>Sure, those are all things that held back the Soviet economy, but the most fundamental* problem is

...

Hello Capitalist Kid, how are you doing?

….elaborate

Note that it was always growth, they didn't have a downturn. That's what they mean.

Look at the revised numbers. It has a small bump from 1975-1985, which was the time during the oil crisis, but it's growing nonetheless. Go ahead and check the national income growth of capitalist economies, it's only natural that the massive industrialization from 1930-1950 causes unprecedented growth, Germany and Japan never ever achieved the same growth numbers as they did in the post-war boom. Also, plenty of free market economies actually experienced negative growth during the oil crisis, or have no growth at all, which is usually called a "stagnant economy", the fact that the USSR was always far from negative growth proves that you can not describe the Soviet economy as stagnant.

Secondly, Soviet growth was intrinsic. This means, it wasn't always measurable by quantitative income growth statistics, as unprofitable enterprises were favored as long as they were considered important. Capitalist economies have more rapid, but also more volatile growth (boom and bust) because it's merely quantative growth. Instead of that, the USSR focused on automation, computerization and infrastructure. You also should realize that the USSR received no foreign investments, barely invested themselves, and had almost no foreign trade.

Lastly, check out what happened after 1991. Russia experienced negative growth for the first time, and even now Putin barely keeps the economy stagnant, despite the 90s being pretty much an unregulated free market economy. Interestingly, almost all of the Russian infrastructure is still from the Soviet times.

...

see

I don't what people expect from economic growth statistics when there are clear technological, human, material and geographical restrictions to economic growth. The statistics of most capitalist economies look similar, the USSR only slightly drops because the massive industrialization from 1928 onwards was unprecedented. The USSR could easily dished out better statistics if they sold their resources or maintain sweatshops in the Global South or something - but why? The point is to have a steady increase in productivity and automatization so you can satisfy human need.

Sounds good lad, this guy doesnt understand it but will give his opinion on it anyway.

Oh boy, even your own man says it might be possible!

For these two point I would like to point you to this book here.

See:
Chapter "The idea of complexity". It has a lot more.

Your article is retarded. Only an autist would argue that "the perfectly calculated solution" is the only viable solution, when the market gives us a bad approximation if you have perfect fairytale conditions. The approximation only has to be better than the markets approximation.

Oh right:

Get fucked ancaps

And thats on a "supercomputer" from the 90's. I have calculated it before, a gaming pc with a decent CPU is faster than the fastest supercomputer the writer used in the book. My laptop could outperform the supercomputer in the example.

go back you shit

Khanin was debunked by Allen. Only Japan sustained higher long-term economic than the Soviet Union and imo that is mostly because of the rise of revisionism in the mid-50s

…huh

So you're saying the soviet model is much better for development actually?

...

Yes

Corporations are planned economies.

maybe you should learn a single thing about economics before shitposting your "muh ussr bad" retardation

youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0