Conservatives for Central Planning

[PAF]

By Laurence M. Vance
June 17, 2025


One of the major conservative criticisms of the communism of the Soviet Union was its centrally-planned economy that eschewed the free market, entrepreneurship, and private property and destroyed the work ethic, misallocated resources, and resulted in chronic shortages.

Since the advent of Donald Trump in 2016, and especially in 2024, many conservative individuals and organizations have begun denouncing free trade and advocating protectionism. And not just protectionism, but Trumpism: a unilateral, incoherent, arbitrary, destructive, nationalistic, mercantilist trade policy.

It used to be that conservative opponents of free trade would claim that they were merely making a distinction between free trade and government-managed trade agreements or the “free trade agenda.” Many of them are now “out of the closet,” full throttle, protectionists who cheer every percentage increase in tariff rates on every country that is decreed by President Trump.

But when conservatives are applauding import quotas, anti-dumping laws, trade barriers, increased trade regulations, and higher tariff rates, they are really just applauding Soviet-style central planning.

An army of government bureaucrats must determine what trade barriers should be erected, what the trade deficit is with every country, which industries need to be protected, which industries are “infant industries,” how long industry protection should last, which countries goods should be subject to tariffs, which particular items should be subject to tariffs, what the optimal tariff rates on each item should be, which particular items should be subject to quotas, what quantity the quota should be set at, the price at which dumping occurs, which countries should be given preferential treatment, and what exemptions should be given to which countries for which goods.

All of these things presuppose that government bureaucrats (or worse, Trump himself) are capable of calculating the “right” or “best” or “just” or “fair” price of tens of thousands of imported goods.

To see how ridiculous and centrally planned U.S. trade policy is, just look at the sugar quota import program. According to a U.S. Custom and Border Protection “Fact Sheet”:

An army of government bureaucrats must determine what trade barriers should be erected, what the trade deficit is with every country, which industries need to be protected, which industries are “infant industries,” how long industry protection should last, which countries goods should be subject to tariffs, which particular items should be subject to tariffs, what the optimal tariff rates on each item should be, which particular items should be subject to quotas, what quantity the quota should be set at, the price at which dumping occurs, which countries should be given preferential treatment, and what exemptions should be given to which countries for which goods.

All of these things presuppose that government bureaucrats (or worse, Trump himself) are capable of calculating the “right” or “best” or “just” or “fair” price of tens of thousands of imported goods.

To see how ridiculous and centrally planned U.S. trade policy is, just look at the sugar quota import program. According to a U.S. Custom and Border Protection “Fact Sheet”:

For raw sugar, “the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers are 1701.13.1000, 1701.14.1020 and 1701.14.1040, and require a Certificate of Quota Eligibility (CQE) for the in-quota tariff rate.”

For refined sugar, “the HTSUS numbers are 1701.12.1000, 1701.91.1000, 1701.99.1015, 1701.99.1017, 1701.99.1025, 1701.99.1050, 1702.90.1000 and 2106.90.4400. When refined sugar is classified as Global Refined Sugar (HTSUS 9903.17.01), it does not require a CQE for the in-quota rate. When refined sugar is classified as Canadian Refined Sugar (HTSUS 9903.18.01), it does require a CQE for the in-quota rate.”

For specialty Sugar, “the HTSUS numbers are 1701.12.1000, 1701.91.1000, 1701.99.1015, 1701.99.1017, 1702.90.1000 and 2106.90.4400, and require a USDA Specialty Certificate to qualify for the in-quota rate. There are multiple Specialty Sugar openings annually called Tranches.”


And all of this was in place before Trump launched his trade war.


President Trump’s trade policy is not just guided by horrifically bad theory; it is rarely guided by any coherent theory at all. His attempt to institute a centrally planned trade policy is made even worse because it is so arbitrary. Conservatives who actually believe their mantra about the Constitution, the free market, individual freedom, private property, free enterprise, and limited government should call Trump’s trade policy what it is: incoherent, arbitrary, Soviet-style central planning.

Conservatives for Central Planning - LewRockwell

One of the major conservative criticisms of the communism of the Soviet Union was its centrally-planned economy that eschewed the free market, entrepreneurship, and private property and destroyed the work ethic, misallocated resources, and resulted in chronic shortages. Since the advent of...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[PAF]

"Soviet-style central planning". Hmm. @Swordsmyth ???

 

[Swordsmyth]

Tariffs are not central planning, they are economic defenses against foreign economic warfare and the least bad form of taxation to fund the legitimate functions of government.

This is the stupidest argument ever.

 

[PAF]

Tariffs are not central planning, they are economic defenses against foreign economic warfare and the least bad form of taxation to fund the legitimate functions of government.

This is the stupidest argument ever.

"Schedules" and "quotas". Yeah, I can see why you like them so much. But don't BS me that that it isn't Central Planning. That's exactly what "schedules" and "quotas" are.

 

[Swordsmyth]

"Schedules" and "quotas". Yeah, I can see why you like them so much. But don't BS me that that it isn't Central Planning. That's exactly what "schedules" and "quotas" are.

Foreign affairs are not central planning.

 

[acptulsa]

Tariffs are not central planning, they are...

Nothing you said prevents them from being central planning too.

Now. Tell us how they're not central planning.

 

[PAF]

Foreign affairs are not central planning.

I thought the article was written for folks like you in order to help you see the errors of your ways. As it turns out, it was written for folks like us, because your ilk simply ignores facts/reality. And/or "redefines" them.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Nothing you said prevents them from being central planning too.

Now. Tell us how they're not central planning.

No, central planning is something you do in the center of something, the US is not the center of the world, it acts as a single entity in the world full of other entities.

Central planning would be the feds controlling our internal economy as the center of it.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I thought the article was written for folks like you in order to help you see the errors of your ways. As it turns out, it was written for folks like us, because your ilk simply ignores facts/reality. And/or "redefines" them.

Your side is the one redefining central planning to include external affairs.
Just like you try to redefine any government action as socialism.

 

[acptulsa]

No, central planning is something you do in the center of something, the US is not the center of the world

Now that's just stupid.

 

[CaptUSA]

Tariffs are not central planning, they are economic defenses against foreign economic warfare and the least bad form of taxation to fund the legitimate functions of government.

This is the stupidest argument ever.

Um...

If there were a single tariff rate for all products, you could argue that it isn't central planning but a different method of taxation

However, what we are seeing is your orange idol picking and choosing which products to tariff at which rates. That's pretty much the definition of central planning.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Um...

If there were a single tariff rate for all products, you could argue that it isn't central planning but a different method of taxation

However, what we are seeing is your orange idol picking and choosing which products to tariff at which rates. That's pretty much the definition of central planning.

No, it is not.
Central planning would be deciding what American companies are allowed to produce.

 

[acptulsa]

That's pretty much the definition of central planning.

He's a big government partisan. You know. Just like a Democrat. And just like a Democrat, he redefines words whenever he wants to.

 

[TheTexan]

Boo planning!

Planning is for losers

Just let the wind run free man see where it takes us *smokes a bong*

 

[acptulsa]

 

[TheTexan]

Anything the federal government does is gonna be "central planning" by definition.

If you're against having a federal government at all, then great, just say that.

If you're not against have a federal government, then by definition, you're for some amount of central planning, which is fine too, but you don't really get to say it's not central planning because it is.

But the whole idea of being for or against "central planning", as a separate concept from government itself, is just stupid. It's a redundant term with ambiguous meaning, as demonstrated in this thread.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[from the image:]

"Some of us say No Kings and really mean it. A lot of y'all just want a different King."

Guilty as charged!

I do indeed want a different king - one who completely (or at least mostly) agrees with me, and one whose policies are all (or at least mostly) ones I like and approve.

You can call him (or them) "king(s)" or "prince(s)" or "president(s)" or "private-security firm CEO(s)" or whatever.

I don't really care what label is used - the ones that come closest to satisfying the above-stated condition are the ones I want.

And the thing is, everyone who reads this agrees with it (whether they are willing to admit it or not).

 

[PAF]

Guilty as charged!

I do indeed want a different king - one who completely or mostly agrees with me, and one whose policies are all or mostly ones I like and approve.

You can call him (or them) "king(s)" or "prince(s)" or "president(s)" or "private-security firm CEO(s)" or whatever.

I don't really care what label is used - the ones that come closest to satisfying the above-stated condition are the ones I want.

And the thing is, everyone who reads this agrees with it (whether they are willing to admit it or not).

I'll be the honest exception. Leave me out. Analysis paralysis can be just as dangerous

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'll be the honest exception. Leave me out. Analysis paralysis can be just as dangerous

Nope, sorry.

If you think you are the exception, then you are just fooling yourself (or you are being contrary just for the sake of being contrarian).

Ron Paul for President! ... or King! ... or Whatever! ...

 

[PAF]

Nope, sorry.

If you think you are the exception, then you are just fooling yourself (or you are being contrary just for the sake of being contrarian).

Ron Paul for President! ... or King! ... or Whatever! ...

Nope. I see and raise your sorry; with President [even Ron Paul!] comes a Senate and a Congress. Thanks, but no thanks. I've already analysis paralysis'd myself a long time ago and came to the conclusion that I'd be better off without. Like that cat