Mr. Chakrabortty rather misses the point here

There are those who think that government should be more involved in the planning and development of the economy. The wisdom, perhaps, of those attuned to social returns beating the grasping nature of the capitalists - or some such construction.

Aditya Chakrabortty tells us of events in Manchester:

The report says that nine sites were sold to the sheikh at a fraction of their value, and well below what other plots nearby fetched (the council says it used independent experts using standard valuations, although it won’t give any more details). They were on leases lasting 999 years, well beyond the norm. And the fund shifted what had been public assets to companies registered in Jersey.

That walk along the water from New Islington into Ancoats now passes blocks of privatised land owned in an offshore tax haven, which yields millions upon millions for a key member of the wealthy elite running a surveillance state halfway across the globe. One of the greatest cities in the world has sold itself to a senior figure in a brutal autocracy – and not even for a good price.

Chakrabortty goes on to suggest that the council would have done better to do it itself, rather than selling these assets to the capitalists. Which is indeed one way of reading it, we agree.

We also take the opposite view. This is proof that politicians, with that eye to the social values, not financial, aren’t in fact very good at matters economic. In fact, they’re terrible at it.

Which is why we don’t use government to do that economic planning and development - not if we’re sensible about it. On the grounds that government just isn’t good at planning and development. The proof being these complaints about what happens when government tries it.