modern society is too complex to be subjected to a plan. And yet, as Leigh Phillips and Michal Rozworski argue, much of the economy of the West is centrally planned at present. Not only is planning on vast scales possible, we already have it and it works. The real question is whether planning can be democratic. Can it be transformed to work for us?
https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Republic-Walmart-Corporations...
The CIA set up a special branch to study the Soviet cybernetics menace. It issued numerous reports, pointing out, among other strategic threats, the Soviet plans to build a 'Unified Information Net.' Based on CIA reports, in October 1962 President Kennedy's top aid wrote in an internal memo that the 'all-out Soviet commitment to cybernetics' would give the Soviets 'a tremendous advantage.' He warned that 'by 1970 the USSR may have a radically new production technology, involving total enterprises or complexes of industries, managed by closed loop, feedback control employing self-teaching computers.' If the American negligence of cybernetics continues, he concluded, 'we are finished.'
[1] https://balticworlds.com/the-cybernetics-scare-and-the-origi...
But this plan was not implemented, because the stalinist bureaucracy was afraid they can lose his privileges:
Glushkov's proposal faced opposition on two sides. Industrial managers and government bureaucrats opposed the computerization of economic planning and management because it exposed their inefficiency, reduced their power and control of information, and ultimately threatened to make them redundant. On the other hand, liberal economic reformers viewed Glushkov's proposal as a conservative attempt to further centralize the control of the economy and to suppress the autonomy of small economic units. A controversy erupted.
[2] https://web.mit.edu/slava/homepage/articles/Gerovitch-InterN...
There are modern thinkers working on this same line:
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towards_a_New_Socialism
[4] https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Republic-Walmart-Corporations...
Yes, there are other pizza chains, but Domino's has almost twice the market share of its closest competitors, meaning it can waste money in an irrational way with few consequences, contrary to the rational actor and healthy competition that most models assume: https://medium.com/edison-discovers/dominos-takes-50-of-pizz...
This is a good deep dive into these sorts of dynamics: https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Republic-Walmart-Corporations...
For years, lots of companies gorged themselves by burning money by doing stock buybacks just for the sake of pumping share prices for fleeting short term gains for executives and shareholders, while everything that makes the company actually operate is slowly hollowed out. Many of these same companies will then ask for bailouts after wasting all this money and making bad business decisions, like airlines. This example with Domino's is actually pretty mild in comparison to money wasted with things like stock buybacks and executive bonuses. Macroeconomic models also don't take bailouts into account, which are usually needed because companies make bad, irrational decisions that favor extreme short term thinking.
> "Raising prices and pocketing it"
Precisely, that's what many of these companies are doing. Whine about inflation and raise prices for consumers while simultaneously bragging about record earnings on shareholder calls, the only place in practice where they are obligated to tell the truth. If inflation was really the primary cause of price increases, you'd likely see them slashing earnings projections in line with that, but that's not happening. It's certainly a contributor, but to know if a company is telling the truth you have to look at their earnings when they're saying that.