Economics Discussion Thread

[Constantinopolis]

Government is powerless as the competitors take over the destroyed parties share.
And it has no overall change besides more and more shooting galleries and less and less scotch bars opening.

Not to mention, state driven centrally planned economies have historically proven to be inferior. A centralized economy cannot keep pace with domestic demand for consumer products. State socialism is fake socialism and is doomed to fail in the long run.

Oh, not this nonsense again.

State socialism did just fine.

[Donut section]

Not to mention, state driven centrally planned economies have historically proven to be inferior. A centralized economy cannot keep pace with domestic demand for consumer products. State socialism is fake socialism and is doomed to fail in the long run.

Oh, not this nonsense again.

State socialism did just fine.

Yeah, that's why it collapsed.

[Constantinopolis]

Oh, not this nonsense again.

State socialism did just fine.

Yeah, that's why it collapsed.

It collapsed because the political leadership made it collapse (through a combination of malice and incompetence).

[Constantinopolis]

Uhhhh... no? Not at all?

You do realize that the entire point of the socialist movement for the 150 years of its existence has been to overthrow the bourgeoisie, yes? The bourgeoisie is made up of business owners. Business owners are the enemy that we are fighting. Socialism is against private business owners practically by definition.

Pro-business socialism is like a republic led by a king. An inherent contradiction in terms. The bourgeoisie is the enemy.

And this vague notion they call "entrepreneurship" is like the divine right of kings. It's the bullshit excuse they use to justify their dominant position in society. There is no such thing as entrepreneurship. There is only work. When business owners do some work, they call it "entrepreneurship" to make it sound as if it's somehow superior to the work that everyone else is doing.

No, you are absolutely wrong.

The entrepreneurship (aka the creativity) of the bourgeoise is not what we are opposing. It is the barriers, high cost, and inequality of opportunity to express and implement creative energies we are opposing. Socialism encourages creativity and entrepreneurship to as many as possible.

Of course we do not oppose creativity, but creativity is not limited to business owners. Employees can be just as creative, if not more so, than their bosses. And in fact, many jobs require the workers to do creative work. You don't need private ownership, or markets, to have creativity. Wage workers can be creative too. If you employ people to be creative, you can get plenty of creativity just fine.

Many socialists have a warped view of what work/labor is. I ask you as a fellow socialist, what is labor?

Any kind of human effort - physical or mental - that is performed with the intention of creating a specific desired product or service.

[Donut section]

Yeah, that's why it collapsed.

It collapsed because the political leadership made it collapse (through a combination of malice and incompetence).

Socialism breeds incompetence. No, say it ain't so!!!!!!

[Constantinopolis]

It collapsed because the political leadership made it collapse (through a combination of malice and incompetence).

Socialism breeds incompetence. No, say it ain't so!!!!!!

If we mean specifically the Soviet political system, then... I'm not going to argue with that.

I don't think the Soviet Union was some kind of perfect snowflake that collapsed only by accident. There were serious problems with it. But those problems were political, not economic. The political system promoted the wrong people and made them unaccountable for their decisions. This kind of environment does indeed promote incompetence.

And that's why future socialist planned economies should come with a different political system. Preferably a democratic one.

[Liencia]

Not to mention, state driven centrally planned economies have historically proven to be inferior. A centralized economy cannot keep pace with domestic demand for consumer products. State socialism is fake socialism and is doomed to fail in the long run.

Oh, not this nonsense again.

State socialism did just fine.

GDP isn't always a good indicator of the actual condition of the people in an economy. Just because an economy is large and growing, doesn't show necessarily what that economy is producing. The Soviet economy, like all marxist systems, placed disproportionate importance on the industrial-military sector, while catastrophically failing at producing quality consumer produce at adequate levels. For example, new automobiles were very difficult to acquire and instead a florishing black market existed for used cars, because you'd be waiting several years for that sedan you ordered from the government. Same with food, and shoes, and clothes...etc. Central planning has been debunked as a valid theory of economic order, market economics is vastly superior.

[Len Hyet]

Not to mention, state driven centrally planned economies have historically proven to be inferior. A centralized economy cannot keep pace with domestic demand for consumer products. State socialism is fake socialism and is doomed to fail in the long run.

Oh, not this nonsense again.

State socialism did just fine.

I mean that's cool and all but 40% of the population, bare minimum by all estimations, lived in poverty in 1981.

I'd call that a failure.

[Donut section]

Socialism breeds incompetence. No, say it ain't so!!!!!!

If we mean specifically the Soviet political system, then... I'm not going to argue with that.

I don't think the Soviet Union was some kind of perfect snowflake that collapsed only by accident. There were serious problems with it. But those problems were political, not economic. The political system promoted the wrong people and made them unaccountable for their decisions. This kind of environment does indeed promote incompetence.

And that's why future socialist planned economies should come with a different political system. Preferably a democratic one.

So people get to vote for who sends them to forced labor and extermination camps. Beauty!

[Constantinopolis]

Oh, not this nonsense again.

State socialism did just fine.

(Image)

I mean that's cool and all but 40% of the population, bare minimum by all estimations, lived in poverty in 1981.

I'd call that a failure.

There is greater poverty in India today, and yet India is generally regarded as an economic success. Why is that?

Because when talking about success or failure, we have to look at the progress made by a country over time. A poor country isn't a failure if it has actually been making great progress over time - even if that progress still leaves a lot of people in poverty at the moment.

So the point is that the USSR made significant progress over time. It was still poor by the time it ended, but far less poor than when it started.

If India collapsed tomorrow and its various states all declared independence, we might say that India was a political failure. But an economic failure? Not really.

[Len Hyet]

I mean that's cool and all but 40% of the population, bare minimum by all estimations, lived in poverty in 1981.

I'd call that a failure.

There is greater poverty in India today, and yet India is generally regarded as an economic success. Why is that?

Because when talking about success or failure, we have to look at the progress made by a country over time. A poor country isn't a failure if it has actually been making great progress over time - even if that progress still leaves a lot of people in poverty at the moment.

Fucking what? Only 22% of the Indian population lives in poverty and it's considered a serious problem in India.

[Constantinopolis]

There is greater poverty in India today, and yet India is generally regarded as an economic success. Why is that?

Because when talking about success or failure, we have to look at the progress made by a country over time. A poor country isn't a failure if it has actually been making great progress over time - even if that progress still leaves a lot of people in poverty at the moment.

Fucking what? Only 22% of the Indian population lives in poverty and it's considered a serious problem in India.

Those are entirely different measures of poverty. You have to settle on a common definition of "poverty" before you make comparisons across countries like that. Not to mention that 30 years have passed in between, so whatever measure we use, has to be scaled to account for the different standards in the global economy.

[Constantinopolis]

Oh, not this nonsense again.

State socialism did just fine.

(Image)

GDP isn't always a good indicator of the actual condition of the people in an economy. Just because an economy is large and growing, doesn't show necessarily what that economy is producing. The Soviet economy, like all marxist systems, placed disproportionate importance on the industrial-military sector, while catastrophically failing at producing quality consumer produce at adequate levels. For example, new automobiles were very difficult to acquire and instead a florishing black market existed for used cars, because you'd be waiting several years for that sedan you ordered from the government. Same with food, and shoes, and clothes...etc. Central planning has been debunked as a valid theory of economic order, market economics is vastly superior.

The fact that the USSR had economic plans which placed disproportionate importance on the industrial-military sector doesn't prove that all economic plans must necessarily place disproportionate importance on the industrial-military sector.

There's a difference between policy issues and systemic issues. If the planners in the USSR say "let's ignore consumer goods and make lots of guns", that's not a flaw of economic planning as a system. That's a problem with those particular planners and that particular plan. A policy issue, in other words.

[Len Hyet]

Fucking what? Only 22% of the Indian population lives in poverty and it's considered a serious problem in India.

Those are entirely different measures of poverty.

Again, fucking what?

They're functionally identical. The Soviet number comes from all those living with less than 133.2 Rubles per month, which is equivalent to roughly $62.70 USD (2015). The Indian number is those living under $1.90 per day, which is equivalent to $59.70 USD per month.

[Liencia]

GDP isn't always a good indicator of the actual condition of the people in an economy. Just because an economy is large and growing, doesn't show necessarily what that economy is producing. The Soviet economy, like all marxist systems, placed disproportionate importance on the industrial-military sector, while catastrophically failing at producing quality consumer produce at adequate levels. For example, new automobiles were very difficult to acquire and instead a florishing black market existed for used cars, because you'd be waiting several years for that sedan you ordered from the government. Same with food, and shoes, and clothes...etc. Central planning has been debunked as a valid theory of economic order, market economics is vastly superior.

The fact that the USSR had economic plans which placed disproportionate importance on the industrial-military sector doesn't prove that all economic plans must necessarily place disproportionate importance on the industrial-military sector.

There's a difference between policy issues and systemic issues. If the planners in the USSR say "let's ignore consumer goods and make lots of guns", that's not a flaw of economic planning as a system. That's a problem with those particular planners and that particular plan. A policy issue, in other words.

But au contraire mon ami, it is a systemic problem with the central planning strategy. It shows that it isn't adaptable enough to deal with the supply & demand of a truely dynamic economic environment. The Soviet government couldn't keep pace with the needs of its people for even the most basic produce.

[Constantinopolis]

Those are entirely different measures of poverty.

Again, fucking what?

They're functionally identical. The Soviet number comes from all those living with less than 133.2 Rubles per month, which is equivalent to roughly $62.70 USD (2015). The Indian number is those living under $1.90 per day, which is equivalent to $59.70 USD per month.

Except that the Soviet Union provided almost-free housing, free healthcare, free education, heavily subsidized public transport, and heavily subsidized utilities (electricity, heating, water and so on). In other words, those 133.2 Rubles per month were almost all disposable income. The only major expense that wasn't free or nearly free was food.

So, for one thing, you're comparing the income of people in a state where most basic necessities are free, to the income of people in a state where that is not the case.

Then, you're also comparing the income of people 30 years ago with the income of people today. Global standards were different 30 years ago.

But forget all that. There's no need to fixate on India in particular. That was just a random example. Even if the example turns out to have been a bad one, the actual point was this:

when talking about success or failure, we have to look at the progress made by a country over time. A poor country isn't a failure if it has actually been making great progress over time - even if that progress still leaves a lot of people in poverty at the moment.

So the point is that the USSR made significant progress over time. It was still poor by the time it ended, but far less poor than when it started.

[Improved werpland]

Oh, not this nonsense again.

State socialism did just fine.

I mean that's cool and all but 40% of the population, bare minimum by all estimations, lived in poverty in 1981.

I'd call that a failure.

It was an economic failure. The USSR required American food aid toward the end of its life because collectivized farming was extremely inefficient and they couldn't afford to import grain.

[Constantinopolis]

The fact that the USSR had economic plans which placed disproportionate importance on the industrial-military sector doesn't prove that all economic plans must necessarily place disproportionate importance on the industrial-military sector.

There's a difference between policy issues and systemic issues. If the planners in the USSR say "let's ignore consumer goods and make lots of guns", that's not a flaw of economic planning as a system. That's a problem with those particular planners and that particular plan. A policy issue, in other words.

But au contraire mon ami, it is a systemic problem with the central planning strategy. It shows that it isn't adaptable enough to deal with the supply & demand of a truely dynamic economic environment.

Literally all of that is just vague, empty buzzwords.

The Soviet government couldn't keep pace with the needs of its people for even the most basic produce.

The Soviet government didn't try to do that. The Soviet government tried to build up its industry and military. And it was successful.

Presumably, if it had tried to provide ample consumer goods instead, it could have been reasonably successful at that too.

A planned economy tends to be very good at accomplishing the goals that it sets for itself. The downside, I suppose, is that nothing happens automatically. If Y gets ignored in the process of focusing on X, then Y won't happen automatically - it will fall by the wayside.

[Constantinopolis]

I mean that's cool and all but 40% of the population, bare minimum by all estimations, lived in poverty in 1981.

I'd call that a failure.

It was an economic failure. The USSR required American food aid toward the end of its life because collectivized farming was extremely inefficient and they couldn't afford to import grain.

The second largest economy in the world was a failure? Right, sure, whatever you say.

[Major-Tom]

It was an economic failure. The USSR required American food aid toward the end of its life because collectivized farming was extremely inefficient and they couldn't afford to import grain.

The second largest economy in the world was a failure? Right, sure, whatever you say.

Makes you wonder who the first was.

[Constantinopolis]

The second largest economy in the world was a failure? Right, sure, whatever you say.

Makes you wonder who the first was.

Heh.

Obligatory reminder that my argument isn't that the Soviet economy was great, but merely that it was okay.

[Donut section]

Makes you wonder who the first was.

Heh.

Obligatory reminder that my argument isn't that the Soviet economy was great, but merely that it was okay.

News just in forced labor camps are ok!

[Constantinopolis]

Heh.

Obligatory reminder that my argument isn't that the Soviet economy was great, but merely that it was okay.

News just in forced labor camps are ok!

Stalin, Stalin's got the nerve of steel / Mess with him and you will know the feel

(non-sequitur comment gets non-sequitur response, but this also requires a disclaimer: joking aside, I absolutely do not support Stalin... in case anyone was wondering. Stalinism was a horrible thing.)

[Saiwania]

A planned economy tends to be very good at accomplishing the goals that it sets for itself. The downside, I suppose, is that nothing happens automatically. If Y gets ignored in the process of focusing on X, then Y won't happen automatically - it will fall by the wayside.

The main downside is that central planners cannot tell how much of which products to produce, without markets there are too many supply shortages or surpluses. The Soviet Union had the most mineral resources and had the potential to be the richest nation in the world had they at least adopted the economic system China has today.

[Constantinopolis]

A planned economy tends to be very good at accomplishing the goals that it sets for itself. The downside, I suppose, is that nothing happens automatically. If Y gets ignored in the process of focusing on X, then Y won't happen automatically - it will fall by the wayside.

The main downside is that central planners cannot tell how much of which products to produce, without markets there are too many supply shortages or surpluses. The Soviet Union had the most mineral resources and had the potential to be the richest nation in the world had they at least adopted the economic system China has today.

Well, modern capitalist Russia has an economy based almost entirely on exporting natural resources, and they're far from "the richest nation in the world".

Perhaps the USSR could have used more natural resource exports, but relying too much on that sort of thing is almost always a bad idea. It tends to give countries a bad case of "Dutch disease".