Centrally planned economy works better

[Unicorn]

Let's compare capitalist and socialist countries with an objective measure: GDP.

From 1928 to 1985, the economy of the Soviet Union grew by a factor of 10, and GNP per capita grew more than fivefold. The Soviet economy started out at roughly 25 percent the size of the economy of the United States. By 1955, it climbed to 40 percent. In 1965 the Soviet economy reached 50% of the contemporary US economy, and in 1977 it passed the 60 percent threshold.

The example of the Soviet Union shows that GDP growth is higher under planned economy than market economy.

What caused the problems in the Soviet economy in the 1980s then? Unfortunately, most industrialized countries belonged to the capitalist block, not the socialist block. The Soviet Union therefore had to spend proportionally more money to keep the Warsaw Pact militarily equal to the NATO. Ultra-capitalist extremist Ronald Reagan became the President of the United States and dramatically increased military spending. High military expenses led to financial difficulties which ruined the Soviet Union. However, transition to capitalism was a disaster and the Russian economy collapsed causing much hardship.

There is not anything wrong with planned economy but too few countries were socialist in the 1980s and capitalist countries forced the Soviet Union to an arms race with their aggression.

Awaiting your responses... :)

[Joby]

Let's compare capitalist and socialist countries with an objective measure: GDP.

Let's.



From 1928 to 1985, the economy of the Soviet Union grew by a factor of 10, and GNP per capita grew more than fivefold. The Soviet economy started out at roughly 25 percent the size of the economy of the United States. By 1955, it climbed to 40 percent. In 1965 the Soviet economy reached 50% of the contemporary US economy, and in 1977 it passed the 60 percent threshold.


Yes, if you turn a country into a forced labor camp, it can grow pretty fast.

Of course, I have to point out that this system completely collapsed a few years later.

By 1983, the USSR and other Eastern bloc nations owed the US almost $100 Billion. This, of course, compared to the chump change the USSR handed out to Cuba and the like.



The example of the Soviet Union shows that GDP growth is higher under planned economy than market economy.

What caused the problems in the Soviet economy in the 1980s then? Unfortunately, most industrialized countries belonged to the capitalist block, not the socialist block. The Soviet Union therefore had to spend proportionally more money to keep the Warsaw Pact militarily equal to the NATO. Ultra-capitalist extremist Ronald Reagan became the President of the United States and dramatically increased military spending. High military expenses led to financial difficulties which ruined the Soviet Union. However, transition to capitalism was a disaster and the Russian economy collapsed causing much hardship.


First, the US traded with the Soviet Union. They were given a completely fair shake.

Second, stop acting like the USSR was forced to respond to the US's military expansion. They had The Bomb, the West was never going to invade. If the US wanted to waste money on military contractors, that's their problem. It's in NO WAY the US's fault the Russkies were worried their penis's will look smaller if they don't compete.

Third, while the US talked tough against the USSR, we completely subsidized them. For example, from the end of WWII to 1978, the US Taxpayer gave the government of Poland $677 Million. In 1979, the 'evil' Cappies gave Poland $550 Million in Loans and loans guarantees.

Can we Americans at least get a THANK YOU?!


There is not anything wrong with planned economy but too few countries were socialist in the 1980s and capitalist countries forced the Soviet Union to an arms race with their aggression.


Why, exactly, did they need to get involved in this armed race?

They had the nuke, the West was never going to invade

The REAL reason, at the end of the day, was that the Planned economy was tied to Guns-N-Butter. For every one of those 19,000 Tanks the Soviets built (more than anyone else), less consumer goods were being produced.

However, in the US, the two are not tied to each other. Military goods and consumer goods production can, and have, grown exponentially.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yes, if you turn a country into a forced labor camp, it can grow pretty fast. Wrong. Except for the duration of WW2, the average Soviet worker under Stalin worked 42 hours a week. Furthermore, the gulag population never exceeded contemporary American prison populations. Under the czar the average Russian was toiling for twice that amount of time. http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol03/no03/wollenberg.htm

Central planning worked to develop the Soviet Union at a faster rate than any capitalist mode of production could have allowed; participatory planning should have been the next step.

[Dejavu]

Oh, you've got to be kidding about the central planning. :laugh:

I know many communists try to justify it but this is just plain funny. :lol:

This is like ASKING to get eaten alive by me...
I'll give you guys a chance to punchline the joke before I just rip you one. :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

You're quite full full of yourself, aren't you?

[Jazzratt]

Oh, you've got to be kidding about the central planning. :laugh:

I know many communists try to justify it but this is just plain funny. :lol:

This is like ASKING to get eaten alive by me...
I'll give you guys a chance to punchline the joke before I just rip you one. :lol:

Go on then, or is it that you're all talk and no trousers?

[Dejavu]

Oh common Red Anarchist and Jazz. Even you guys will admit this is too easy. I'd check on Unicorn and see if he isn't a 'reactionary' in disguise. :lol:

Enough of you guys on here make some pretty good intellectual arguments ( though you're still wrong... but hey, thats why I'm here to point that out. ;)) but this topic is a joke. A lot of the Reds I know of today dumped the whole central planning thing because they knew of its obvious fallacies.

[Demogorgon]

Oh, you've got to be kidding about the central planning. :laugh:

I know many communists try to justify it but this is just plain funny. :lol:

This is like ASKING to get eaten alive by me...
I'll give you guys a chance to punchline the joke before I just rip you one. :lol:
Flaws there may be in central planning and many here do not advocate it, but you are the last person on the board who I would expect to have the slightest chance of being able to find valid flaws in it.

Your wikipedia economics is getting tiresome.

[Dystisis]

Oh common Red Anarchist and Jazz. Even you guys will admit this is too easy. I'd check on Unicorn and see if he isn't a 'reactionary' in disguise. :lol:

Enough of you guys on here make some pretty good intellectual arguments ( though you're still wrong... but hey, thats why I'm here to point that out. ;)) but this topic is a joke. A lot of the Reds I know of today dumped the whole central planning thing because they knew of its obvious fallacies.
In more coherent terms:
Bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, snarl, bark, bark.

Still waiting for any bite.

The Soviet Union was far from perfect. Then again, the material conditions and resources in (pre-Soviet) Russia compared to other countries were worse in many cases.

Central planning is often preferable over a loose, uncontrolled market.

Too bad Soviet had such an undeveloped political structure. But it is all cause and effect.

[Unicorn]

Yes, if you turn a country into a forced labor camp, it can grow pretty fast.
The Soviet Union was a forced labor camp? Even after the death of Stalin? You don't make any sense.



Of course, I have to point out that this system completely collapsed a few years later.

By 1983, the USSR and other Eastern bloc nations owed the US almost $100 Billion. This, of course, compared to the chump change the USSR handed out to Cuba and the like.

First, the US traded with the Soviet Union. They were given a completely fair shake.

Second, stop acting like the USSR was forced to respond to the US's military expansion. They had The Bomb, the West was never going to invade. If the US wanted to waste money on military contractors, that's their problem. It's in NO WAY the US's fault the Russkies were worried their penis's will look smaller if they don't compete.

Third, while the US talked tough against the USSR, we completely subsidized them. For example, from the end of WWII to 1978, the US Taxpayer gave the government of Poland $677 Million. In 1979, the 'evil' Cappies gave Poland $550 Million in Loans and loans guarantees.

Can we Americans at least get a THANK YOU?!
The GDP of the Soviet Union (1989) was $2.7 Trillion. What is the point you are trying to make with those numbers?



Why, exactly, did they need to get involved in this armed race?

They had the nuke, the West was never going to invade
Mutually Assured Destruction was NOT the scenario the Soviet leaders or any sensible people on Earth wanted. The Soviets hoped that a war between Warsaw Pact and NATO would be limited to conventional weapons and they wanted to win that war.

[pusher robot]

Let's compare capitalist and socialist countries with an objective measure: GDP. Great idea! I don't know why, then, you proceed to use GNP instead.


From 1928 to 1985, the economy of the Soviet Union grew by a factor of 10, and GNP per capita grew more than fivefold.

This is not surprising in the slightest. Similar rates of growth occur in almost every society that transforms from a mostly agrarian to industrial economy.



The Soviet economy started out at roughly 25 percent the size of the economy of the United States. By 1955, it climbed to 40 percent. In 1965 the Soviet economy reached 50% of the contemporary US economy, and in 1977 it passed the 60 percent threshold.

Curious how you suddenly switch from per-capita to aggregates - could that be because the USSR had a larger population than the United States, making its per-capita GDP less than half that of the U.S.'s during the same periods? Even while the U.S. economy was undergoing stagflation? Nah...I'm sure that was just an oversight.



The example of the Soviet Union shows that GDP growth is higher under planned economy than market economy.

No, it shows that GDP growth is greater during industrialization than post-industrialization, independent of the economic system.


What caused the problems in the Soviet economy in the 1980s then? Unfortunately, most industrialized countries belonged to the capitalist block, not the socialist block.
This is not the coincidence you seem to think it is.

[pusher robot]

The GDP of the Soviet Union (1989) was $2.7 Trillion. What is the point you are trying to make with those numbers?

The point was that $9,211 per capita GDP was evidenctly not sufficient to maintain a decent quality of life for its citizens, and so they had to borrow from the U.S. ($21,082 per capita GDP) to make up the difference.

[RGacky3]

GDP is a poor measure of how well an economy is doing, because the definition of a working economy is different for a socialist than it is for a Capitalist. For Capitalists a good economy is one that is creating a lot of wealth, when stocks are going up, and profits are being made. For Socialists (hopefully) its about how well the economy is doing for the people, for that its the poverty rates, the wages, employment, the availability of affordable housing, wealth distribution, food prices and the such.

That being said, there is really no such thing as a 'free market' Capitalist economies are also planned, the difference is, planned by who.

[pusher robot]

GDP is a poor measure of how well an economy is doing, because the definition of a working economy is different for a socialist than it is for a Capitalist.

Well, true insomuch as it is assumed that an economy is "working" when it is creating material wealth. If your economic goal is not material wealth but something else, like equality, then GDP is not the best measurement of how well you are achieving your goal. It is still, however, a good measurement of your material wealth while achieving that goal. So even if we assume that the USSR economy was distributed much more equally (I don't have any figures handy), the low GDP tells us that it was still distributing far less material wealth. I suppose the question is whether those facets not captured by GDP are worth the cost in material wealth. For some, they might be, for others, not. Would you, personally, be willing to give up half of your material wealth so long as nobody else had more than you did?

[Unicorn]

This is not surprising in the slightest. Similar rates of growth occur in almost every society that transforms from a mostly agrarian to industrial economy.
GDP Growth in the USSR was more rapid than in any capitalist countries in history. Furthermore, industrial growth in capitalist countries would have been much slower without exploitation of colonies and slavery but the USSR was self-sufficient.



Curious how you suddenly switch from per-capita to aggregates - could that be because the USSR had a larger population than the United States, making its per-capita GDP less than half that of the U.S.'s during the same periods? Even while the U.S. economy was undergoing stagflation? Nah...I'm sure that was just an oversight.
The size of the Soviet economy climbed from about 25% of the size of the US economy in 1928 to ~60% in 1978.

It is true that even the high growth rates achieved under planned economy did not allow the Soviets to catch the Americans. The reason was that the GDP of Tsarist Russia was so much smaller than the US GDP.

Planned economy is the superior economic system because it can deliver faster growth.



No, it shows that GDP growth is greater during industrialization than post-industrialization, independent of the economic system.
The GDP growth of the USSR surpassed the growth of any capitalist countries during their periods of industrialization.

[RGacky3]

If your economic goal is not material wealth but something else, like equality, then GDP is not the best measurement of how well you are achieving your goal.

To ask is an economy working you'd have to ask individual people, is it working for them. the economic goal is that it works for everyone, not just material wealth for its own sake, now for it to be working for everyone your going to have to produce material wealth, but what is more important is who controls it.

Under the USSR the State (controled by the party) controled the wealth, under Capitalism the Capitalist class controls most of it.


Would you, personally, be willing to give up half of your material wealth so long as nobody else had more than you did?

I'd be willing to give up ALL of my wealth making Capital, :P, all of my factories and buisinesses I'll give up.

[pusher robot]

[quote=Unicorn;1102458]GDP Growth in the USSR was more rapid than in any capitalist countries in history. Furthermore, industrial growth in capitalist countries would have been much slower without exploitation of colonies and slavery but the USSR was self-sufficient.

It also occurred long afterwards. So again, that's no surprise whatsoever. They had plenty of historical experience to draw upon and already-industrialized societies to help them along.


Planned economy is the superior economic system because it can deliver faster growth.

It can't maintain that growth though. As with the USSR, it will rapidly rise to a certain fraction of free economies, as it plays "catch-up" in basic industrialization, then stagnate.


The GDP growth of the USSR surpassed the growth of any capitalist countries during their periods of industrialization.

It also took place at least a century later!

[pusher robot]

I'd be willing to give up ALL of my wealth making Capital, :P, all of my factories and buisinesses I'll give up.
That's not what I asked. I meant wealth, as in, half your possessions, half the services and utilities you receive, half the dwelling space, etc. Would you make the trade?

To ask is an economy working you'd have to ask individual people, is it working for them. the economic goal is that it works for everyone, not just material wealth for its own sake, now for it to be working for everyone your going to have to produce material wealth, but what is more important is who controls it.
You say that as though it is self-evident, but it is not. If I can be richer in an economy that is controlled by others, why ought I prefer an economy where I have more control over less wealth? That's quite a question to beg.

[Dejavu]

Yeah but if you look it up at this very moment , the fastest growing country in the world right now is Angola ( in terms of GDP, 21%). For those of you that never heard of Angola its an African country in SW Africa. Countries that are 'developing' really are just accumulating more capital more rapidly but far from the level of other nations such as the U.S. and Japan in total GDP.
But I agree with the Red that said GDP is a bad indicator of growth ( as are the stock market.) Probably the most 'reliable' of all those statistics is PPP ( Purchase Power Parity.) but even thats fuzzy because of the glorious Fiat Empire.:rolleyes:

I utterly despise any kind of government statistic because they are very misleading but if you want somewhat of a better picture on how economies are really holding up I recommend Economic Freedom Index:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

This is one from heritage.org. Its a neo-con website and it is A SERIOUSLY FLAWED INDEX. They claim for example that Denmark has a 26,5% top income tax rate. The real number is 54%. But even setting aside they do not have their facts correct, the index would still be flawed. So I'm making no defense of it but its actually more reliable than Govy stats provided in GDP accounting. :laugh:

And thats pretty sad when heritage is more accurate than you.


PS: http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908454&CFID=16415879&CFTOKEN=94552766


Standard of living index , still flawed but hey. :laugh:

[RGacky3]

You say that as though it is self-evident, but it is not. If I can be richer in an economy that is controlled by others, why ought I prefer an economy where I have more control over less wealth? That's quite a question to beg.

Because in the first senario you propaby won't see any of the wealth.


That's not what I asked. I meant wealth, as in, half your possessions, half the services and utilities you receive, half the dwelling space, etc. Would you make the trade?


How is that question relevant?

[pusher robot]

Because in the first senario you propaby won't see any of the wealth.



How is that question relevant?

Please pay attention, we've been talking about this since the first post. The "first scenario" is the USA and the "second scenario" is the USSR, in which case it is a matter of historical record that GDP per capita was less than half in the USSR. One possible justification of this disparity is that GDP doesn't capture other economic priorities, so being charitable and granting for the sake of argument that the USSR had much greater equality, the question is would you choose the USSR economy over the USA economy.

[RGacky3]

Ic, well I can't answer that question, because I don't know my personal wealth is comparable to your average person in the USSR doing my same job, now your asking purely from an economic standpoint, from a political standpoing no I would'nt.

[Unicorn]

[QUOTE]
It also occurred long afterwards. So again, that's no surprise whatsoever. They had plenty of historical experience to draw upon and already-industrialized societies to help them along.
The USSR was actually very isolated from the capitalist world. Experience and aid from other capitalist countries helped the industrialization of capitalist countries much more. Comparable rates of growth were also not achieved in any industrializing capitalist countries after the industrialization of the USSR.



It can't maintain that growth though. As with the USSR, it will rapidly rise to a certain fraction of free economies, as it plays "catch-up" in basic industrialization, then stagnate.
If the US spent 25% of its GDP on military would the US economy grow? No, it is sliding to a recession because of the cost of the Iraq war.



It also took place at least a century later!
Yes, Russia was not able to industrialize under the failed capitalist economic policies of the Czar. Shift to planned economy led to rapid economic growth.

[pusher robot]

[quote=Unicorn;1103077][quote=pusher robot;1102606]
The USSR was actually very isolated from the capitalist world. Experience and aid from other capitalist countries helped the industrialization of capitalist countries much more.


Oh please. Do you really expect me to believe that the USSR completely, on its own, invented such things as aluminum smelting, the Bessemer furnace, petroleum distillation, four-stroke combustion, interchangable parts, assembly-line process, power transmission, reciprocating engines, and chemical deposition? To name just a tiny handful of important industrial technologies? No, they either already knew or stole most of the technology needed to industrialize, technology that was developed over a long time and at great cost by previously industrialized societies.


Comparable rates of growth were also not achieved in any industrializing capitalist countries after the industrialization of the USSR.

Examples?


Yes, Russia was not able to industrialize under the failed capitalist economic policies of the Czar. Shift to planned economy led to rapid economic growth.
Capitalist policies failed because it was not a capitalist society.

[Unicorn]

[QUOTE]
Oh please. Do you really expect me to believe that the USSR completely, on its own, invented such things as aluminum smelting, the Bessemer furnace, petroleum distillation, four-stroke combustion, interchangable parts, assembly-line process, power transmission, reciprocating engines, and chemical deposition? To name just a tiny handful of important industrial technologies? No, they either already knew or stole most of the technology needed to industrialize, technology that was developed over a long time and at great cost by previously industrialized societies.
Capitalist countries had far better possibilities for technological exchange. Nearly all Western governments were hostile to the USSR and corporations did not want to share their "intellectual property" with the USSR.

The USSR also did not benefit from foreign capital investment. Actually, the USSR was a "pariah nation" and as such it would be intellectually honest to compare it with a capitalist "pariah nation" to determine which economic system is better. Capitalist countries under trade embargo usually achieve very little growth.

Today capitalist countries in the Third World seem unable to industrialize despite extensive economic aid. The Soviets achieved First World living standards in a remarkably short period of time.



Examples?
In 1921 the Soviet Union was a non-industrialized country wrecked by the civil war. The majority of the population was illiterate. How did comparable capitalist countries develop? Countries like Turkey, Spain, Portugal and Greece all lagged badly behind. The Soviet economic growth also surpassed the growth of industrialized countries.



Capitalist policies failed because it was not a capitalist society.
:D
Nonsense. What kind of society was pre-revolutionary Russia unless capitalist?

[pusher robot]

[quote=Unicorn;1103165]Capitalist countries had far better possibilities for technological exchange. Nearly all Western governments were hostile to the USSR and corporations did not want to share their "intellectual property" with the USSR.
I'm talking about basic industrial technology, stuff developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth century or earlier, not cutting-edge trade secrets.



Today capitalist countries in the Third World seem unable to industrialize despite extensive economic aid. The Soviets achieved First World living standards in a remarkably short period of time.

What would you call lend-lease, as an example?


In 1921 the Soviet Union was a non-industrialized country wrecked by the civil war. The majority of the population was illiterate. How did comparable capitalist countries develop? Countries like Turkey, Spain, Portugal and Greece all lagged badly behind.
We're all willing to concede that you can achieve rapid conversion from pre-industrial to industrial society in a command economy. That alone is not enough to demonstrate that the command economy is "better." If you jump out of a plane, you can reach the ground more quickly without a parachute than with one. That doesn't mean it's better not to have a parachute.

Besides, if you want a really fair and relevant comparison, why not compare the economic health of East and West Germany, both approximately equally devestated, subject to our two different economic models during the same time period?

Shall we extrapolate from that?


The Soviet economic growth also surpassed the growth of industrialized countries.

Briefly.


Nonsense. What kind of society was pre-revolutionary Russia unless capitalist?
Let's see - peasants, serfs, landed nobles...feudalist perhaps?

[Unicorn]

[QUOTE]
What would you call lend-lease, as an example?
Lol, are you serious? The benefit of Lend-Lease was trivial compared to the economic harm the Nazis caused when they invaded. The Soviet Union would have won WWII without Lend-Lease as most of it came after Stalingrad when the war was already won.



We're all willing to concede that you can achieve rapid conversion from pre-industrial to industrial society in a command economy. That alone is not enough to demonstrate that the command economy is "better." If you jump out of a plane, you can reach the ground more quickly without a parachute than with one. That doesn't mean it's better not to have a parachute.
In the post-WWII Soviet Union everyone had basic necessities. It would be a magnificent accomplishment if Third World countries achieved this living standard. Poverty kills people and it is infinitely more important to end it than to give Western living standard to every person on Earth.

Can we agree that Third World countries should industrialize as quickly as possible to end poverty? We apparently agree that planned economy offers the quickest way to this objective.



Besides, if you want a really fair and relevant comparison, why not compare the economic health of East and West Germany, both approximately equally devestated, subject to our two different economic models during the same time period?

Shall we extrapolate from that?
Germany was a special case because the population of Germany was brainwashed by Hitler and typically fiercely anti-communist. Germans were thus much more willing to participate in building a capitalist society. This explains the difference between the economic growth of these countries.



Briefly.
Long enough to give a comfortable living standard to the Soviet economy and make the country a superpower. Growth in the 1970s was not so impressive as during the early years but comparable to capitalist countries and it stopped only in the 1980s largely due to Reagan's policies. The price of oil and arms race were major, temporary factors.



Let's see - peasants, serfs, landed nobles...feudalist perhaps?
The Czar made efforts to make Russia industrialize but didn't succeed well whereas the Bolshevik success was so astonishing that it had no precedent in history.

[Joby]

You know, Pusher makes an excellent point that is hardly ever brought up.

Just about every invention made since we got off the horse-n-buggy was done for profit.

What can we thank the Soviets for? That is, when it comes to non-military hardware.

For the life of me, I can't think of a single time the Soviets pushed the technological envelope.

[Unicorn]

You know, Pusher makes an excellent point that is hardly ever brought up.

Just about every invention made since we got off the horse-n-buggy was done for profit.

What can we thank the Soviets for? That is, when it comes to non-military hardware.

For the life of me, I can't think of a single time the Soviets pushed the technological envelope.
You can thank the Soviets for groundbreaking discoveries in laser technology, for example. Laser has very important applications today.

Soviet Laureates of the Nobel Prize:

Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, Physics, 1978
Ilya Prigogine*, Chemistry, 1977
Leonid Kantorovich, Economics, 1975
Aleksandr M. Prokhorov*, Australia, Physics, 1964
Lev Landau*, Physics, 1962
Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov, Physics, 1958
Igor Yevgenyevich Tamm, Physics, 1958
Ilya Mikhailovich Frank, Physics, 1958
Nikolay Semyonov, Chemistry, 1956

[pusher robot]

You know, Pusher makes an excellent point that is hardly ever brought up.

Just about every invention made since we got off the horse-n-buggy was done for profit.

What can we thank the Soviets for? That is, when it comes to non-military hardware.

For the life of me, I can't think of a single time the Soviets pushed the technological envelope.

They did have some success at scientific research, they just had a complete inability to translate those successes into wanted goods or services other than military hardware.

[Dejavu]

They did have some success at scientific research, they just had a complete inability to translate those successes into wanted goods or services other than military hardware.


Indeed. When we charge economic calculation is impossible for a socialist system in a modern economy I don't know where they get the idea that we claim they don't have a highly skilled division of labor. But as you suggest, DoL is pointless if you can't do the calculation and allocate resources efficiently.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ More Mises-type idiocy :rolleyes:

Consider the idiocies of the modern market (which are natural, BTW):

1) Infrastructural breakdowns;
2) Demand for unnecessary consumer goods over "social projects"; and
3) Food overproduction leading to wanton waste and abuse of land.

#2 is the one I'm paying attention to:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Totalitarian_Temptation_in_Space.html

A lot of "social projects" (coughed up by working-class scientists, not "innovative capitalists" :p ) are being ignored, including space exploration, massive urban planning and construction projects (from mere schools to whole new cities), and energy projects (otherwise we'd have the fusion plant in France in the more distant past as opposed to now).

Central planning by the state capitalist is indeed about capital rationing for the sake of social development. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The point was that $9,211 per capita GDP was evidenctly not sufficient to maintain a decent quality of life for its citizens, and so they had to borrow from the U.S. ($21,082 per capita GDP) to make up the difference.

What BS info. :rolleyes:

Germany was the biggest creditor of the Soviets, and the aggregate Soviet debt to foreigners was only in the hundreds of billions - a mere fraction of the economic output. Contrast that with the US (especially now), with the aggregate debt being anywhere from five to eight times the economic output.

[Joby]

^^^ More Mises-type idiocy :rolleyes:

Consider the idiocies of the modern market (which are natural, BTW):

1) Infrastructural breakdowns;

What do you mean by this?

Congested freeways unable to handle everyones best in the world, capitalist made automobiles?

Congested Ports on the West Coast unable to handle the billions of tons of goods we're buying from China?

Congested Airports unable to handle all the holiday travelers?

Congested railways unable to handle the booming rates of traffic?


2) Demand for unnecessary consumer goods over "social projects"; and

As you point out with the first word, that's what the people want.

But you're right; another reason to vote Obama! :D


3) Food overproduction leading to wanton waste and abuse of land.

Uhhh...Have you checked world food prices lately?

Overproduction isn't the problem.


A lot of "social projects" (coughed up by working-class scientists, not "innovative capitalists" :p ) are being ignored, including space exploration,

Yeah....because the Free Market will handle it better.

I hope to ride Virgin Intergalactic in the not-too-distant future.


massive urban planning and construction projects (from mere schools to whole new cities),

So you spend the billions required.


and energy projects (otherwise we'd have the fusion plant in France in the more distant past as opposed to now).

Funny, here in the US lefties are anti-Nuclear. Even fusion.

[Demogorgon]

[QUOTE]
Besides, if you want a really fair and relevant comparison, why not compare the economic health of East and West Germany, both approximately equally devestated, subject to our two different economic models during the same time period?

Okay, but this is also going to prove some things you aren't going to like as well.

I shall not bother comparing East and West Germany too much because my concern is mostly with West Germany and the social market economy. In short West Germany used an economic model that according to your economic theory should not work, yet it achieved quite considerable success.

I must warn you here that I am going to move this thread in a different direction now, because I accept that you will never accept gains in any of the so called "Communist" countries as a valid argument. Instead we will look at some of the capitalist countries. What Capitalist countries achieved the greatest success in heavily developing after the war? I would say two of the best examples on offer are the aformentioned West Germany and Japan.

West Germany as mentioned achieved its growth through high Government intervention and social Welfare. Japan achieved its growth through protectionism, heavy Government planning of investment, and very tight control of the money supply. Both countries also had relatively high taxes.

In short they were as different from the classical liberal model you propose (Japan particularly) as any Eastern Block state you care to mention, yet they were the great success stories. Both countries incidentally found that the Capitalist good times don't last forever, but that is a story for another thread.

In short, the twentieth century may have proved one particular form of socialism does not work as well as hoped, but it also showed that laisser-faire capitalism can not even hold up well compared to other forms of capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

[QUOTE]

Let's see - peasants, serfs, landed nobles...feudalist perhaps?
Oh and serfdom was abolished if memory serves in 1830. Russia had "enjoyed" nearly a century of capitalism by the time of the revolution.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Oh and serfdom was abolished if memory serves in 1830. Russia had "enjoyed" nearly a century of capitalism by the time of the revolution.

It was in 1861 the emancipation order came, but it called for a two-year wait on breaking feudal obligations and laws continued to recognize previous class division. Small concessions for democracy did not come until a half century later when the czar realized what was hitting his imperial fan. Industrial growth was beginning to take hold by the end of the 19th century; however, the poor were getting poorer and the rich much richer. Germany's social democracy did a much better job at industrializing.

[Demogorgon]

It was in 1861 the emancipation order came, but it called for a two-year wait on breaking feudal obligations and laws continued to recognize previous class division. Small concessions for democracy did not come until a half century later when the czar realized what was hitting his imperial fan. Industrial growth was beginning to take hold by the end of the 19th century; however, the poor were getting poorer and the rich much richer. Germany's social democracy did a much better job at industrializing.

1861? My history is getting weaker. Well then, call that half a century of capitalism.

The issue of Democratic concessions is not terribly relevant to the economic argument. None of the emerging capitalist countries in the nineteenth century were Democracies as they would be understood today, even by bourgeoisie standards. The first of those emerged around the time of the First World War, though of course there were precursors like America, Britain and France that had some, but not all of the features of liberal "Democracy".

Ironically those three are now behind most other western countries.

[pusher robot]

A lot of "social projects" (coughed up by working-class scientists, not "innovative capitalists" :p ) are being ignored, including space exploration, massive urban planning and construction projects (from mere schools to whole new cities), and energy projects (otherwise we'd have the fusion plant in France in the more distant past as opposed to now).


Massive urban planning and construction projects, "scientifically" designed? Why does this sound so familiar? Haven't we tried this before?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Pruitt-Igoe-overview.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt_Igoe

Hmmmm...and how did that work out then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKhk4oZMro

I guess I'm just suggesting you ought to be rather forgiving of peoples' skepticism of the educated elites' ideas of what has "social value."



In short they were as different from the classical liberal model you propose (Japan particularly) as any Eastern Block state you care to mention, yet they were the great success stories. Both countries incidentally found that the Capitalist good times don't last forever, but that is a story for another thread.
Your argument here would make much more sense if you actually told me what countries' economies you were comparing these two to. Are they countries that developed under similar circumstances? In a similar time period? With similar needs? I suspect that you are taking the rather obvious observation that no rigid interpretation of an economic model is appropriate to every set of circumstances and trying to draw the conclusion that there are no generalizable economic principles, but your examples are wholly inadequate to support that conclusion.

[Demogorgon]

Your argument here would make much more sense if you actually told me what countries' economies you were comparing these two to. Are they countries that developed under similar circumstances? In a similar time period? With similar needs? I suspect that you are taking the rather obvious observation that no rigid interpretation of an economic model is appropriate to every set of circumstances and trying to draw the conclusion that there are no generalizable economic principles, but your examples are wholly inadequate to support that conclusion.
Okay ignore West Germany and focus on Japan. It will make things simpler. My point was that Japan achieved one of the most spectacular periods of economic growth (in a capitalist economy I freely admit) growing from utter devastation in 1945 to the heights it reached before things started going wrong (as things so often do with capitalism) in the nineties. This growth was achieved through pretty much the exact opposite of what your school of economics claims works. The Government essentially decided where investment went in much the same way the Soviet Government did. It limited competition wherever it didn't want it. It taxed the hell out of the wealthy, it practiced a highly protectionist trade policy and look where it ended up!

That is not to say for a minute that I support the Japanese economic model, it is capitalist after all and was bought at the price of authoritarianism, rigged elections, heavy corruption and so on.

But it proves that the Austrian/Chicago school prescription for what "works" simply does not apply to real life economic success stories.

[pusher robot]

But it proves that the Austrian/Chicago school prescription for what "works" simply does not apply to real life economic success stories.

Who are you arguing against? Did anyone claim that Austrian/Chicago school policies are necessary to achieve the highest rates of growth?

The thread topic is USSR-style socialist economy vs. USA-style capitalist economy. Even you concede that Japan was in fact capitalist. I think you're just engaging in some transparent goalpost-shifting, but I'm not going to play along.

[Demogorgon]

Who are you arguing against? Did anyone claim that Austrian/Chicago school policies are necessary to achieve the highest rates of growth?

The thread topic is USSR-style socialist economy vs. USA-style capitalist economy. Even you concede that Japan was in fact capitalist. I think you're just engaging in some transparent goalpost-shifting, but I'm not going to play along.
No, I am pointing out that planning when it comes to investment demonstrably yields better results than a free market for investment.

Everyone knows the USSR collapsed, and I will be able to move mountains before I can convince you there was anything good about it, so I am using a different example of planning to make a point.

Posting in OI, there is little point in simply repeating Communist Dogma and expecting people to swallow it. I have to adapt arguments to fit people I am arguing with. When dealing with Austrian/Chicago school ideologues, experience teaches me that the only way to argue with success is to show the superiority of a different form of capitalism before attempting to move onto arguing for socialism. Hence here I am arguing the Japanese model for investment worked better than the Western model. It is why I sometimes argue that the Swedish welfare state works better than America's mess of a system and so on. There is no interest in playing a repeat over and over of the "my system is better than yours" game. I much rather take Marx's advice of "looking for the institutions of the new society developing in the belly of the old" and take what I see as interesting things that show up sometimes in capitalism and argue their superiority to more conventional models.