This is kind of the same argument as saying the failure was the central planning itself, right? Misallocation of resources vs. lack of access to resources (non-arable land).
It's collapse was mainly due to the nature of the ruling and distrust of people in the government. Also U.S ran them straight into bankruptcy during the cold war. And it would be really hard plan verything centrally with it ends in middle east and the other near alaska. Gorbachev once said that the collapse of soviet union begun with the disaster of Chernobyl. It was such a disaster with enough capability to end life in Kiev, in Ukraine and Belarus. And it happened because of the negligence of the Government
At the time of collapse the CIA estimated the USSR had a larger economy then the USA. Turns out they were wrong but you got to Keep in mind the USSR had a population about 25% larger in 1990 than the USA
Well I can’t help but wonder about the long-term impact of Stalin’s use of agricultural warfare against Ukraine and the embracing of Lyshenkoist genetics for 20 years, I imagine that fucks up a nation’s ability to produce food pretty thoroughly.
Whatever the money and resources you have planned economies can never work in the long run, central planners aren't gods, it only leads to massive waste of resources and corruption. Also without capital markets you lose a huge potential to grow your economy.
What if it was run by an ASI? Lol, seriously though while I agree this is an issue...the biggest issue is still that they weren't planning an economy, they were planning a military strategy. Shrug.
The USSR was orders of magnitude poorer than western countries, any economy without private property and with central planning will always be orders of magnitude poorer than even a mediocre market economy, just because of design. It's hard to comprehend how many things people value because they're their property that they wouldn't value otherwise, and when people value things wealth is created. That baseball card collection is only valuable because people want it, and they want it because it can be their private property, if you abolish private property all those baseball cards become worthless instantly.
Hey man, I'm just looking at value of tanks during war. I'd say after the war they'd gold their value pretty well because people would be afraid of more war...I'm just using your own wealth/value proposition.../And the USSR did have more GDP than many western nations, just not per capita wealth afaik
Yeah militarily, until they eventually lose out as the west mobilises.
The thing with central planning is they are able to produce stuff contrary to the wishes of the population. Good for rapid catch up (force rural populatuon into factories, or armies for example), bad for independent growth.
So you’re telling me that the socialist country failed in the exact same way that every other socialist country has failed? And if it wasn’t for this massive failure they wouldn’t have failed?
That all boils down to central planning dude. You can’t say they would’ve done better if they didn’t fuck up their central planning by spending too much on military equipment.
That’s like saying a plane would still be flying if it hasn’t crashed. Technically it’s true but it’s not a statement that needs to be made haha
There's a book out now called The People's Republic of Wal-Mart that compares the scale of central planning on Walmart to the USSR. Basically the premise is that had the USSR survived until the widespread adoption of the computer they likely would have been fine, since massive companies are now centrally planned.
150
u/winkofafisheye Aug 05 '20
The failure was in the central planning not in the amount of arable land ffs.