Did 50s/60s Soviet culture have a similar nuclear war fear culture as the US?

[Konair0s]

Numbers, numbers, what numbers? GDP is supposed to be the aggregate of the monetary value of a society's products and services in a given time frame. Monetary value!!! Not dietary, military-strategic, moral or humanitarian value. The monetary value of products and services is the price that a buyer who has money (!) will pay (!) for it.

Why am I writing this? Because it's idiotic to compare this sort of GDP of a communist society with the GDP of a capitalist economy. In a capitalist economy, everyone (more or less) strives to produce things and products that are in demand by people with money to pay for them. GDP is a sensible measure for how well they are doing at this. In a communist economy, no one gives a shit about what people with "money" want, money is a rather meaningless concept as products and services are produced according to a plan devised by politicians, who most of the time ignore what people want to spend their money on. For example, they decide half the clothing produced for the summer season should be in "classical" style and half should be "fashionable" not because that's what buyers demand but because the planning committee thinks that would best make use of the existing factory's and designer's capacities, buyers would be "okay" with it (i.e. maybe grumble but not riot in the streets in anger) and besides, fashion is decadent anyways and the textile industry shouldn't encourage people to indulge in vanity anyways should it! this is reasonable from a political point of view (in a conformist communist society) but quite idiotic and un-businesslike in a capitalist society.

Or automobiles: let's say you run an automobile factory. for whatever reason your factory can only produce 1000 cars per year even though there are 100,000 people who want cars and would like to buy one. in a capitalist economy, the company would try to maximize its profits by making their cars as fancy as possible, and sell them to the 1000 highest bidders. in a communist economy, the political leadership says "in our country, everyone should be able to afford a car" and orders the automobile business to design a car that everyone can afford i.e. a cheap one. they don't care that there is only capacity for actually producing 1000 cars - they will make cheap cars, ask for a cheap price that in theory almost efery one of the 100,000 possible buyers can afford, and of course there will be gigantic waiting queues because the factory only actually produces 1000 cars per year. But every one can afford one. isnt equality wonderful?

so you see communist planners usually totally ignore the things that capitalist business planners care about. capitalist business planners maximize GDP because they want to make the most money possible, not satisfy the demands of the greatest number of people possible. Communist planners dont maximize GDP because they want (not actually manage) to satisfy what they believe to be the demands of the greatest number of people possible, weighing the (assumed) demands of people with tons of money the same as the (assumed) demands of olf babushkas with very little money. Old babushkas in communist economies get dental care and clothing for very little money (or for free) and this does nothing for GDP. Old billionaires in capitalist economies pay millions for their dental care and clothing and have vast industries catering to their services, while old babushkas who have no money get nothing. GDP soars.

morale of story: capitalists maximize GDP and will tell you this is a good masure of how well the economy satisfies the demands of society. communists maximize number of shoes and tractors and pants produced, and will tell you this is a good measure of how well the economy satisfies the demands of society.

comparing the GDP of counties only compares who produces more (monetary) value of goods. of course capitalist countries will always outperform communist countries in this metric. Why even bother to make comparisons?

Doesn't PPP attempt to take this into account?

That's why it is usually used in the historical perspective I thought.

I thought actually that here we talked about PPP initially, because merely due to the nature of Soviet exchange rates absolute GDP would be kinda not useful in context of this talk.

The same way like how the nominal GDP of Russia dropped almost 2 times since the 2013. It doesn't mean that it became 2 times poorer.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Doesn't PPP attempt to take this into account?

That's why it is usually used in the historical perspective I thought.

I thought actually that here we talked about PPP initially, because merely due to the nature of Soviet exchange rates absolute GDP would be kinda not useful in context of this talk.

The same way like how the nominal GDP of Russia dropped almost 2 times since the 2013. It doesn't mean that it became 2 times poorer.

Take it into account how? Lets put it this way - GDP measures more or less the sales value of all products and services in a given society. A society built around selling things for money, will likely have a higher GDP, PPP adjusted or not, than a society which is built around giving people stuff they "deserve" on some sort of more or less arbitrary basis. GDP does not measure if everyone is healthy or getting a full belly every day. The whole reason why Communism became so popular in the first place, was that a lot of people were angry about how goods and services ("the fruits of our labour") were distributed solely on the basis of selling them for money in the capitalist societies of the early 19th century - i.e. on the basis that he who has money buys things from he who has goods and services, instead of goods and services being distributed on the basis of needs rather than purchasing power.

I'm not saying it's impossible to measure the GDP of a communist society. It isn't. Just that a comparison between capitalist and communist societies on the basis of GDP is not very enlightening. Capitalist societies produce more stuff that can be sold for money to people with money, surprise surprise.

 

[Xeorm]

Doesn't PPP attempt to take this into account?

That's why it is usually used in the historical perspective I thought.

I thought actually that here we talked about PPP initially, because merely due to the nature of Soviet exchange rates absolute GDP would be kinda not useful in context of this talk.

The same way like how the nominal GDP of Russia dropped almost 2 times since the 2013. It doesn't mean that it became 2 times poorer.

PPP tries to take into account local currencies compared to one "universal" currency. As a practice it tends to inflate poorer countries values because the locals are paid less, even though they perform similar functions as people in other countries. As an example a waitress in the USA will perform a similar job as one in Russia, but the one in Russia would be paid less because there's less money going around.

There's a decent discussion to be had on when it's good to be used and when not, but it's not related at all to @JodelDiplom 's point.

A monetary society will seek to maximize the amount of goods that they can sell, which tends to mean that they'll maximize GDP.

A communist society will seek to maximize whatever it is that the politicians deem should be maximized. So if, say, the head honcho bases his values arbitrarily on steel, even though more steel isn't needed and thus, would have a very poor price compared to other objects, then the communist society will make much more steel than other goods. How do you price such a good? It's relatively worthless on the open market (which means little impact on GDP), your inner market doesn't value it either for similar reasons, so PPP wouldn't change the value at all. Yet, the country would spend a lot of production time and effort on making steel, because the head honcho has decided that steel will be made and should be valued.

Even if production capacities were the same between both countries, the GDP and PPP of the second country would be much lower than the first because they're spending a lot of their time producing something that isn't worth much. This is likely fine if you're attempting to point out how horribly inefficient communism is at producing needed goods, but really bad if you're trying to determine how well country B's industry compares to country A's.

 

[JodelDiplom]

PPP tries to take into account local currencies compared to one "universal" currency. As a practice it tends to inflate poorer countries values because the locals are paid less, even though they perform similar functions as people in other countries. As an example a waitress in the USA will perform a similar job as one in Russia, but the one in Russia would be paid less because there's less money going around.

There's a decent discussion to be had on when it's good to be used and when not, but it's not related at all to @JodelDiplom 's point.

A monetary society will seek to maximize the amount of goods that they can sell, which tends to mean that they'll maximize GDP.

A communist society will seek to maximize whatever it is that the politicians deem should be maximized. So if, say, the head honcho bases his values arbitrarily on steel, even though more steel isn't needed and thus, would have a very poor price compared to other objects, then the communist society will make much more steel than other goods. How do you price such a good? It's relatively worthless on the open market (which means little impact on GDP), your inner market doesn't value it either for similar reasons, so PPP wouldn't change the value at all. Yet, the country would spend a lot of production time and effort on making steel, because the head honcho has decided that steel will be made and should be valued.

Even if production capacities were the same between both countries, the GDP and PPP of the second country would be much lower than the first because they're spending a lot of their time producing something that isn't worth much. This is likely fine if you're attempting to point out how horribly inefficient communism is at producing needed goods, but really bad if you're trying to determine how well country B's industry compares to country A's.

Thank you! You explained the matter much better than I probably did. And the point is now much clearer (I hope) than it was before.

 

[SDSkinner]

Pretty much all the countries that have successfully modernised their economy have done so via combination of state intervention and gradual liberalisation, so the track record for it is pretty good. South Korea for example, despite being in the capitalist camp, routinely ignored the advice of US economic advisers to pursue state directed economic development.

It's of course not a guaranteed path to success, as you need to know when and how fast to liberalise, and it's possible to botch up the whole process by getting it wrong.

South Korea is a weird case. Korea was industrialized under the Japanese... but the industry was in the North half of the country. So after the war the government was heavily involved in rebuilding and industrialization. They didn't run companies, but they did control them (congratulations, you are now making consumer electronics) and more directly controlled the supply of funding and foreign currency. They managed to have a well run state owned company (Steel Producer), but for the most part it was state capitalism and is unclear if it is essential for development or just due to their circumstances; I believe South Korea was the most interventionist of all the countries that are currently developed.

Yep, the collapse hit Russia hard which kind of defeats the purpose of 'freedom' and making Russia better again.

Eastern Europe (excepting Yugoslavia) and the Baltic states appear to have done fine. The problem is specific to Russia, not an inherent one of liberalization.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Eastern Europe (excepting Yugoslavia) and the Baltic states appear to have done fine. The problem is specific to Russia, not an inherent one of liberalization.

Ukraine and the majority of former SSRs also fell on hard times during the 1990s. Every country went through hard transition times, even Poland and the Baltic countries. The problems that affected Russia weren't inherent to liberalization, but calling them specific to Russia is to make it overly simplistic. Crony capitalism, political instability, ethnic strife also befell other ex SSRs and caused them to quickly become much poorer than they used to be before the USSR fell. Just Russia faced some special circumstances (it assumed the role of the USSR's legal successor and that entailed huge burdens that the other ex SSRs didn't have to face) that made it doubly harsh on them.

 

[Droom]

Y'know I agree with you and have considered calling quits a couple of times and thinking about calling to agree to disagree more times than that.... But if you insist on dancing then I'll take you up on that offer.

Vietnam is still a single party socialist state, Iraq was a Ba'athist state that decided to dance with the big boys and got their teeth kicked in, Afghanistan was turned into a mess by the "Great Brotherly" Union and South America has been a mess in the hands of various dictators held in place by the US to secure their dominance and the Monroe Doctrine.

So? The government doesn't go around gassing villages and shooting up refugees. Iraq held up the middle east. Sure it was shitty but are Islamic extremists, weak governments and warlords better? And guess who made it worse? Yeah the fight for freedom!

Vietnam is probably the worst/best example because the Americans even had propaganda mentioning how they fought for freedom there.

 

[SDSkinner]

Ukraine and the majority of former SSRs also fell on hard times during the 1990s. Every country went through hard transition times, even Poland and the Baltic countries. The problems that affected Russia weren't inherent to liberalization, but calling them specific to Russia is to make it overly simplistic. Crony capitalism, political instability, ethnic strife also befell other ex SSRs and caused them to quickly become much poorer than they used to be before the USSR fell. Just Russia faced some special circumstances (it assumed the role of the USSR's legal successor and that entailed huge burdens that the other ex SSRs didn't have to face) that made it doubly harsh on them.

Turkmenistan
847-557 (1996)
Azerbaijan
1.2-397 (1995)
Tajikistan
468-155 (1997)
Uzbekistan
658-576 (1995)
Kazakhstan
1.5-1.3 (1994)
Armenia
589-356 (1993)
Georgia
1.3-517 (1994)
Russia
3.4-1.3 (1999)
Ukraine
1.5-635 (1999)

Poland
GDP per capita doesn't decline
Bulgaria
2.4-1.1 (1994)
Romania
1.8-1.1 (1992)
Hungry
GDP per capita doesn't decline/over by 1991

Russia is uniquely bad. It is similar to Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, but a lot of the other SSRs and most of the Warsaw Pact did much better.

 

[CruelDwarf]

Russia is uniquely bad. It is similar to Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, but a lot of the other SSRs and most of the Warsaw Pact did much better.

I like to ask a very simple question - how many other SSRs and former Warsaw Pact members had repaid their international debt in full or close to it? For example how heavily Poland was (and is) subsidized by EU?

 

[SDSkinner]

I like to ask a very simple question - how many other SSRs and former Warsaw Pact members had repaid their international debt in full or close to it? For example how heavily Poland was (and is) subsidized by EU?

Current values
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Hungry 78%
Albania 60%
Poland 53%
Slovakia 48%
Czech 44%
Armenia 42%
Lithuania 40%
Ukraine 39%
Latvia 39%
Romania 37%
Georgia 33%
PRC 31%
Belarus 30%
Bulgaria 18%
Moldavia 18%
Russia 12%
Uzbekistan 8%
Azerbaijan 7%
Estonia 6%

Kyrgyzstan 55%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/kyrgyzstan/government-debt-to-gdp
Tajikistan 28%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/tajikistan/government-debt-to-gdp
Turkmenistan 16%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/turkmenistan/government-debt-to-gdp

So 3 countries have paid off more of their debt and 6 countries have paid off similar values, of which only one had a similar trajectory as Russia (Moldavia)

As for aid, I'm not aware of substantial differences in provided aid after the transition between Poland and Russia.

 

[CruelDwarf]

As for aid, I'm not aware of substantial differences in provided aid after the transition between Poland and Russia.

There was no 'aid' to Russia in any significant form. There were only credits with high interest and on various conditions - usually something like allowing untaxable import of goods into Russia. It wasn't aid. It was profiteering.

Current values

Why do you link public debt when we speak about state debt? Russia not only paid its debts but also was forced to 'forgive' quite a lot of debts to foreign countries too.

So 3 countries have paid off more of their debt and 6 countries have paid off similar values, of which only one had a similar trajectory as Russia

You dont really know what Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan look like? Because if Russian 'trajectory' is bad then I do not really know what their trajectory is.

 

[SDSkinner]

There was no 'aid' to Russia in any significant form. There were only credits with high interest and on various conditions - usually something like allowing untaxable import of goods into Russia. It wasn't aid. It was profiteering.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32866.pdf
The Russian Federation received 2.6 billion dollars in aid from the United States between 1992-2000. I'm pretty sure this isn't high interest loans because it would be really weird for 'food to keep people from starving' or 'training to kill terrorists' to be provided that way.

Also untaxable imports shouldn't make the country worse off. They can only be paid for in foreign currency which requires foreigners to be buying Russian products.

Why do you link public debt when we speak about state debt? Russia not only paid its debts but also was forced to 'forgive' quite a lot of debts to foreign countries too.

Because I misread the columns. It changes around the numbers; 5 countries have similar values with none of them doing as bad as Russia during the transition.

As for forgiving debts, you are going to need to go into details.

You dont really know what Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan look like? Because if Russian 'trajectory' is bad then I do not really know what their trajectory is.

[/QUOTE]

I am aware of how ridiculously poor they are. The thing is they adjusted much faster after the end of the USSR than the Russian Federation did; their per capita gdp started to recover and grow faster. It isn't related to starting wealth since the Warsaw Pact has a spread in that but still recovered faster.

 

[Enravota]

As for aid, I'm not aware of substantial differences in provided aid after the transition between Poland and Russia.

Phare programme, but that one was related to pre-accession to EU.

 

[SDSkinner]

Phare programme, but that one was related to pre-accession to EU.

http://www.fern.org/sites/fern.org/files/pubs/briefs/phare.htm
"The EU's political determination to strengthen commercial and political ties with Central and East European Countries (CEEC) is illustrated by the fact that a great deal of EC aid goes to these countries, as well as to Russia (30% of EC aid in 1998). Of the top ten recipients of EC aid, five are in Eastern Europe or the Balkans; Poland is the single largest recipient.
...
1990-1994 4.2 billion ECU
1995-1999 6.693 billion ECU
2000-2006 10.5 billion ECU"

I may be misreading it (if the acronyms mean something totally different I apologize), but it looks like Phare is just a specific branch of EU foreign aid (originally Poland + Hungry, turned into integration to the EU).

 

[Enravota]

I may be misreading it (if the acronyms mean something totally different I apologize), but it looks like Phare is just a specific branch of EU foreign aid (originally Poland + Hungry, turned into integration to the EU).

It's the same programme. It was not just a development aid, it's purpose was to guide the overall transition to market economies. Back in the 90ies it involved co-funding anything from infrastructure projects to administrative reforms. Russia didn't have access to such funds or organisational involvement, though it most probably didn't want the organisational involvement to begin with.

 

[SDSkinner]

Then what is
"is illustrated by the fact that a great deal of EC aid goes to these countries, as well as to Russia (30% of EC aid in 1998)."

referencing?

 

[Enravota]

Then what is
"is illustrated by the fact that a great deal of EC aid goes to these countries, as well as to Russia (30% of EC aid in 1998)."

referencing?

Plenty of other things from aid in kind to money for basic necessities. Also 1998 was the time of the Ruble crisis, so it's not exactly a baseline example.

 

[SDSkinner]

Is there anywhere that lists the numbers?

 

[nerd]

Is there anywhere that lists the numbers?

Annual reports of PHARE activities including numbers are available as PDF file by Google search, but I found detailed search parameters are needed.

As the quotes 30% to Russia was supposedly from 1998, here is a link to the 1998 report.
http://aei.pitt.edu/33799/1/COM_(2000)_183_final.pdf
Russia was not included nor got any funds from this program. I would quote the list of countries, but this pdf won't permit "copy"

The post saying that Russia got funds is from a UK website that deals exclusively with forest retention issue, and whose references {at least me} not useable links.

 

[Okawoa]

While we take a break from commenting why Russia is so broke (obviously the EU is our savior) here are some posters that deal with the OP.

imo I think the government were agressively pushing this idea, but the people couldn't give a fuck due to lack of relevance. For example now I'm in S Korea and the government spreads anti-US propaganda quite frequently but the population (besides teens) couldn't give two shits.