A New York Times article explains the concept of command economic control, which refers to an economic system in which the government dictates how businesses should be run and how they are taxed.
In a nutshell, the idea is that the government, rather than businesses, is ultimately in charge of the economy, and the economy’s success depends on how well the government is able to control and manage the economy.
The idea has been gaining momentum in recent years, with various companies using the term to describe the kind of economic systems they are developing.
The idea has also become popular among businesses in countries such as China, Russia, India and the United States, which are developing their own command economies.
The term is most often used in the United Kingdom, where it was coined in the 1990s.
However, it is also widely used elsewhere.
In the United Arab Emirates, it has been used to describe a system where the government takes over the economy and controls it, and is in charge only of the budget and finances.
There is also a debate about whether or not it is accurate to call command economies economic control.
Some critics, including those in the UK, have argued that the term has been misinterpreted, and has become a misleading term that is misleading because it fails to capture the complexity of the command economy.
“Command economic control is an economic control system that is much more than a set of policies and controls that are imposed on a given industry or service or industry,” said Andrew W. Krieg, professor of management studies at Columbia University, who has published research on command economies and the role of the government in them.
“Its also much more complicated than that.
Command economies are the real-world equivalent of a market economy, where market forces determine how people behave.
It’s not an economic theory or a philosophical discussion.
Its really a political question.”
The command economy concept was first coined by the late economist Robert Shiller in his book, “The Second Machine Age.”
Shiller argued that while economic systems like the one that runs the world economy were developed by humans, the economic systems in the command economies were developed and controlled by governments.
Shiller argued, in a 1999 paper, that governments have “created command economies in which they control the economy through the use of coercive force.”
He also argued that in command economies, the power to act is vested in the government.
As a result, he said, people’s choices are constrained, leading to inefficient decisions and “a vicious circle of corruption.”
A 2013 paper by economists from Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley argued that command economies are an “economics of governance” in which political institutions have little control over the decisions that affect the economy as a whole.
“This is a problem for governments because they must make decisions that are efficient in the short run but that would ultimately hurt their own economies, and that means that the political institutions are less able to protect them from political failure,” they wrote.
In other words, the command economic system can have bad consequences for the economy in the long run, the authors said.
The problem, they argued, is that “command economies are a poor vehicle for understanding and explaining complex, nonlinear phenomena such as political behavior, innovation, social change and technological change.”
“This suggests that the concept is a useful way of understanding how to understand complex economic phenomena in a context where the public and policymakers are less likely to know what they are getting into,” they added.
The authors also argued it would be “dangerous to define command economies as the best way to understand what is happening in a particular country, and how to explain its choices in the longer term.”
In their research, the economists examined the evolution of the United Nations System of Economic Accounts (UNESEA), a series of economic statistics compiled by the United Nation.
They found that in recent decades, command economies have become the dominant model for analyzing the state of the world’s economies.
The UNESEA is an authoritative source for assessing and evaluating countries’ economic performance.
The series has been criticized in the past for not being accurate and misleading.
The United States has argued that UNESESA, which is used to determine economic growth rates and economic performance, is not authoritative.
The UN has since launched a series called “The World in 2020.”
The report has been widely criticized as being politically biased and inaccurate.
“Command economies are not really the same as a market system,” said W. Scott Griggs, a professor at the University, San Diego.
“It’s really not accurate to describe them as market economies.
They are very different things.”
“The command economies of today are very much like the markets that we are familiar with, and they are the markets with which we operate today,” Griggs added.
“So, it would appear to be a mistake to describe command economies today as a way to describe