the GDP of the USSR

[The Man]

Why was it in the negatives?

[Red Future]

GDP as a method is pretty unreliable in assessing a countries economic status

[Jose Gracchus]

It wasn't. The USSR used a form of national accounting called Net Material Product, rather than Gross Domestic Product.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wrote that both methods have weaknesses. GDP doesn't measure what's truly productive vs. what's truly unproductive. On the other hand, neither gross not net material product even accounts for what's unproductive in the first place (huge defense budget as a % of GDP but never counted in GMP/NMP).

[bailey_187]

GDP as a method is pretty unreliable in assessing a countries economic status

its good for what it is, measuring the output of an economy in a fixed period. Sure, u get problems such as if u decide to pay someone to paint ur house rather than do it yourself (assuming the painter isnt paid cash in hand), would register as economic output increasing, but its marginal tbh.

As for the OP, what are u talking about? The USSR's GDP was not in negative growth for the majority of its existance.

[Metacomet]

I don't really like GDP as the be all and end all of development.

If I get in a car accident without health insurance and have to spend $30,000 at the hospital, that's GDP. Where as someone in the U.K will get fixed up for free.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not really. It's the difference between "C" and "G." In the UK the doctors charge the government, which spends "G" instead of charging the consumer, which spends "C."

[bailey_187]

If I get in a car accident without health insurance and have to spend $30,000 at the hospital, that's GDP. Where as someone in the U.K will get fixed up for free.

in a country with a GDP of 14 Trillion, i dont think your car crash is going bump up the GDP too much.

[Metacomet]

in a country with a GDP of 14 Trillion, i dont think your car crash is going bump up the GDP too much.

What about when it's happening thousands of times?

I don't know, it just seems like it includes things that aren't really productive or add to the actual wealth of a society. Just money changing hands for often negative reasons.

[ComradeOm]

I'm not aware that the Soviet Union's GDP did shrink until the crisis became terminal in 1989/90. What period are you referring to?


GDP as a method is pretty unreliable in assessing a countries economic statusThat's because 1) it fails to take into account inequalities in income distribution and 2) it doesn't distinguish between indigenous and foreign owned capital. The latter was not a major distorting factor in the USSR (during and prior to the Stalinist period Soviet GDP was essentially the same as GNP) and the first issue should theoretically not be an issue in an egalitarian/socialist society. Even given that the USSR was certainly not socialist, you'd expect that income distributions would be more level than, say, the US

No, the big problem with using GDP per capita in relation to the USSR is that income levels are not a particularly good gauge of living standards in that economy. It was not access to money that defined privilege in Soviet society but access to consumer goods and services. On paper most Soviet citizens were perfectly well-off but in reality they struggled to find anything to spend their money on. GDP does not account for the Soviet (and Eastern Bloc) system of multiple levels of special stores only open to the privileged

And of course, this is just regards GDP per capita. As a measure of a nation's wealth (bearing in mind point #2 above) total GDP is a perfectly serviceable indicator. It may not be entirely accurate but its good enough for comparative purposes