3 ms·

This might be surprising to you, but consumers still used currency to buy goods, and both surpluses and shortages were tracked. It isn't exactly the same as ma

This might be surprising to you, but consumers still used currency to buy goods, and both surpluses and shortages were tracked. It isn't exactly the same as market feedback, but it did serve the same function.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
It may have served the same function, but it didn't do it as well. And if GE, say, messes us on jet engines, well, there's always Rolls-Royce. If the central planners mess up, you don't have an alternative.
- kbenson 9y ago
  I guess the equivalent for nations could exist, but it would require free migration. USSR central planning screw up? Guess it's time to emigrate to China. Of course switching the nation you are part of is usually (but not always) more complicated than switching the product you buy.
- kodfodrasz 9y ago
  Actually the central planners did plan backups and alternatives for everything. With all its flaws even the SU was not so flawed to let total idiots make every economic decision. Just think of Mig and Sukhoi, for a simple example. Or NPO-Saturn and Tumansky, if you prefer jet-engine manufacturers.
  - kadavero 9y ago
    > not so flawed to let total idiots make every economic decision You might want to read up on Khruschev's corn farming plans, Gorbachev's prohibition, Mao's backyard furnaces and many more. Slightly tangent, check on Trofim Lysenko's anti-genetics antics. USSR style socialism explicitly declared ideology over science, engineering and what not. And by ideology they meant whatever The Great Leader says.
- antisthenes 9y ago
  Have you read the actual article? It explains in detail why it didn't do as well, namely computational complexity (essentially solved today), and the general non-adoption of ideas. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't be viable today.
pandaman 9y ago
Not quite. There had been two currencies in the USSR, "cash" and "cashless" (нал and безнал). Retail consumers ("physical persons") could only use cash and institutional consumers ("juridical persons") only cashless. There had not been an easy exchange between the two by design. As the result, all consumer goods production ("group B") was flying blindly under the directions from the central planning. The government's own production ("group A") did have market-like feedback loops since it was running on the same currency and few people complained about this area's performance. Consumer goods were in total ruin by the 1970s. People used word "deficit" to refer to anything desirable. And no, it has not been a common word or its usage in Russian before the advances in planned economy.
- vkazanov 9y ago
  As a Russian, and as a Russian interested in economical history of both the Russian Empire and the USSR, I have to notice that before the communists the Empire had serious famine problems [1], and had no serious modern (19-th centure style modern) economy, which did not allow for effective product exchange between regions. For example, the Empire was exporting a lot of grain, but still had regional hungers every 5-10 years. "Deficit" literally means "lack of something", and hunger is definitely a lack of food. Food supply problems in the region were only solved by late 30s (if one skips war-related problem of 40s), when painful - like, really painful - communist reforms and modernization settled down. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia...
  - pandaman 9y ago
    >"Deficit" literally means "lack of something", and hunger is definitely a lack of food. Sure. Yet, being a Russian myself also familiar with the history, I cannot recall people using that word to describe "hunger". In Russian of 1970s-1980s the word "deficit" was used to refer to the goods not a lack of them, see this example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKWQ2UxXSLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKWQ2UxXSLY As for you remarks about RI's economy - I am not sure what you mean. In your own link there is no reference of an economy-related famine. Famines used to be caused by weather and wars all around the world.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

It may have served the same function, but it didn't do it as well. And if GE, say, messes us on jet engines, well, there's always Rolls-Royce. If the central planners mess up, you don't have an alternative.

kbenson 9y ago
I guess the equivalent for nations could exist, but it would require free migration. USSR central planning screw up? Guess it's time to emigrate to China. Of course switching the nation you are part of is usually (but not always) more complicated than switching the product you buy.
kodfodrasz 9y ago
Actually the central planners did plan backups and alternatives for everything. With all its flaws even the SU was not so flawed to let total idiots make every economic decision. Just think of Mig and Sukhoi, for a simple example. Or NPO-Saturn and Tumansky, if you prefer jet-engine manufacturers.
- kadavero 9y ago
  > not so flawed to let total idiots make every economic decision You might want to read up on Khruschev's corn farming plans, Gorbachev's prohibition, Mao's backyard furnaces and many more. Slightly tangent, check on Trofim Lysenko's anti-genetics antics. USSR style socialism explicitly declared ideology over science, engineering and what not. And by ideology they meant whatever The Great Leader says.
antisthenes 9y ago
Have you read the actual article? It explains in detail why it didn't do as well, namely computational complexity (essentially solved today), and the general non-adoption of ideas. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't be viable today.

pandaman 9y ago

Not quite. There had been two currencies in the USSR, "cash" and "cashless" (нал and безнал). Retail consumers ("physical persons") could only use cash and institutional consumers ("juridical persons") only cashless. There had not been an easy exchange between the two by design. As the result, all consumer goods production ("group B") was flying blindly under the directions from the central planning. The government's own production ("group A") did have market-like feedback loops since it was running on the same currency and few people complained about this area's performance. Consumer goods were in total ruin by the 1970s. People used word "deficit" to refer to anything desirable. And no, it has not been a common word or its usage in Russian before the advances in planned economy.

vkazanov 9y ago
As a Russian, and as a Russian interested in economical history of both the Russian Empire and the USSR, I have to notice that before the communists the Empire had serious famine problems [1], and had no serious modern (19-th centure style modern) economy, which did not allow for effective product exchange between regions. For example, the Empire was exporting a lot of grain, but still had regional hungers every 5-10 years. "Deficit" literally means "lack of something", and hunger is definitely a lack of food. Food supply problems in the region were only solved by late 30s (if one skips war-related problem of 40s), when painful - like, really painful - communist reforms and modernization settled down. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia...
- pandaman 9y ago
  >"Deficit" literally means "lack of something", and hunger is definitely a lack of food. Sure. Yet, being a Russian myself also familiar with the history, I cannot recall people using that word to describe "hunger". In Russian of 1970s-1980s the word "deficit" was used to refer to the goods not a lack of them, see this example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKWQ2UxXSLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKWQ2UxXSLY As for you remarks about RI's economy - I am not sure what you mean. In your own link there is no reference of an economy-related famine. Famines used to be caused by weather and wars all around the world.