Could the USSR work well enought on its orthodox form to be a pleasant place in modern day?

[ObssesedNuker]

Which is as bad if not worse. One reason that the Soviets had so many problems is everyone lied to everyone else. Even at the time there were articles on artificial fulfillment of plans. The various enterprises all lied on their production numbers so that they could fulfill their plans. How can you rely on data based on lies?

Again, absolutely zero evidence is provided to back any of these claims up. Researchers who have actually bothered to put in the work generally say that, in reality, these figures were the most accurate of them all, that they were honest efforts to catalogue and plan for the Soviet economy. These were not "articles on artificial fulfillment of plans", because that would imply they were published for public consumption. They were not. They were regarded as state secrets and to publish them even for domestic public consumption was verboten.

Even leaving aside the veracity of your claims, the problem with saying all figures ever used by honest academic research into the Soviet economy is are false means the Soviet economy is impossible to empirically research and thus your original claim is not provable nor is it actually made based on any hard evidence. I can just as well claim that this means the figures are actually wild underestimates and that the Soviet economy actually hugely outperformed the western and was the bestest ever and I’d have just as much of a leg to stand on in the empirical data.

One might try to turn to anecdotes in this case, but that honestly doesn't help because one can often find similar such anecdotes in the West. Turns out that things like fraud, destitution, and socio-economic backwardness happens in the west too, but at least there we have the data to give us an idea of what the scale is and whether, thus, things are better or worse then in the Soviet case. Or not, as the case may be, since apparently all the data we have on the Soviet case are wildly inaccurate, lies, or both according to you.

Dismissing all figures that contradicts their claims as “lies” without any demonstration they are, in fact, lies while showing absolutely nothing to back up their own claims up is the picture perfect image of an ideologue talking out of their ass.

TL;DR:

So basically you won't accept any evidence that doesn't confirm what you already think about the Soviet economy.

 

[Johnrankins]

Again, absolutely zero evidence is provided to back any of these claims up. Researchers who have actually bothered to put in the work generally say that, in reality, these figures were the most accurate of them all, that they were honest efforts to catalogue and plan for the Soviet economy. These were not "articles on artificial fulfillment of plans", because that would imply they were published for public consumption. They were not. They were regarded as state secrets and to publish them even for domestic public consumption was verboten.

Even leaving aside the veracity of your claims, the problem with saying all figures ever used by honest academic research into the Soviet economy is are false means the Soviet economy is impossible to empirically research and thus your original claim is not provable nor is it actually made based on any hard evidence. I can just as well claim that this means the figures are actually wild underestimates and that the Soviet economy actually hugely outperformed the western and was the bestest ever and I’d have just as much of a leg to stand on in the empirical data.

Dismissing all figures that contradicts their claims as “lies” without any demonstration they are, in fact, lies while showing absolutely nothing to back up their own claims up is the picture perfect image of an ideologue talking out of their ass.

So they weren't for public consumption, that doesn't mean much because of the GIGO factor. They were fed garbage info so that is what they spat out. TBH I think very much it is pretty much impossible to empirically research the Soviet economy. We might as well admit that and move on. It is only very vaguely accurate. It could be easily off by a factor of 2. It is more likely to be overestimated than under both because it collapsed (the poorer it was the more likely it was to collapse) and because that is how the incentives worked. Management had big incentives to exaggerate their output (fulfillment of the Five Year Plan bonuses) and little to none to downplay them.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

So they weren't for public consumption, that doesn't mean much because of the GIGO factor. They were fed garbage info so that is what they spat out. TBH I think very much it is pretty much impossible to empirically research the Soviet economy. We might as well admit that and move on.

Then I guess I'll go ahead and say that the Soviet economy massively outperformed the western economy until Gorbachev fucked it all up. Everything you said is western propaganda that does not reflect the reality of the Soviet economy. You cannot prove me wrong because we have no empirically accurate data on the Soviet Union.

It is more likely to be overestimated than under both because it collapsed (the poorer it was the more likely it was to collapse) and because that is how the incentives worked. Management had big incentives to exaggerate their output (fulfillment of the Five Year Plan bonuses) and little to none to downplay them.

This is such a simpletons view of how it worked as to be parody. In reality, Soviet industries regularly failed to achieve their planned goals and weren't shy about reporting it at all. To be blunt, failing to fulfill quotas beyond a certain point was basically impossible to hide because any given factory or even entire industrial sector was a part of the interconnected system. This meant if you actually failed to produce, for example, a required quota of ball-bearings you cannot really convincingly lie about it because your ball-bearings are going to the other factories and they would have preciously little incentive to cover for you and plenty of incentive to report you, as they will also fail their production numbers because of your fuck up. At that point, depending on the precise era, you were out of a job at best and out of your life at worst. So quantitative fabrication did not actually happen remotely on the scale as you are claiming.

Covering up failures in quality, on the other hand, was comparatively easier. Unless you were in the military industries where your product had to meet the standards of a military representative or it would be rejected and not counted towards the plan.

 

[EvilJam]

The USSR was already economically done for after WW2.

The damage forced them to spend their "post-war boom" rebuilding instead of striving forward.

The human losses when combined with traditional Eastern European drinking culture set up the demographic catastrophe which much of the former USSR now faces.

 

[EvilJam]

Then I guess I'll go ahead and say that the Soviet economy massively outperformed the western economy until Gorbachev fucked it all up. Everything you said is western propaganda that does not reflect the reality of the Soviet economy. You cannot prove me wrong because we have no empirically accurate data on the Soviet Union.



This is such a simpletons view of how it worked as to be parody.

I think they are over exaggerating - but it is important to admit that the end results prove that the Soviet economic policies were inferior to Western ones.

Whether this is because of their inherent nature or because they were hamstrung by politics? Who knows. But they were undeniably less successful.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I think they are over exaggerating - but it is important to admit that the end results prove that the Soviet economic policies were inferior to Western ones.

Whether this is because of their inherent nature or because they were hamstrung by politics? Who knows. But they were undeniably less successful.

Sure, and that's a conclusion I'm happy to admit based on the data. The problem for Johnrankins is that (A) his claim isn't just that Soviet economic policies were inferior, but so inferior as to never even provide remote competition, which is not what the data says and (B) it's the same data that he says is not remotely accurate. That means the original conclusion becomes about as evidence-free as his own claims or the claims that Soviet economic policies were actually enormously superior to Western ones.

Although even then, one has to qualify the "inferior" part. Inferior at what, precisely? Standards of living? War production? Maximizing raw quantitative output? Maximizing quality? Environmental friendliness? Rapid development at high human cost?

 

[EvilJam]

Sure, and that's a conclusion I'm happy to admit based on the data. The problem for Johnrankins is that (A) his claim isn't just that Soviet economic policies were inferior, but so inferior as to never even provide remote competition, which is not what the data says and (B) it's the same data that he says is not remotely accurate. That means the original conclusion becomes about as evidence-free as his own claims or the claims that Soviet economic policies were actually enormously superior to Western ones.

Although even then, one has to qualify the "inferior" part. Inferior at what, precisely? Standards of living? War production? Maximizing raw quantitative output? Maximizing quality? Environmental friendliness? Rapid development at high human cost?

I agree fully with your first paragraph.

For the second, it depends? Do we judge an economic system based on its results in terms of just economics, or do we need to look at it in a political sense because of how the Cold War politicised and juxtaposed the two economic systems.

In terms of pure economics (in peacetime) it's hard to say which is better - as whilst the USSR did achieve higher % growth, it started from a much lower level, and whilst the USA achieved much more prosperity, it started from a higher level.

So I think it's better to look at it in a combination of politics and economics - the Western economic system proved strong enough to support these states throughout the Cold War till their eventual victory and keep them stable, the economic model of the USSR failed to support the country for the entirety of the Cold War (as it was successful at parts) and ultimately contributed to its decline and collapse.

So I would say that the Western Economic Model is superior - and would be the one that a nation should take post-WW2 to maximise its chance of success.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

For the second, it depends? Do we judge an economic system based on its results in terms of just economics, or do we need to look at it in a political sense because of how the Cold War politicised and juxtaposed the two economic systems.

In terms of pure economics (in peacetime) it's hard to say which is better - as whilst the USSR did achieve higher % growth, it started from a much lower level, and whilst the USA achieved much more prosperity, it started from a higher level.

So I think it's better to look at it in a combination of politics and economics - the Western economic system proved strong enough to support these states throughout the Cold War till their eventual victory and keep them stable, the economic model of the USSR failed to support the country for the entirety of the Cold War (as it was successful at parts) and ultimately contributed to its decline and collapse.

So I would say that the Western Economic Model is superior - and would be the one that a nation should take post-WW2 to maximise its chance of success.

Fair enough.

 

[Johnrankins]

This is such a simpletons view of how it worked as to be parody. In reality, Soviet industries regularly failed to achieve their planned goals and weren't shy about reporting it at all. To be blunt, failing to fulfill quotas beyond a certain point was basically impossible to hide because any given factory or even entire industrial sector was a part of the interconnected system. This meant if you actually failed to produce, for example, a required quota of ball-bearings you cannot really convincingly lie about it because your ball-bearings are going to the other factories and they would have preciously little incentive to cover for you and plenty of incentive to report you, as they will also fail their production numbers because of your fuck up. At that point, depending on the precise era, you were out of a job at best and out of your life at worst. So quantitative fabrication did not actually happen remotely on the scale as you are claiming.

Covering up failures in quality, on the other hand, was comparatively easier. Unless you were in the military industries where your product had to meet the standards of a military representative or it would be rejected and not counted towards the plan.

1) PRAVDA was complaining about inaccurate statistics even under Brezhnev. The Soviet system was highly corrupt and bribe taking was endemic. Slip someone a few hundred rubles and he will say that he received products he didn't receive. The boss is going to lie about it anyhow. There were limits of course but the limits were pretty broad.

2) That still doesn't solve the pricing issue which is the main problem. If the USSR in 1976 is making refrigerators of a quality that the US made in 1928 and you are pricing them if they were US 1966 that is a problem. Without real prices we have no idea how much anything was actually worth.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

1) PRAVDA was complaining about inaccurate statistics even under Brezhnev.

Pravda was complaining about the inaccuracy of statistic it was getting. But one doesn't really learn a damn thing about the Soviet economy by reading what's published in Pravda.

The Soviet system was highly corrupt and bribe taking was endemic. Slip someone a few hundred rubles and he will say that he received products he didn't receive. The boss is going to lie about it anyhow. There were limits of course but the limits were pretty broad.

That will not cover for you lying about your ball-bearings since, as the head of a ball-bearing plant, your capacity to provide such goods is nil and a few hundred rubles is a worthless bribe. This goes double in certain eras of the Soviet economy where corruption was not as endemic as it was at other time and you were far more likely to run into someone who is ideologically committed enough to report you for attempted bribery and fraudulence against the state (which at certain points in Soviet history was synonymous with treason against the Soviet state) just on principle.

2) That still doesn't solve the pricing issue which is the main problem. If the USSR in 1976 is making refrigerators of a quality that the US made in 1928 and you are pricing them if they were US 1966 that is a problem. Without real prices we have no idea how much anything was actually worth.

Unfortunately, you have provided fuck all that demonstrates there was a real pricing issue and no way for academia to work around it. Until you do so, your blowing smoke. Put up or shut up.

 

[Johnrankins]

Socialist price calculation debate Even Trotsky saw a central planning pricing problem.
Missing Prices
Unchanged prices

It is hard to determine what something is worth when the prices are out of whack because they are set by political considerations instead of economic.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

On the subject of market values for Soviet goods, back in the 70s and 80s new Ladas cost ~25% less than comparable compact cars on offer in Canada (largely due to quality difference). Which gave them a brief bit of success in the "cheapest car on the market" niche, until then the Pony came around and people could get a much much better car for a few hundred bucks more.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Socialist price calculation debate Even Trotsky saw a central planning pricing problem.
Missing Prices
Unchanged prices

It is hard to determine what something is worth when the prices are out of whack because they are set by political considerations instead of economic.

Finally, some sourcing that the pricing issue exists. Progress! Unfortunately for you, none of your links suggest that academia has been unable to factor for it in their examination of Soviet materials. Indeed, the wikipedia article offers a list of methodologies which are well-regarded as reasonably accurate substitutes to account for it. So the Soviet economy can be empirically studied and what the researchers say can be regarded as reasonably accurate.

 

[Johnrankins]

Finally, some sourcing that the pricing issue exists. Progress! Unfortunately for you, none of your links suggest that academia has been unable to factor for it in their examination of Soviet materials. Indeed, the wikipedia article offers a list of methodologies which are well-regarded as reasonably accurate substitutes to account for it. So the Soviet economy can be empirically studied and what the researchers say can be regarded as reasonably accurate.

Again, what is that stuff really worth? A car is not just a car. What would have been the free market price of the typical 1973 Soviet car in New York? What about the typical free market price of the typical 1972 Soviet dishwasher in London? What about the typical 1971 soviet clothes dryer in Bonn? The typical Soviet record player in Tokyo in 1965? There is no real way of knowing this as there were no real prices in the Soviet economy. Without THAT everything is guesswork.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Again, what is that stuff really worth? A car is not just a car. What would have been the free market price of the typical 1973 Soviet car in New York?

Based on their market performance in Canada...
around $3,098.00

 

[Johnrankins]

Based on their market performance in Canada...
around $3,098.00

The same article says "American auto manufacturers may soon have more tough foreign competition on the road ahead" which certainly didn't apply to the Lada. It was and is a strictly niche market. Did they even make money on the thing?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Without THAT everything is guesswork.

Not a proven claim and contradicted by your own sourcing which note that the issue has compelled mechanisms to be developed for researchers to work around it. In fact, the wiki article notes that modern developments in places like Amazon has rendered a greater appreciation that pricing is not necessary to gain critical economic feedback when it says:

"Not only is price no longer needed to gain critical economic feedback, but the information price communicates is long delayed and incomplete in terms of economic measures required to dramatically increase efficiency. Mechanisms related networked digital feedback systems make it possible to efficiently monitor shifting consumer preference, demand, supply and labor value, virtually in real time. Moreover, it can also be used to observe other technical processes price cannot, such as shifts in production protocols, allocation, recycling means, and so on."

 

[Johnrankins]

Not a proven claim and contradicted by your own sourcing which note that the issue has compelled mechanisms to be developed for researchers to work around it.

They are work arounds not real prices AKA guesswork.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The same article says "American auto manufacturers may soon have more tough foreign competition on the road ahead" which certainly didn't apply to the Lada.

It also claims Canada didn't produce any cars domestically... Not a very well researched article by any means, but I assume they at least got the price tag correct.

It was and is a strictly niche market. Did they even make money on the thing?

Some, but as I mentioned up thread, the Pony largely beat it out in the same niche market.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

They are work arounds not real prices AKA guesswork.

Something you still haven't proved, merely claimed. Given how modern economists have admitted that pricing is not necessary to gain critical economic feedback, it all amounts to one large red-herring in a effort to distract from the fact that your claims about Soviet economic growth has zero legs to stand on.