Is EA unscalable central planning?

I was dis­cussing EA with a friend the other night and they made some crit­i­cisms I couldn’t an­swer. I think this is usu­ally illus­tra­tive. I’ll at­tempt to struc­ture the dis­cus­sion:

Effec­tive Altru­ism must ex­ist due to mar­ket failure

That the mar­ket is the least bad al­lo­ca­tor of re­sources we have cre­ated. I agree that a failure to price in x-risks and s-risks (ex­is­ten­tial and suffer­ing risks) is a mar­ket failure here. Com­pa­nies will make no money in a fu­ture where we are all dead and con­sumers would pay a lot to avoid sig­nifi­cant suffer­ing and yet com­pa­nies aren’t in­vest­ing. We are sub­si­dis­ing catas­tro­phe while we let this con­tinue.

Effec­tive Altru­ism does not pri­mar­ily fo­cus on cor­rect­ing that mar­ket failure

While it is an as­pect of EA to lobby gov­ern­ment to con­sider x and s-risk, it is not (as far as I can tell) the pri­mary fo­cus, nor it is what most peo­ple seem to spend their time do­ing. In other ide­olo­gies it might be rea­son­able to say we are do­ing what we can whilst car­ry­ing on, but since we are about find­ing the most effec­tive way to do things, if this were the most im­por­tant thing to do, we should all do it. We should found or con­vince a poli­ti­cal party and ei­ther cam­paign or pay oth­ers to. Why don’t we?

80000 hours is ba­si­cally cen­tral plan­ning and is un­sus­tain­able as the move­ment grows

If peo­ple choose work based on 80k hours ad­vice rather than their own de­sires/​mar­ket in­cen­tives, this makes a break from mar­ket al­lo­ca­tion and back­tracks to­wards cen­tral plan­ning which has always been worse in the past. Why is it bet­ter here?

Like­wise the 80k hours ad­vice isn’t scal­able. If 10% of the work­force was read­ing 80k hours, it would make much more sense at to change gov­ern­ment than to tell each in­di­vi­d­ual which job they ought to be do­ing. At that point rather than say­ing it should mainly be AI and biorisk, you’d be think­ing about how to shift the whole econ­omy, which is more effec­tively done by the mar­ket than cen­tral plan­ning. Rather than ad­vis­ing in­di­vi­d­u­als you’d work on the level of leg­is­la­tion (to cor­rect ex­ter­nal­ities).

So why is there a goldilocks zone where it makes sense to tell in­di­vi­d­u­als to change their lives, when el­se­where they should all lobby gov­ern­ment? Why are we work­ing to do some­thing which we don’t in­tend to do in­definitely? I can’t help but think it seems as if much of EA is a stop­gap right now to demon­strate our le­gi­t­i­macy so that we can con­vince oth­ers to join and even­tu­ally move to our real pur­pose—who­lescale leg­is­la­tive change. If that’s the case we should be hon­est about it. If that isn’t the case, where is this ar­gu­ment wrong?