Economics Discussion Thread

[Taihei Tengoku]

TIL that when capitalism does badly, it's because it wasn't real capitalism.

But don't you dare use that argument in regard to socialism!

India was socialist (still is, constitutionally), China had Mao, the Arabs had Baathists, and of African independence leaders not a single one a committed market liberal. But of socialism nobody denied any of these countries were socialist when they were killing millions. It is only dupes who realize they have backed the wrong horse who try to cover their tracks. By any consistent measure you lot should be vilified like Hitlerites.

But this is not a direction-wing discussion thread, this is EDT. If you read the words you will see nintil argue that the Soviet Union was a house of lies and its impressive performance a result of Procrustean measurement or not actually impressive at all.

[Constantinopolis]

TIL that when capitalism does badly, it's because it wasn't real capitalism.

But don't you dare use that argument in regard to socialism!

It's funny how the ancaps think there's never been real capitalism, while the socialists think there's never been real socialism.

Point of order: I fully accept that the Soviet system - i.e. the economic system used by the Soviet Union, the other CMEA countries, and China from 1953 to the 1980s - was a form of socialism.

It's not the form of socialism I advocate, but it was a form of socialism, and socialists need to own it. We also need to learn from it, rather than plugging our ears and going "lalala I can't hear you, my socialism is totally different and the Soviet experience is irrelevant for drawing any conclusions about it"... like some comrades unfortunately do.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Note also that the Soviet Union spent a sizable share of its economy (15-17%) on military spending (vs 5% in the US in the 80s) and on investment (rather than consumption), so GDP growth does not translate into population welfare equally in every country. This could be read to mean that the USSR would have done even better had it spent less on the military. Or, conversely, that its GDP did that good because of it, if it’s easier to grow an economy oriented to produce T-72s and MiG-29s than consumer goods. As you can see in my other posts, healthcare, food consumption, and working conditions were not as good as this GDP comparison might suggest.

words are hard

[Constantinopolis]

TIL that when capitalism does badly, it's because it wasn't real capitalism.

But don't you dare use that argument in regard to socialism!

India was socialist (still is, constitutionally), China had Mao, the Arabs had Baathists, and of African independence leaders not a single one a committed market liberal.

Well if we're going by those standards, this was also the historical period when European social democracy reached its maximum extent and the welfare states were built. And lots of places in Western and Northern Europe were (and are) regularly run by self-described "socialist" parties. Also, US economic policy was more redistributive in this period than at any other time in its history.

So yay, I guess the whole world was socialist!

Or maybe we can stop calling capitalist market economies "socialist" when they have states that do things which libertarians don't like.

[Taihei Tengoku]

European social democracy reached its maximum extent and the welfare states were built

unfortunately for those in them

[Constantinopolis]

Note also that the Soviet Union spent a sizable share of its economy (15-17%) on military spending (vs 5% in the US in the 80s) and on investment (rather than consumption), so GDP growth does not translate into population welfare equally in every country. This could be read to mean that the USSR would have done even better had it spent less on the military. Or, conversely, that its GDP did that good because of it, if it’s easier to grow an economy oriented to produce T-72s and MiG-29s than consumer goods. As you can see in my other posts, healthcare, food consumption, and working conditions were not as good as this GDP comparison might suggest.

words are hard

"Not as good as this GDP comparison might suggest" is perfectly fine by me. You know why? Because

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

[Taihei Tengoku]

words are hard

"Not as good as this GDP comparison might suggest" is perfectly fine by me. You know why? Because

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

So okay it was actually a lot worse than it looks on paper (which is USA poverty line)

[Constantinopolis]

European social democracy reached its maximum extent and the welfare states were built

unfortunately for those in them

Except for, you know, the poor and the working class, who benefited from it.

But yeah, it was really unfortunate for the rich capitalist parasites who didn't get to squeeze as much productivity from their workers as they could have. A real shame.

[Taihei Tengoku]

unfortunately for those in them

Except for, you know, the poor and the working class, who benefited from it.

by accepting high unemployment and wage stagnation (i.e. wage cuts in comparison to the results of wise policy)

[Constantinopolis]

"Not as good as this GDP comparison might suggest" is perfectly fine by me. You know why? Because

So okay it was actually a lot worse than it looks on paper (which is USA poverty line)

No, the way it looks on paper is this:

Then we find that from 1928-1970, the USSR was the fastest growing economy except for Japan!

Nintil posted that graph, and others like it, then pointed out that the USSR wasn't as good as those graphs make it look.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Dude read the words

[Constantinopolis]

By the way, I'm having trouble keeping up with how often Taihei changes the topic. Let me see if I've managed to track it so far. The discussion went like this:

Me: You cherry pick only the best examples of capitalism in order to argue that capitalism is better than socialism.
Taihei: No I don't, all those mud countries had socialistic policies too.
Me: But so did the countries you cited as capitalist success stories. Europe, for example.
Taihei: Yeah, well, European social democracy sucked too.

...so is this the part where I point out that you are now calling a bunch of countries socialist that you earlier called capitalist when you were arguing they did much better than the USSR?

[Constantinopolis]

I mean I'm not going to defend European social democracy. I'm not a bloody social democrat. I only brought it up because you kept pulling the "No True Capitalist Country" card.

[Taihei Tengoku]

They broadly succeeded to the extent they were marketized and broadly failed to the extent they were socialized. Countries that were almost totally command economies failed quite badly.

[Taihei Tengoku]

So okay it was actually a lot worse than it looks on paper (which is USA poverty line)

No, the way it looks on paper is this:

Then we find that from 1928-1970, the USSR was the fastest growing economy except for Japan!

Nintil posted that graph, and others like it, then pointed out that the USSR wasn't as good as those graphs make it look.

Growth isn't level. 4% growth from the poverty line is still only 4% above the poverty line.

[Constantinopolis]

They broadly succeeded to the extent they were marketized and broadly failed to the extent they were socialized.

"Good things are due to the stuff I like. Bad things are due to the stuff I don't like."

Countries that were almost totally command economies failed quite badly.

Except that they did a lot better than a lot of countries that weren't command economies. The Soviet Union wasn't less socialized than India or South-East Asia or most of Latin America or sub-Saharan Africa. The countries that did the worst, were more capitalist than the Soviet Union. And the countries that did the best, were also more capitalist than the Soviet Union. That's my point: The Soviet model had a middle-of-the-road performance. Compared to capitalism-in-general, the performance of the Soviet model was neither particularly good nor particularly bad.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Countries that were almost totally command economies failed quite badly.

Except that they did a lot better than a lot of countries that weren't command economies.

Do you expect me to buy a bald lie like this? You take the Soviet Union outperforming even less competent command economies (Congress India, Maoist China) as evidence of the USSR outperforming market economies. Even the graphs you think are on your side support my case.

[Constantinopolis]

Except that they did a lot better than a lot of countries that weren't command economies.

Do you expect me to buy a bald lie like this? You take the Soviet Union outperforming even less competent command economies (Congress India, Maoist China) as evidence of the USSR outperforming market economies. Even the graphs you think are on your side support my case.

Congress India wasn't a command economy by any stretch of the imagination. Neither was South-East Asia (as a whole), or Latin America, or sub-Saharan Africa. Earlier in the thread you said the USSR's performance was the same as Mexico's. Mexico had a capitalist market economy.

The fact that it wasn't your preferred type of capitalist market economy is about as relevant as the fact that the Soviet model isn't my preferred type of socialism.

You're desperately cherry-picking, and rapidly switching around which countries you consider capitalist and which countries you consider socialist as it suits the argument you're making at the moment.

[Constantinopolis]

I mean, come on. You are now basically arguing that North America, the East Asian Tigers, and Western Europe were the only capitalist countries in the world during the Cold War (and you're not sure about Western Europe, apparently). That's beyond ridiculous.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Do you expect me to buy a bald lie like this? You take the Soviet Union outperforming even less competent command economies (Congress India, Maoist China) as evidence of the USSR outperforming market economies. Even the graphs you think are on your side support my case.

Congress India wasn't a command economy by any stretch of the imagination.

what is license raj

neither particularly good nor particularly bad.

For the low price of a hundred million dead we have advanced a country to "slightly worse than the Indian Reservation."

[Constantinopolis]

Whatever you say, fam. Capitalism dindu nothin' wrong.

[Taihei Tengoku]

I am sorry that all you know of economics is haggling over semantics.

Here are some actual economics if anybody is interested.

[Orostan]

Congress India wasn't a command economy by any stretch of the imagination.

what is license raj

neither particularly good nor particularly bad.

For the low price of a hundred million dead we have advanced a country to "slightly worse than the Indian Reservation."

100 million did not die in the USSR, that would've been more than half its population. If you're getting this from the "Black Book of Communism" they count Soviet casualties in WWII as "victims of communism" and pretty much everyone who fell off a step ladder in the USSR.

Yes, Stalin did kill people, yes he was a dictator, but he did not kill anywhere near 100 million people.

[Orostan]

Capitalism trends towards monopoly, and as the rate of profit declines banks will grow more hesitant to give out loans. Your view of capitalism does not reflect reality.

Hence why It is a modified capitalism, if you can read.

Strong antitrust laws, class collaboration, and a reforming of the private banking system (especially on the local level) to be based primarily on credit unions and the like.

This view reflects reality (and morality) a hell of a lot more than socialism or communism, or capitalism, or mercantilism..

Strong anti trust laws don't matter unless they're enforced. The USA supposedly has anti trust laws yet allows near monopolies in many industries. Class collaboration is also impossible, the worker and the Capitalist have different opposing interests. It will always be the Capitalist Class that take a power in any sort of "class collaborationist" society. You will not be changing the way capitalism operates with your "reforms".

[Free Missouri]

Hence why It is a modified capitalism, if you can read.

Strong antitrust laws, class collaboration, and a reforming of the private banking system (especially on the local level) to be based primarily on credit unions and the like.

This view reflects reality (and morality) a hell of a lot more than socialism or communism, or capitalism, or mercantilism..

Strong anti trust laws don't matter unless they're enforced. The USA supposedly has anti trust laws yet allows near monopolies in many industries. Class collaboration is also impossible, the worker and the Capitalist have different opposing interests. It will always be the Capitalist Class that take a power in any sort of "class collaborationist" society. You will not be changing the way capitalism operates with your "reforms".

Ah the old commie talking points "class collaboration will never work" (well Class struggle almost always ends with the murder of the capitalist)

That's a purely materialist way of looking at things that only applies to people whose motivations are purely materialist. Even today there are trade associations in which the worker and the capitalist both work together for their shared interest in the advancement of the industry and the success of the business.