Central planning apologists

Those who ‘succeed’ in controlled environments, such as academia, tend to lean towards central planning in the economy, because they map their journey in academia onto the real world. In the real world, things are more dynamic and there are definite winners and losers with no outlined way to succeed, since it’s entirely based on serving others.

Academia, in contrast, is simplistic and has step-by-step processes in which the apologist does not have to think for themselves and just follows what they’re told. This is fine on its own, but they see the success from this as something one can impart to the wider economy and man as a whole — i.e. be told what to do by some central authority. This appeals to them greatly, since in markets there is no clear-cut way to achieve success like in academia — do this course, pick this elective, get a GPA over 3.7, etc.

They’re like a goldfish on carpet: they dislike the idea of flailing around until they figure out how to be useful to society. So they’re drawn to the more ‘intellectual’ political side, where some energy minister or bureaucrat gets to declare onto the oil and gas sector what and how to produce, despite never having worked in it. They mistake academic credentials for knowing how to serve others, which is obviously false.