I also didn't actually disagree with the idea of planning.
You imposed such a sweeping constraint on any planning beyond the personal (no-one in charge) as to render it pointless:
Sure. It's just an argument against having anyone, such as a government, in charge of the planning.
To be consistent, it would have to be your position that the energy sector, which you acknowledge in your subsequent reversal as being capable of planning, generally practices planning under this constraint.
On considering your later attempts to reinterpret the record, it seems possible that you had intended 'anyone' to refer specifically to either governments or government-like entities, but your placement of 'government' in a nonrestrictive clause rules it out. That would have been a different discussion.
Excuse me, it was the second reason I gave.
But reason for what? You are attempting to make the case that country-level planning is an activity in which it is impossible, not just difficult, to do better than doing nothing at all. Unless you can demonstrate complete coverage, a list of ways things can go wrong doesn't get the job done.
You tacitly acknowledge this whenever you attempt to transfer your burden of proof to me. That's a common dogmatist move (most often employed to convince one another that their views are beyond question), but neither I nor any other rational reader need to go down that path.
I'm sure you will dispute all of this with more of the same, and it is clearly inevitable that you will have the last word, regardless of how many repetitions it takes. Go ahead - I am happy to leave any rational reader who might wander by to make up their own minds.