We have highly centrally planned economies in the capitalist west. Neoliberalism.
Interestingly, it's starting to show some of the same issues of stagnation as centrally planned state socialism did.
Assuming that "neoliberalism" isn't being used as a loan word here for "all the things I don't like", which is a sad tendency among discourse these days all too common, it might be best to define what you meant by neoliberalism.
I said centrally planned, I didn't say "state involvement"/STATE planning.
Wall street is (so far) working better than Gosplan did in the USSR but what'll happen when pension issues bite? Of course ATLs can alter this -- imagine the issues I'm wondering about happening post-*2008 in say an atl where Clinton and gingrich avoid lewinsky and private social security, ending "big retirement".
"Wall Street" is not one entity that meets around a table and issues economic diktats regarding production targets, wage rates, legal levels of consumption of goods, etc. There really is very little central about a variety of different firms with different value chains, which may have interests that coincide in one area and which diverge in others.
But the point is that planned economies, because they are using the power of the law to enforce the decisions of planners, to some degree need state involvement.
Now, you can make the point that central bank policies in western countries do to some extent replicate a minimized form of state planning, and I would see merit in that, as using changes to interest rates to try to broadly speaking, stimulate demand or cool it down, and thereby make an impact on economic behavior, would count as central planning. But central bank policy long predated "neoliberalism".
As for the stagnation, I think there is some truth to that in terms of how western countries (and Japan) are running into the issues of how to support their welfare states with aging populations. Economic growth inevitably starts to decline, and it seems that the only way to heat things back up again that have proven to work across the board is with massive infrastructure projects to juice demand, but that shows signs of not being completely free of stagnation either. Large scale low skill immigration doesn't provide the boost either, for that matter (interesting thing about immigrants - they get old too!! Who would have thought?)
The United States and Canada for now seem to be outliers on this, as both have seen solid economic growth and economic performance as of late not seen since the post WW2 boom. I think there are a few reasons for this; Canada has large scale, HIGH skill immigration, and that has allowed it to meet the needs of its labor force quite adequately; it also had the least disruption of any of the G8 countries during the financial crisis of 2008. The United States meanwhile has a massive edge in its tech and financial sectors over most of its competitors and a generally friendly climate for investment that recently has gotten even better due to changes in its corporate tax rate. But these things come and go, of course, and in ten years time, it might be Canada and the US that are in trouble and resorting to things like negative interest rates while Japan and Western Europe turn things around.