Dumb article with a dumb headline, which shows no understanding of what central planners are or the authoritarian systems from which they arise.
They're using Wework as a whipping boy, and pointing at Softbank as a typical VC, although Softbank, even its Vision Fund, is really more like private equity.
I also don't get why people call the Fed a central planner, the Fed has very limited powers by design, it doesn't get to tell savers, borrowers etc what to do, they just change the profitability and ease of borrowing. Each private bank gets to decide who gets to borrow and for what purpose. There is competition between banks, if one rejects you, just go to another next week.
Articles like this often overlook the concentration of power that exists within central planning.
VCs must generally choose companies that can ultimately attract public investors to make a profit. They must also answer to LPs, convince company leadership to take their investment terms, and must follow government regulation. All this while competing with the many other VCs out there.
That naturally results in many more checks and balances (and thus less concentrated power) than is typically wielded by central planners.
Actually I had this idea some time ago that market economy is just splitting central planning into small pockets that compete and die if they make wrong decissions.
It works way better than when all economy is centrally planned.
So it might be prudent to prevent companies from growing too large and integrating to much vertically or growing into multiple domains horizontally to prevent inefficiencies inherent in large scale central planning from comming back.
In my minds it's not VCs, it's CEOs of Disney, Amazon, Unilever and such.
They're using Wework as a whipping boy, and pointing at Softbank as a typical VC, although Softbank, even its Vision Fund, is really more like private equity.