Why the Soviet Union Failed Economically - Economic Comparis

[Ghost Writer]

Even bottom feeding communists recognize that markets distribute goods effectively, and that money acts as the most efficient medium of exchange. The problem lies in their desire to have full control over these systems in order to "equalize" its citizens. Trying to leash a market system and its currency distorts the healthy operation of markets, and results in a hideous mutation, where distribution, quality, and quantity of goods and services are affected negatively. Dominating capital, agriculture, and labor can not be done without reducing the overall efficiency of a nation's economy. While economic planners are still trying to figure out what products are needed, and where they are needed most, time is lost for some industry that might find that its operations have come to a stand still. Shortsightedness on the part of the planner fails to get products where they are needed most. The time and money lost by this built in inefficiency of any communist government has a very high opportunity cost. By the time they realize they may have allocated resources incorrectly, some other sector of the economy goes down because of its dependence on the first industry affected by a lack of perfect information and poor planning. Word filters down through the bureaucracy that capital and labor resources need to be shifted to address an idle sector of the economy, but a surplus of goods has been created in another sector.

Do not worry, because the measure of the availability of certain goods will not be affected by price mechanisms. Instead, shortages and surpluses are reflected by the length of the line one finds himself waiting in to get a commodity, which is abundant throughout the free-markets around the world. Is this a mechanism that is good for the citizens living under its insanity? During the Cold War days, a resident of East Berlin needed only to look across the Iron Curtain to answer this. They lived in squalor, while their neighbors enjoyed Walkmans and blue jeans. Yes, there was good reason for a person to risk their life dodging bullets, while making a run from east to west. It's called quality of life. To be a poor person in Mexico was more preferable than existing as a poor person in the U.S.S.R..

You want some objective proof of this. I introduce you to the concept of a production possibilities frontier (see figure). These graphs show varying combinations of goods that an economy can produce at a given time. The outward bound represents 100% efficiency, since we can not get resources in one sector without giving up some resources in the other sector. No economy operates on this boundary, as it is purely an ideal case. However, economies that make poor choices that have high opportunity costs associated with them will fall further from the line. Anything falling below the dividing line between the attainable and the unattainable regions is inefficient, since opportunities to produce more goods and services are being wasted. Although it may be theoretically possible to reach the outward boundary, economies act as if they are on that line, because they may not be able to address the efficiency issues causing them to be short of the goal, and if so, it may take some time to fix problems. The key is in the perception of a society faced with economic challenges.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/Production_possibilities_frontier.jpg

The fact, remains that communism does a worse job of meeting the requirements of any economy. The job of any economy is to choose output quantities to be produced, input quantities to be used, and balance the distribution of both of these variables to maximize efficiency and generate a higher standard of living for its citizens.

The reason for the superiority of the market system has to do with the production possibilities frontier. In market systems, innovation and productivity generally increase expanding the outward limit, increasing the size of the economy, and allowing for more goods. Our society is structured in such a way that we are driven to produce better products faster. In America, price drives the market to increase efficiency, creating technology that allows us to reach the former PPF, and expand out into the previously unattainable region. In a sense we are constantly raising the bar.

Meanwhile, command economies have built in inefficiencies that cause their productivity to expand at a slower rate, if at all. Some command economies have even squandered most of their producing potential, as they effectively reduce creative incentive. As we have seen one hiccup in a command economy can cause a chain reaction that continues to propagate within their economy for years, sometimes shrinking their overall PPF.

In addition to these considerations, we must talk about the failure of the Soviet Union’s communist economy with respect to Cold War defense spending. As I have stated the United States was constantly expanding their PPF due to technological evolution. The Soviet Union had to deal with a shrinking economy while they tried to compete with our massive weapons programs. The nature of our system allowed us to produce more gadgets and more advanced weapons at the same time. Both sectors of our economy grew during this time span, while they had to constantly allocate resources needed for basic goods and services towards military expenditures, just to compete. The sacrifice of basic amenities, by the Russian people, certainly contributed to attitudes that may have accelerated declining productivity. In addition, the government had to deal with growing Western influence that caused more resentment of the government, and the rapid erosion of political and economic institutions was the inevitable result. Of course, this phenomenon is purely a factor of how closely tied politics and economics are in Marxist-Leninist states. Rest assured the Chinese have taken a lesson, as they have made significant efforts to distinguish the two from one another. However, I think the powerful influence of the West will definitely cause the downfall of their repressive style of government. There is some evidence of this as they are trying to offset some of the ‘damage’ that open markets have caused for a government that rules with an iron fist.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 11:13 am on July 2, 2003)

[TXsocialist]

You've just proved to me why bourgeois economics works according to bourgeois economics!

Bravo!

[TXsocialist]

This annoys me because a 3rd grader who took a semester dumb-dumb economics class could use this sort of half-wit understanding of (bourgeois)economics....

If you're going to try this, please learn your own frikin system...

[antieverything]

...gotta love the Marxists...it's certainly easier to simply throw out hundreds of years of development of economic thought and replace it with a system of thought specifically designed to be a system of circular reasoning. Marxism is perfect in the eyes of the Marxist because he or she must assume that it is perfect before becoming a Marxist.

The fact is, nothing Ghostwriter said was false.

[Ghost Writer]

We may make a conservative out of you, yet, anti-everything. There are a few leftists here that have the balls to admit when I am right. Now, if I can only get you to understand supply-side economics, then we may be in good shape.

[Unrelenting Steve]

"Even bottom feeding communists recognize that markets distribute goods effectively, and that money acts as the most efficient medium of exchange. The problem lies in their desire to have full control over these systems in order to "equalize" its citizens."

We admitt it; but what does this mean, nothing.... Id rather be inefficent than unjust. The communist system is made because of morals, not the need for greater productivity and efficentcy and fluidity (running smoothlyness (lol)), which ofcourse is easily done throught imploring peoples greed ect. This however doesnt help the people in the rural desolate places in my country to stop starving to death (thanks capitalism). So as im sure you realized as you were constructing that very true long piece of writting; it doesnt matter.


"The fact, remains that communism does a worse job of meeting the requirements of any economy."

I think veryones okay with that

[kelvin]

Quote: from Unrelenting Steve on 11:20 pm on July 2, 2003
"Even bottom feeding communists recognize that markets distribute goods effectively, and that money acts as the most efficient medium of exchange. The problem lies in their desire to have full control over these systems in order to "equalize" its citizens."

We admitt it; but what does this mean, nothing.... Id rather be inefficent than unjust. The communist system is made because of morals, not the need for greater productivity and efficentcy and fluidity (running smoothlyness (lol)), which ofcourse is easily done throught imploring peoples greed ect. This however doesnt help the people in the rural desolate places in my country to stop starving to death (thanks capitalism). So as im sure you realized as you were constructing that very true long piece of writting; it doesnt matter.


"The fact, remains that communism does a worse job of meeting the requirements of any economy."

I think veryones okay with that





Just and morales? Go and read the thread where communist want to douse me with gasoline and set me on fire. Go and read the tread where communist are happy making a widow grief.

[TXsocialist]

The reasoning is off for 1 simple reason. That figure measures a nation, or population, NOT all those involved in the economy of that nation(meaning outside labor).

Essentially, you're taking a picture of a man's smiling face, but ignore his shredded and bleeding body.

[notyetacommie]

So true, TXsocialist, so true.

The comparison of the USSR and the USA can't be done for one simple reason: the USSR helped a lot the developing nations, and wasn't really keen on making mega-profits out of it, while the USA have always trying to suck all blood from every miserable nation in the world, following this scheme: "we help you with $100 dollars, and you won't be able to pay it back for ages, as we will set the interest rate at 30%, and, while you are still in crisis, you will owe us $130 next year, $169 the year after, and your debt will more than double in just three years, making it 219.7. Of course, you won't have your economy running two times better, as we will install a dictator there who will see to it, and you'll owe us $285.61 by the end of fourth year. You'll have to sell your best ventures literally for pennies- and we will be the ones who will buy them. In five years, your debt will constitute $371.293 and we will say that YOU are to blame for your economic troubles. Moreover, we will decide that your dictator has committed crimes against humanity, and although that was done using our weapons and death squads trained by CIA, there will be no stopping us. We will liberate you, with our military gaining $200 from our budget for killing the civilians- the task they accomplish willingly. We will then restore your economy- don't be surprised if now it will belong to us. By the end of sixths year your debt will constitute $482.6809. No one cares that now your economy works for the US. You still owe us the money. After 7 years it's $627.48517 and 815.730721 after 8 years. This means, that by now you would have to pay each year more than we originally gave you - and that's not counting the interest! Hehe, and the image of our country will be up to the level- as WE originally helped that poor nation! This kind of help is the most profitable business one could imagine! By the end of the ninth year the debt will constitute $1060.4499373, and each year you will have to pay the interest that is 3 times as much as our original loan! Great! $1378.58491849 minus $100= 1278.58491849! This is our net profit. Not bad! We now have nearly 13 times more than we originally invested. Now, guys, time to pay!"

And the whole nation works long hours just to cut down the interest- forget about full repayment.

Here is the real reason your economy "flourishes".

[notyetacommie]

Just and morales? Go and read the thread where communist want to douse me with gasoline and set me on fire. Go and read the tread where communist are happy making a widow grief.

[/quote]

He who came with a sword should die from a sword.

That widow was aware that if she let her husband go and kill civilians, he may end up being killed. Sorrow? she may have convinced her husband that he should go and earn bloody money by screwing a country that has done nothing whatsoever to harm the US- you can't argue this.

[antieverything]

The comparison of the USSR and the USA can't be done for one simple reason: the USSR helped a lot the developing nations, and wasn't really keen on making mega-profits out of it, while the USA have always trying to suck all blood from every miserable nation in the world, following this scheme: "we help you with $100 dollars, and you won't be able to pay it back for ages, as we will set the interest rate at 30%, and, while you are still in crisis, you will owe us $130 next year, $169 the year after, and your debt will more than double in just three years, making it 219.7. Of course, you won't have your economy running two times better, as we will install a dictator there who will see to it, and you'll owe us $285.61 by the end of fourth year. You'll have to sell your best ventures literally for pennies- and we will be the ones who will buy them. In five years, your debt will constitute $371.293 and we will say that YOU are to blame for your economic troubles. Moreover, we will decide that your dictator has committed crimes against humanity, and although that was done using our weapons and death squads trained by CIA, there will be no stopping us. We will liberate you, with our military gaining $200 from our budget for killing the civilians- the task they accomplish willingly. We will then restore your economy- don't be surprised if now it will belong to us. By the end of sixths year your debt will constitute $482.6809. No one cares that now your economy works for the US. You still owe us the money. After 7 years it's $627.48517 and 815.730721 after 8 years. This means, that by now you would have to pay each year more than we originally gave you - and that's not counting the interest! Hehe, and the image of our country will be up to the level- as WE originally helped that poor nation! This kind of help is the most profitable business one could imagine! By the end of the ninth year the debt will constitute $1060.4499373, and each year you will have to pay the interest that is 3 times as much as our original loan! Great! $1378.58491849 minus $100= 1278.58491849! This is our net profit. Not bad! We now have nearly 13 times more than we originally invested. Now, guys, time to pay!"Give me a break, kids! Either denounce both evil empires or don't say anything!

[Unrelenting Steve]

Quote: from TXsocialist on 12:09 am on July 3, 2003
The reasoning is off for 1 simple reason. That figure measures a nation, or population, NOT all those involved in the economy of that nation(meaning outside labor).
Essentially, you're taking a picture of a man's smiling face, but ignore his shredded and bleeding body.



here here. They leech, sanction American- see how long they last without ripping of some poor african country to suppliment there unsustainable life styles.

[notyetacommie]

Hey, what's so evil about the USSR? Cuba suffered hardships when the USSR dissolved, because there was a lot of help going there from the USSR. People in many East European countries say they were much better-off under Socialism, when we were brothers. North Korea, China, Vietnam, many African countries- the USSR helped them all. Not the American style, by the way.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Just and morales? Go and read the thread where communist want to douse me with gasoline and set me on fire. Go and read the tread where communist are happy making a widow grief.


Those were not all communists. Just me. I also said I would not mind putting two in the back of your head boy.

I get the distinct impression you were trying to "tattle" on me KKKelvin. Are you really an adult? If you are then you are quite the little pussy.

EDIT:
In addition, please provide dates Norman. The Soviet economic platform went through many changes. I doubt you would even try to touch early Soviet economics after the Stalin's industrial advances gave the Soviet state world recognition as a global power.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 4:02 am on July 3, 2003)

[kelvin]

Quote: from notyetacommie on 2:40 am on July 3, 2003
So true, TXsocialist, so true.

The comparison of the USSR and the USA can't be done for one simple reason: the USSR helped a lot the developing nations, and wasn't really keen on making mega-profits out of it, while the USA have always trying to suck all blood from every miserable nation in the world, following this scheme: "we help you with $100 dollars, and you won't be able to pay it back for ages, as we will set the interest rate at 30%, and, while you are still in crisis, you will owe us $130 next year, $169 the year after, and your debt will more than double in just three years, making it 219.7. Of course, you won't have your economy running two times better, as we will install a dictator there who will see to it, and you'll owe us $285.61 by the end of fourth year. You'll have to sell your best ventures literally for pennies- and we will be the ones who will buy them. In five years, your debt will constitute $371.293 and we will say that YOU are to blame for your economic troubles. Moreover, we will decide that your dictator has committed crimes against humanity, and although that was done using our weapons and death squads trained by CIA, there will be no stopping us. We will liberate you, with our military gaining $200 from our budget for killing the civilians- the task they accomplish willingly. We will then restore your economy- don't be surprised if now it will belong to us. By the end of sixths year your debt will constitute $482.6809. No one cares that now your economy works for the US. You still owe us the money. After 7 years it's $627.48517 and 815.730721 after 8 years. This means, that by now you would have to pay each year more than we originally gave you - and that's not counting the interest! Hehe, and the image of our country will be up to the level- as WE originally helped that poor nation! This kind of help is the most profitable business one could imagine! By the end of the ninth year the debt will constitute $1060.4499373, and each year you will have to pay the interest that is 3 times as much as our original loan! Great! $1378.58491849 minus $100= 1278.58491849! This is our net profit. Not bad! We now have nearly 13 times more than we originally invested. Now, guys, time to pay!"

And the whole nation works long hours just to cut down the interest- forget about full repayment.

Here is the real reason your economy "flourishes".


Two words: Marshall Plan. Gazallions to friendly countires and former enemies to rebuild war torn countires.

All those countries who accepted the Marshall Plan have vibrant economies while the Red economies grinded to a halt.

[notyetacommie]

That was done politically, and you know that.
Compare the production indexes:now and then.
After ten years of reform Russia's industry is still 10 times less than it used to be during the hardest year for the Soviet economy. I can compare things, as I actually see the factories that stopped production - and it happened after some fucker Yeltsin did what he did with the Soviet Union, and I am pretty sure that it was the result of political decisions taken AFTER the political collapse of the Union, moreover, the policy was based on the advice of Harvard economists. The advice cost Russians 10 million lives, dysfunctional economy and a lot of other stuff. And now you say the Soviet Union wasn't economically viable!

Kevin, come here, and I will show you how many useful things were built during the Soviet times- the only ones that give substantial profit right now, while the profit doesn't belong to the people who actually made things work anymore.

As for Marshall plan: Are you sure you didn't make any profit from it?

Vibrant economies? Like stagnating, or declining, you mean? That's what I hear about the EU countries, Japan, and (You won't believe it:)) the USA.

[Ghost Writer]

Two things yes_you_are_a_commie; all aid is doled out for political reasons, and Russia did not know how to be capitalist after over seventy years of communist repression. The people were conditioned to look to their government for everything, and had lost any entrepreneurial inclinations they may have once had. The only people prospering are the organized criminals, who were conducting business under the old communist regime. This is just further justification for avoiding the pitfalls that communism offers. All this proves is that communism scars a nation, and that these scars can take quite some time to heal.

If you can prove the economic viability of Soviet communism, I would be more than willing to listen. No one in their right mind would suggest they were efficient, or able to meet the needs of their people.

[Cassius Clay]

You all seem to be ignoring one tiny detail, the USSR was Capitalist by 1970 and the first steps to reintroduce Capitalism had been going on since 1956.

[TXsocialist]

Ghost Winer,

I insulted your pathetic reasoning because it seems you made that frontier chart and expect us to look in awe as if we did not recieve the same 3rd rate economics course in High school.

go impress some 4th grader, if you're going to try and explain efficiency using bourgeois economics, do it right.

[notyetacommie]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 10:35 am on July 3, 2003
Two things yes_you_are_a_commie; all aid is doled out for political reasons, and Russia did not know how to be capitalist after over seventy years of communist repression.

1.I still don't know if I'm a commie. Thanks for helping me define myself:) Why would Russia want to know how to be capitalist if time has shown that it's an economically impaired way of running things?

Repression.
That kind of depends on what you call repression. I lived there and I wasn't repressed. Neither were my parents or grand parents.


The people were conditioned to look to their government for everything, and had lost any entrepreneurial inclinations they may have once had.

Who do you call 'the people who once had entrepreneurial inclinations"? The ones who were born before the October Revolution?

The only people prospering are the organized criminals, who were conducting business under the old communist regime.

That's actually the ground stone of capitalism- organized criminals prosper while all others suffer. This is proven by the fact that all major fortunes were made by criminals. Look at your president whose ancestors made their money doing business with Nazis. That is what you don't like about communism- that NO CRIMINAL IS ALLOWED TO PROSPER- and you call that oppression.

This is just further justification for avoiding the pitfalls that communism offers. All this proves is that communism scars a nation, and that these scars can take quite some time to heal.



If you can prove the economic viability of Soviet communism, I would be more than willing to listen. No one in their right mind would suggest they were efficient, or able to meet the needs of their people.


You have yet to prove otherwise. You know when the Soviet economy started to get in trouble? When the first steps towards the market economy were taken- namely, when the enterprises were encouraged to make profit. They began to compete for more investment, and tried to produce more than should have been planned-thus they had overstock of items that noone needed- but that's not quite what should be understood by "planned economy". Planned economy has a lot more to do with what you now call market research and with statistics than with decisions of politburo.

[Ghost Writer]

I'll take bourgeois economics to failed communist economics anyday. Demonstrate to me where I went wrong then TXcommie.

[Xprewatik RED]

Hey, Ghost Writer what was your source for the graph. If it is a website can you give me a link, I would enjoy reading more on production in different economies and how they work. Even if I don't believe in Capitalism, I still enjoy reading about it(schools out so Im reading ,"The Wealth of Nations", and anything to do with economies Im interested in). , Thanks.

[Ghost Writer]

I made the graph in about two minutes on my computer. It was meant as a visual aid to demonstrate the point I was making. In no way is it quantitative, as should be obvious by the lack of any numberical values. However, I believe it is qualitative. One thing that should be noted is that the U.S. and Russia would not really have the same PPF. However, I equated them for simplicity, and placed representative arcs beneath the PPF to show that the Soviet Union fell behind the U.S. despite its wealth of resources, and labor pool. Bottom line, communism is inefficient in both industry and in lives. It remains wasteful of both.

If you want to learn more about production, look into process engineering, from pre-industrial revolution to our current technological and information age. How things are manufactured on large scales is always fascinating to me. What's really cool are the facilities that are totally automated. Which leads me to an idea that is going to make me millions.

If you want a macroeconomic look, take macroeconomics.

[Xprewatik RED]

Can you recommend me any books on it, or anything to do with basic economics, or Measurement of economic performance, or National income and price determination, or International economics and growth (keeping in mind im a Lamen in these areas). Since I'm going to have to expand my english vocabulary to understand it anyways.

[Ghost Writer]

Microeconomics (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/491592/ref=br_bx_c_2_1/002-1231023-9145637)

Microeconomics (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/491590/ref=br_bx_c_2_0/002-1231023-9145637)

These are long lists of text books that cover the material you need.

What country are you from?

[Xprewatik RED]

Kyiv, Ukraine

[Ghost Writer]

And you're still waving the hammer and sickel, why?

[Xprewatik RED]

Okay, Im not a Soviet Communist. I believe in a society free of government, where people are free and everything is done on a need bases. Call me stupid or dreamy for believeing in a Utopia, but that is my belief. I hate the Soviet Union itself, because I know its evils and I DON'T need to argue it on a forum I can look out my apartment window . In fact i can do that now, a line of green trees and grey and dull buidlings than a government police office surrounded my mercedes armored cars and BMW's, a new American grill and some Ladas driving the roads, with the occational BMw or Lincoln Towncar(owned by corrupt officials-the former great Communist ploticians), and grandma beggars sitting near a metro's entrance, everything is dull grey and is old and in mostly poor shape.

[TXsocialist]

As I said before, bourgeois economics works in proving bourgeois economics works.

[Xprewatik RED]

Soviet Union was not a true Communist system....It was a horrible dictatorship.....it oppressed the people just like the capitalists...it should be forgotten...TRUE Communism must be made

(Edited by Xprewatik RED at 12:43 am on July 5, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 10:35 am on July 3, 2003
Two things yes_you_are_a_commie; all aid is doled out for political reasons, and Russia did not know how to be capitalist after over seventy years of communist repression. The people were conditioned to look to their government for everything, and had lost any entrepreneurial inclinations they may have once had. The only people prospering are the organized criminals, who were conducting business under the old communist regime. This is just further justification for avoiding the pitfalls that communism offers. All this proves is that communism scars a nation, and that these scars can take quite some time to heal.

If you can prove the economic viability of Soviet communism, I would be more than willing to listen. No one in their right mind would suggest they were efficient, or able to meet the needs of their people.


Do you even bother to look at the statistics provided by your own government Ghost Whiner? Sorry, I mean Ghost Wanker.

Over 33 million people in the US alone are starving. Yup, capitalism in the US is meeting the needs of the people like a muthafucka.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 10:57 am on July 2, 2003
Even bottom feeding communists recognize that markets distribute goods effectively, and that money acts as the most efficient medium of exchange. The problem lies in their desire to have full control over these systems in order to "equalize" its citizens. Trying to leash a market system and its currency distorts the healthy operation of markets, and results in a hideous mutation, where distribution, quality, and quantity of goods and services are affected negatively. Dominating capital, agriculture, and labor can not be done without reducing the overall efficiency of a nation's economy. While economic planners are still trying to figure out what products are needed, and where they are needed most, time is lost for some industry that might find that its operations have come to a stand still. Shortsightedness on the part of the planner fails to get products where they are needed most. The time and money lost by this built in inefficiency of any communist government has a very high opportunity cost. By the time they realize they may have allocated resources incorrectly, some other sector of the economy goes down because of its dependence on the first industry affected by a lack of perfect information and poor planning. Word filters down through the bureaucracy that capital and labor resources need to be shifted to address an idle sector of the economy, but a surplus of goods has been created in another sector.

Do not worry, because the measure of the availability of certain goods will not be affected by price mechanisms. Instead, shortages and surpluses are reflected by the length of the line one finds himself waiting in to get a commodity, which is abundant throughout the free-markets around the world. Is this a mechanism that is good for the citizens living under its insanity? During the Cold War days, a resident of East Berlin needed only to look across the Iron Curtain to answer this. They lived in squalor, while their neighbors enjoyed Walkmans and blue jeans. Yes, there was good reason for a person to risk their life dodging bullets, while making a run from east to west. It's called quality of life. To be a poor person in Mexico was more preferable than existing as a poor person in the U.S.S.R..

You want some objective proof of this. I introduce you to the concept of a production possibilities frontier (see figure). These graphs show varying combinations of goods that an economy can produce at a given time. The outward bound represents 100% efficiency, since we can not get resources in one sector without giving up some resources in the other sector. No economy operates on this boundary, as it is purely an ideal case. However, economies that make poor choices that have high opportunity costs associated with them will fall further from the line. Anything falling below the dividing line between the attainable and the unattainable regions is inefficient, since opportunities to produce more goods and services are being wasted. Although it may be theoretically possible to reach the outward boundary, economies act as if they are on that line, because they may not be able to address the efficiency issues causing them to be short of the goal, and if so, it may take some time to fix problems. The key is in the perception of a society faced with economic challenges.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/Production_possibilities_frontier.jpg

The fact, remains that communism does a worse job of meeting the requirements of any economy. The job of any economy is to choose output quantities to be produced, input quantities to be used, and balance the distribution of both of these variables to maximize efficiency and generate a higher standard of living for its citizens.

The reason for the superiority of the market system has to do with the production possibilities frontier. In market systems, innovation and productivity generally increase expanding the outward limit, increasing the size of the economy, and allowing for more goods. Our society is structured in such a way that we are driven to produce better products faster. In America, price drives the market to increase efficiency, creating technology that allows us to reach the former PPF, and expand out into the previously unattainable region. In a sense we are constantly raising the bar.

Meanwhile, command economies have built in inefficiencies that cause their productivity to expand at a slower rate, if at all. Some command economies have even squandered most of their producing potential, as they effectively reduce creative incentive. As we have seen one hiccup in a command economy can cause a chain reaction that continues to propagate within their economy for years, sometimes shrinking their overall PPF.

In addition to these considerations, we must talk about the failure of the Soviet Union’s communist economy with respect to Cold War defense spending. As I have stated the United States was constantly expanding their PPF due to technological evolution. The Soviet Union had to deal with a shrinking economy while they tried to compete with our massive weapons programs. The nature of our system allowed us to produce more gadgets and more advanced weapons at the same time. Both sectors of our economy grew during this time span, while they had to constantly allocate resources needed for basic goods and services towards military expenditures, just to compete. The sacrifice of basic amenities, by the Russian people, certainly contributed to attitudes that may have accelerated declining productivity. In addition, the government had to deal with growing Western influence that caused more resentment of the government, and the rapid erosion of political and economic institutions was the inevitable result. Of course, this phenomenon is purely a factor of how closely tied politics and economics are in Marxist-Leninist states. Rest assured the Chinese have taken a lesson, as they have made significant efforts to distinguish the two from one another. However, I think the powerful influence of the West will definitely cause the downfall of their repressive style of government. There is some evidence of this as they are trying to offset some of the ‘damage’ that open markets have caused for a government that rules with an iron fist.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 11:13 am on July 2, 2003)


instead of reading all that..i'll just wait until the movie comes out

[Ghost Writer]

Why did you quote my whole post, and then say nothing of value?

[RedComrade]

33 million starving? Im a U.S citizen pal and for all our faults I can assure you that 33 million of my countrymen are not starving, Id be interested to see where our government admitted this.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Well pal, these number come from YOUR government. WWW.census.gov.


The us dept. of labour advised that 148,000 new prople lost their jobs in the month of june alone.

That 33 million will be approaching 35 million before the year is up.

Still gonna "assure" me 33 million people are not starving in the US?

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 12:05 am on July 10, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

Still gonna "assure" me 33 million people are not starving in the US?

This figure is of the number of people who are living in poverty, not starving. I don't think it's really necessary for me to describe the difference between the two. Government handouts prevent the decline from poverty to starvation.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You don't think "BELOW" the poverty level is starving?? Get bent sonny boy...I'm sure glad Americans have people like you to help them out.

You are a pathetic schwein.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 8:55 pm on July 9, 2003
Why did you quote my whole post, and then say nothing of value?


it was very valueable. It gave you an insight into the fact that i don't read your posts. Mainly because you twist facts around too much.

Reading your posts are bullshit..but they'd make an intresting movie, mostly comedy.

COMRADE RAF - I think LittleboysLover's view of starving is when you don't have food at all. It seems, that many people seem to think if you get food, your not starving. As soon as you give someone a grain of rice, they think their not starving.

[Vinny Rafarino]

LittleboyLover...Oh that's good.

I know, what the fuck is wrong with these morons? Do they not understand how utterly absurd they look when they make posts like that?


Let me make you understand kids;

2000 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the
District of Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty
Size of family unit guideline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................. .......... $ 8,350
2................................................. .......... 11,250
3................................................. .......... 14,150
4................................................. .......... 17,050
5................................................. .......... 19,950
6................................................. .......... 22,850
7................................................. .......... 25,750
8................................................. .......... 28,650
------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is what the yanquee government considers the "poverty level". "below the poverty level is 250% and up [i]below[/b] these numbers.

So, in order for a single adult to be considered below the poverty level, they must make an income of less than $2,090.00 per year.

Are you fuking kidding me? 2 fucking grand a year is not starving?

Idiots.


EDIT:

Let's do the math for a fimily with 2 adults and six children...Below the poverty level means a houshold income of less than $7,162.00 a year. A shitty one room apartment in a fucked up neighbourhood will run about 250$00 per month in a low rent state...In NYC 250.00 per month will get you a good box to put behind a dumpster...

Multiply that by 12...that's 3 large. that leaves 4 large to feed two adults and six children for the year...not even including any other expese.

Childcare...Healthcare...utilities...transportatio n...etc...

You kats make me sick.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 2:12 am on July 10, 2003)

[lostsoul]

they try to change the preseption of poverty and thus make it look alot less of a problem then it is.

But the funny thing is, many people i speak to, make America's contributions towards helping poverty seem larger then it really is. In relation to their spending on weapons, and their economy..America spends a really shitty amount.

Fuck all Capitialists and their stooges. they say powerful by keeping the poor poor. The poor spend a year to earn 2,000 dollars, and the top capitalists spend a year trying to make sure the poor person earns less.

[Vinny Rafarino]

It's fucking sickening innit?

What really gets me going is these are the numbers posted on the Yanquee governments web site!!! They admit to this shite...Then some fucking jerkoff has the cheek to say they are not starving. Fucking LittleBoyLover...What I would give to have 10 seconds in a room alone with you. Ohhh...I'm fucking pissed off at this wanker...What a fucking disease on humanity he is!

[Liberty Lover]

Grandpa RAF,

It seems I have overestimated your intelligence. Starvation is a condition brought about by a lack of essential nutrients over a long period of time. When a person does not eat enough nutritious food, body weight begins to decline rapidly. At first the energy stored in fat tissues is used to nourish body cells. If the inadequate intake of food continues, the body begins to break down the protein in its muscles and organs to create needed energy. Vital organs, including the liver and intestines, become smaller; the heart also becomes smaller and less effective, and blood pressure is reduced.

Poverty is not inseparable with starvation. Social Security packages provided by western governments are large enough to meet the basic living and eating standards, thus preventing starvation.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You my friend are an imbecile.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You my friend are an imbecile.

[Liberty Lover]

An excellent rebuttal RAF, your most insightful post yet.

[Vinny Rafarino]

When a fact is evident, why pretty it up?

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 2:19 am on July 10, 2003
Grandpa RAF,

It seems I have overestimated your intelligence. Starvation is a condition brought about by a lack of essential nutrients over a long period of time. When a person does not eat enough nutritious food, body weight begins to decline rapidly. At first the energy stored in fat tissues is used to nourish body cells. If the inadequate intake of food continues, the body begins to break down the protein in its muscles and organs to create needed energy. Vital organs, including the liver and intestines, become smaller; the heart also becomes smaller and less effective, and blood pressure is reduced.

Poverty is not inseparable with starvation. Social Security packages provided by western governments are large enough to meet the basic living and eating standards, thus preventing starvation.


you prove our point. Do you know how many children suffer from malnurtition in America?

The main problem with what you mention is that, the economic system is what puts them in poverty. The capitialist system fucks up and they become poor. Instead of making a premeant solution, what does the goverment do? They give them food, enough for one day..so the next day they have to beg more.

a few hundreds of years ago, they had to keep blacks working by putting chains on them. In our modern times, they took away the physical chains and replaced it with social and economic chains.

If i stab you, what would you prefer, getting medical aid so you heal just enough that i can stab you again? or would you prefer i stopped stabbing you?

(in your system, you'd just heal enough so i can stab you again..which probally isn't a bad thing..since your a LittleboyLover)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Yeah...that one's funny eh? I was going to thank LL for proving my point for me but he would have just rambled on with some silly excuse. The boy will never learn.

Thanks for doing it though mate...

Wanna retract your statement now littleboy lover?

(here comes the absurd explanation)

[Liberty Lover]

you prove our point. Do you know how many children suffer from malnurtition in America?

A very small proportion of children suffer malnutrition in the United States, further more these rare cases are a result, not of starvation, but of diseases that affect the proper digestion and absorption of food, such as colitis. There is also the behavioral disorder, anorexia, which is characterized by self-imposed starvation.

The main problem with what you mention is that, the economic system is what puts them in poverty. The capitialist system fucks up and they become poor. Instead of making a premeant solution, what does the goverment do? They give them food, enough for one day..so the next day they have to beg more.

Free enterprise is not to blame for the perceived poverty in the United States. Capitalism is a system that generates near limitless amounts of wealth. Any individual can have a share in this vast supply of capital if they have the determination to do so. How large the slice of cake one might wish to acquire will be dependent largely on the inherent skills of the individual, but it doesn’t take a genius to get a job that pays the minimum wage at the very least. In a communist society men receive only what they need to survive. This would be the equivalent of a Keynesian capitalist government handout or the minimum wage.

Social-welfare spending in the United States accounts for the overwhelming proportion of the federal budget.

If i stab you, what would you prefer, getting medical aid so you heal just enough that i can stab you again? or would you prefer i stopped stabbing you?

Admittedly, recent years have seen rising unemployment and financial instability. It seems that the Keynesian formulas of "welfare" capitalism are not as affective as they once were. The goal for capitalist nations is to secure, simultaneously, high employment and stable prices. This is a formidable task, but given the historical flexibility of capitalism, the goal is both reasonable and attainable. The re-implementation of laissez-faire as western government policy would deal effectively with the challenges that face the current regime, revitalizing economic growth and, thus, decreasing unemployment and poverty.

in your system, you'd just heal enough so i can stab you again..which probally isn't a bad thing..since your a LittleboyLover

This is a very valid contribution that can in no way be associated with the word 'ad hominem'.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 4:36 am on July 10, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

I forgot to congratulate Ghost Writer on his excellent essay. Well done friend.

[Liberty Lover]

Txsocialist sig: Destroyer of Ghost-Whiner-Logic and bad economic charts
Hahaha, What a cocksucker. You think you can 'destroy' a lengthy, well-structured, relevant and insightful essay with a pathetic post like this:

"This annoys me because a 3rd grader who took a semester dumb-dumb economics class could use this sort of half-wit understanding of (bourgeois)economics....

If you're going to try this, please learn your own frikin system..."

Go read a book or something mate.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 6:17 am on July 10, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Social-welfare spending in the United States accounts for the overwhelming proportion of the federal budget

You should check your facts before posting. I have the federal budget of the united states for 2000 -2004 in PDF on my desktop...The GOV. posts them every year. Social welfare accounts for less that 6% of the national buget.

6%, real fucking overwhelming shitbag


Edit;

Defense is over 20%. This is an enormous amount of difference in spending considering were are talking hundreds of billions of dollars. LL you are one jive assed turkey.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 5:37 am on July 10, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

Not according to the budget chart I’m looking at.

Nonetheless, if you are correct then I am happy. I was concerned that the US government was neglecting the essentials in favour of payouts for societies bludgers like you. I long for the day that figure declines from 6% to 0.006%.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What budget chart would that be? Mine came from whitehouse.gov

You are probably looking at the entire social sevices budget and not simply the social welfare budget...You gotta dig a bit to find it.

For the record son, perhaps you should research your own government's policies before endorsing any viewpoint. It makes you look like an ass.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 8:02 am on July 10, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

http://www.federalbudget.com/

It is not my government. I live in Australia.

I wasn't endorsing any policies. I was arguing in favour of the capitalist system.

[Vinny Rafarino]

The statue of oppression on your avatar always throws me off...I remember now...We were talking about givin' you the old heave-ho off the harbour bridge on the 4th...

Yeah, I checked the link and you are looking at the combined spending for all human serveces...social welfare is just a small portion of that.

[Sabocat]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 9:19 pm on July 9, 2003
Grandpa RAF,

It seems I have overestimated your intelligence. Starvation is a condition brought about by a lack of essential nutrients over a long period of time. When a person does not eat enough nutritious food, body weight begins to decline rapidly. At first the energy stored in fat tissues is used to nourish body cells. If the inadequate intake of food continues, the body begins to break down the protein in its muscles and organs to create needed energy. Vital organs, including the liver and intestines, become smaller; the heart also becomes smaller and less effective, and blood pressure is reduced.

Poverty is not inseparable with starvation. Social Security packages provided by western governments are large enough to meet the basic living and eating standards, thus preventing starvation.


HAHAHAHAH....you've got to be kidding me with this drivel. Clinton almost eliminated welfare. Social Security payments don't kick in until retirement or dibilitating sickness or handicap. Welfare is so restrictive now that after just a few months, recipients are cut back and forced to get jobs to augment the welfare supplement. This of course leads to minimum wage jobs that can't support a family either. Now in most cases you've added child care to the equation and that is a very expensive option. So now not only can't they feed and support a family, they have to work 2 sometimes 3 jobs not to be able to support them.

Comrade RAF was being charitable to you when he tossed out housing figures. In most metropolitan areas on the east coast anyway, small apartments are now averaging between 800-1500 bucks a month. If you have to live in a metro area like Boston (because let's face it, you can't afford a car and have to use the limited public transportation available) a small apartment in the tougher part of the city begins around 1500 per month.

Doesn't leave a whole lot for healthcare, food, incidentals does it. As of today, there are roughly 6000 homeless people in Boston. 255 of them died this winter.

Spare me your capitalist bullshit rhetoric. I especially don't want to argue this with someone who lives in Australia with only a limited understanding of the situation here. I don't care to argue it with anyone still in school or living at home under the care and feeding of his mommy and daddy either. When you start supporting yourself and/or a family, then we'll talk. I understand that it's a hard concept to grasp when you're still living at home or school and everything's being provided for you.

How do you come up with the notion that poverty and hunger don't go hand in hand. You're rediculous.

On the subject of welfare, since you seem to be such and opponent, lets talk corporate welfare. In 1998 Tyco Corporations paid some 400+ million dollars in federal taxes. At the end of 98 they incorporated in Bermuda to take advantage of the tax loopholes. Care to guess what the paid in taxes in 99? Thats right....they didn't pay any taxes, they got 14 million back. If you want to bust balls on welfare...start with corporate welfare.

[Ghost Writer]

Both Comrade RAF and Disgustipated are right! The best way to provide social welfare benefits is to deprive all the people of the right to their profit, and to starve dissidents by the millions. When the government plunders the wealth of its people, and maintains the entire population below the poverty line, social welfare is a non-issue. People will be thankful just not to have been murdered by their government. After all, isn't this the type of social welfare prescribed by Marxists?

[Sabocat]

Yes, I'm quite sure mutual starvation of the masses was exactly what Marx had in mind. Please.

Poverty is relative. If there is no need of money, everyone is provided for, health, school, work, how can you be poor. You know...each to his ability, each to his need...

This is the true basis of Marxist Communism is it not?

How did the welfare provided to the likes of Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Global Crossings help anyone. Thousands of people lost their entire savings and jobs. This of course was due to the corporate greed at the board level. That worked out well for them huh? Capitalism has done a wonderful job of providing for the poor and disenfranchised.

At least social spending on the masses by the fed. feeds and houses people.

[CopperGoat]

"Both Comrade RAF and Disgustipated are right! The best way to provide social welfare benefits is to deprive all the people of the right to their profit, and to starve dissidents by the millions. When the government plunders the wealth of its people, and maintains the entire population below the poverty line, social welfare is a non-issue. People will be thankful just not to have been murdered by their government. After all, isn't this the type of social welfare prescribed by Marxists? "

What the fuck?

- The Capitalist Governments deprive workers from their profits.

- Starve dissidents by the millions? What the hell are you talking about?

Starving dissidents by the millions is not in any system. It's the result. You don't know what you are talking about Ghost Writer. Karl Marx doesn't say "to reach a classless society you must starve dissidents by the millions".

You obviously don't know what Marxism is.

- When the government plunders the profit from the people? I'm sorry but that's what the U.S. government does to its people.

- And maintains the whole population beneath the poverty level? What the fuck are you talking about?!!

In U.S. 33 million people live in poverty or below it.

And 45 million don't have healthcare.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 9:52 pm on July 10, 2003
Both Comrade RAF and Disgustipated are right! The best way to provide social welfare benefits is to deprive all the people of the right to their profit, and to starve dissidents by the millions. When the government plunders the wealth of its people, and maintains the entire population below the poverty line, social welfare is a non-issue. People will be thankful just not to have been murdered by their government. After all, isn't this the type of social welfare prescribed by Marxists?


And how did you dome to the conclusion Ghost Wanker that either of us said "The best way to provide social welfare benefits is to deprive all the people of the right to their profit, and to starve dissidents by the millions."

As to the rest of your inane comments, once again they are so absurd I can only surmise you made them rhetorically. If not then you are an absolte dolt and are not fit for society.

[Sandanista]

The reason why the soviet union failed economically is that it was state capitalist, the state produces and owns all capital.

It has been shown that in countries like the USA where the private sector is strong, the economy is generally better than state capitalist countries like russia and cuba basically as there was far more competition in america, this created far more capital, whereas russia palmed the world off with expensive, but inferior goods.

This is a classic example of why the soviet union failed as an experiment of a new form of capitalism where it was far easier to dominate peoples lives.

The need for revolution has never been greater