Why was the soviet GDP always so far behind compared to the US?
I was told the USSR even surpassed the USA in the 70s but it looks like absolute shit in this graph
Why was the soviet GDP always so far behind compared to the US?
Jeremiah Scott
Henry Gray
Because state capitalism is even worse than private capitalism.
Ryan Baker
because GDP is not a good way of analyzing the value of a socialist state.
Samuel Green
Their base measure is the US dollar in 1990. GDP fails to account for the differences in living costs; quality of life in the USSR could be higher on less GDP if goods are also cheaper.
Nicholas King
The USSR started way behind, in 1917 it was still essentially a feudal state. It's not really fair to compare the two directly but certainly the USSR did well just to be able to somewhat keep pace with the western world.
Juan Brown
Because communism is fucking retarded, and being an ideology usually blindly followed by morons it always brings those morons to ignore evidence when evaluating its effects on the economy. Or anything else, see Stalin and the evolution of language.
Camden Fisher
Because (((Marx) was wrong."Scientific" central planning was never able to outcompete capitalism even though it was supposed to
Luke Perry
It's cute when Holla Forums tries to play with us.
Camden Rodriguez
Socialism was a monumental failure when it comes to economics no matter how much autistic NEET neckbeards fantasise about it
Nathan Torres
Marx never mentioned or even seemed to consider the concept of centralized planning at any point, though I suppose he wouldn't necessarily disapprove of it either as long as it was genuinely socialist. Regardless, the failure of the USSR can only be accurately described as another failure of capitalism that anti-communists desperately try to pin on us. It isn't often spoken of but anyone with even modest knowledge of the Soviet economy could tell you in the last few decades of it's life it was a market economy with firms operating as the primary decision-makers. The five-year plans never really existed but by the end they were really nothing more than vague directions given to economically independent managers. Funnily enough though when the industrial ministries that operated the central planning system actually existed the USSR was growing faster than the US. The Soviet model really appeared worth replicating in the 50's.
You'll ignore all this though. Capitalism is basically the creation science of economics, every time it fails you just claim it wasn't real capitalism and blame it on socialism. Pathetic.
Levi Nelson
USSR had to rebuild everything AND help the world.
US had to rebuild then world and get payed for it.
US had a headstart, but USSR had a far more stable economy… until it collapsed.
As you can see, US tricked it's way out of crisis in 84 by using credit cards and so on. This same cheating is what brought the 2008 crisis.
Asher Robinson
...
Levi Evans
That's hilarious the failure of socialist economics were caused by…capitalism you can't make this shit up.
Source? I know the grip of the state relaxed after the stagnation of the 70s but calling the Soviet Union a market economy is ludicrous. You don't have a market economy without free floating prices
Yeah the state was "withering away" just like (((marx))) predicted kek
Catch up growth
Leo Garcia
Your little chart suffers from the same problems described in
Not to mention that GDP per capita tells us absolutely nothing about wealth distribution; a society of 10 people where one is fabulously wealthy and the rest eat shit might have a higher GDP per capita than a society of 10 where they all live decent lives.
Pol thinks "high number good low number bad" is economics.
Matthew Miller
But that's wrong, he discusses centralization and it's necessity to be developed in capitalism for communism later on to utilize in Capital, I can't remember exactly which chapters but towards the end of volume 1.
Isaiah Jones
to be fair so do mainstream economists
Josiah Cook
Oh look a leftshit who has no clue about economics. GDP is deflated (google that) differences in prices make no difference.
That's irrelevant (((marx)))ists believe that socialism can outproduce capitalism on an absolute level through the application of "scientific" central planning. Besides we know from surveys and data about personal consumption how deprived and miserable life in the Jewviet Union was
Angel Sullivan
This thing you do, claiming you know what marxists believe better than marxists, is top kek.
PURE IDEOLOGY!
Mason King
(((Marx)))ists said that "scientific" central planning can outproduce capitalism through the application of central planning the elimination of prices and the "anarchy" of production under capitalism. Pretty basic stuff how are you so ignorant about it? Are you here to troll cringy leftcucks too?
Tyler Myers
Nope, nominal GDP is not deflated.
You want real GDP ppp, which is not what these graphs represent.
Sorry asshole, this 'leftshit' has an economics degree.
Nicholas Nguyen
((())) – is this what the cool kids do today?
Julian Edwards
Hi Checkers.
Andrew Nelson
So are you going to explain to us all of the usual platitudes we've heard a million times or are you going to skip to the overly compressed pictures of graphs and "cuck" memeing?
Henry Smith
Also, define "central planning"
Austin Myers
DO YOU EVEN SCHOPENHAUER??
Isaiah Brown
See
It says per capita GDP in 1990$. That means it's deflated. Holy crap is everyone in this board an autistic clueless neckbeard?
GDP ppp (Purchasing Power Index) is adjusted to account for the difference in the prices of non tradeable goods between countries (google Balassa Samuelson effect)
You mean management degree from community college?
Andrew Perez
Lol no, across time that would work but not across currencies. The USSR having x USD at any time doesn't account for any difference in price in the USSR, that is, what those dollars could actually buy
And yes, GDPppp is what you want when comparing economies. You really aren't very bright are you.
Luke Howard
A Holla Forums classic.
Michael Cooper
Well the official exchange rate in the Soviet Union was very overvalued so GDP per capita was probably a lot lower than that when expressed in dollar terms
Holy shit the GDP number the Soviet Union published was already deflated (google gdp deflator) so a difference in prices doesn't play a role. Why are you retards so clueless and uneducated? I thought marxist """"intellectuals"""" were all about economics it is the foundation of their jewish death cult
Nathaniel Ramirez
This guy is the source you cringy fat neckbeard basement dweller
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Isaiah Johnson
Claiming that that guy said it isn't an actual source. Show where he said it.
I'm not defending the USSR or any of the Warsaw Pact nations since they weren't socialism, but I find how easily lead Holla Forumsyps are by unsourced graphs hilarious.
David Moore
Okay just learn to read again and see - the GDP given here doesn't appear to be deflated already. And again, even if it has been, GDP per capita tells us nothing about distribution. A country with a high GDP per capita might just have 1 rich asshole and everyone else in squalor
Carson Morris
A US dollar in 1990 goes a hell of a lot further in the Soviet Union than in the United States. Because of the cheap cost of living in the Soviet Union at the time
Landon Allen
That's not to say that I think the Soviet Union had an ideal economic system by any means. Price controls screw over the merchant. If you make it unprofitable for me to do business by having some government bureaucrat dictating pricing, I'm going to stop doing business, cutting the supply and the prices will go up because there's less competition.