Neoliberalism isn't Keynesian, but while it goes for a smaller state (meaning "less direct instructions and control"
it tries to have the state control the economy through manipulating supply, demand, money supply, that sort of thing.
As opposed to having some dweeb sit there and issue orders as to how many widgets to make, where the flube that is required to make them will be sourced from, and how much the flube will cost and what the widgets will be sold for. That kind of a state is huge, and I think most of us want a state smaller than that. If a C&C economy a few idiots can destroy millions; in a neolib economy or any that's got laissez-faire elements in it it's a lot harder--the few idiots bankrupt themselves and others move into the economic space that's left. Unless they're "too big to fail," but if companies are allowed to fail naturally they typically do so like the Ottoman Empire failed.
Keynesian economics is no more control and command, but also includes some of the same practices for economic manipulation. Just from the other side, mostly.
Some love the idea of a control and command economy mostly because they like either being in control and giving commands or like ritual humiliation of others. Even if it doesn't help them. (I've never gotten schadenfreude. Deriving joy from others' misfortune has a tradition in my family, one which, fortunately, I simply can't understand any more than I can give you the production specs for "flube". I try, and draw a complete _______________.) But they often like C&C because they simply don't trust others (and do trust government, at least when it's doing what they like) and don't recognize the huge downside and incredibly inefficiencies it produces. C&C is doomed to fail pretty much always. The exceptions are when an economy is being built out of nothing and large-scale production of a few simple products is necessary. Otherwise it's FUBARific.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
