I'm not trying to quote you out of context, sorry if it came across that way.
Central Planning = Government decides and industry follows, like in China.
If you want to take this as a definition, then fine, we have nothing to argue about. But if you just give the phrase its literal meaning, I believe the article is arguing that: One form of central planning is what you described. Another is a very small number of entities controlling a very large amount of money.
Well, if it's a definition it's a crappy 2-second one so I apologize for that.
I hear what you're saying here and I agree. In any effect, we can probably all agree that the end result of all this is overwhelmingly negative for the long-run productivity growth of the US economy, and that means more stagnating real wages, more structural unemployment, and more hardship for a lot of families. Some would argue that we need MORE central planning to lead the economy out of this hole, and there was a good op-ed in the NYTimes about why this probably isn't possible with our current government.
Central Planning = Government decides and industry follows, like in China.
If you want to take this as a definition, then fine, we have nothing to argue about. But if you just give the phrase its literal meaning, I believe the article is arguing that: One form of central planning is what you described. Another is a very small number of entities controlling a very large amount of money.