4 ms·

The textbook in my high school economics class [1] actually devoted a whole chapter to centrally planned economies, covering the methods they used for allocatin

The textbook in my high school economics class [1] actually devoted a whole chapter to centrally planned economies, covering the methods they used for allocating resources in a fair amount of detail. As an American kid growing up during the cold war, I remember it being one of the more interesting chapters. Looking at the publisher's website, I see that the current edition of the book no longer includes that chapter. 1. https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/economy-today-schiller-gebhardt/M9781259852022.html https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/economy-today-s...

shirakawasuna 6y ago
We have reached the End of History (TM), you see, and no longer need to think about that.
- dang 6y ago
  Can you please stop using HN for ideological battle? You've done it a lot and it's not what this site is for, regardless of which ideology you favor or disfavor. Especially please don't post unsubstantive comments like the above. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - shirakawasuna 6y ago
    This is a thread about the economy of the USSR. Most of the comments are ideological, on the side of capital, and generally incorrect and ignorant of history. It is impossible to discuss this topic without discussing and arguing ideologically-founded positions. If the guidelines are against this, the entire thread should be nuked by mods and virtually every person in the thread should be warned and/or have their comments removed. Until then, I will provide some informed, highly relevant, and historically-grounded balance to the generally libertarian/liberal techbro (ideological) narratives spread constantly on HackerNews. Edit: here's a list of what you should look at for consistency: - The top comment is an ideologically-based analysis (hey, just like mine) using non-standardized terms but presenting them as common: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088755 - The second-to-top comment is an ideological but high-level description of Chile's approach to this problem, including an ideological (but accurate) description of why it was not actually tested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25085779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25085779 - I'm replying to a comment to the third-to-the-top comment. My reply here is merely a reference to the common idea of "the end of history" for capitalist economics following the collapse of the Soviet Union, which I would guess is relevant of the removal of planned economies from their textbook. My reference to this is barely ideological at all and I'm not sure how I'd even argue that it was. - The fourth-to-the-top comment is a negative one towards the supply chains in the former Soviet bloc: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090289. Their examples of them being bad include modularity and repairability, which is of course ideological. - The fifth highest comment is a joke about the game Factorio: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089965. - The sixth highest comment is discussing a different (imo, bad) book called "Why Nations Fail": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25087224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25087224. They present the authors' position, which is of course ideological and highly capitalist. - The seventh highest comment is a link to another review. - The eight highest comment is vague guessing about computing power. - The ninth highest comment is referring to another thread from three years ago on this exact same topic. It is jam-packed with ideological positions on why planned economies can't work. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088681 - The tenth highest comment repeats apocryphal comments about Lenin and Henry Ford. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090364. Soviets existed before Ford's work and evolved in various different directions due to power dynamics. - The eleventh highest comment is a political commentary on Tetris. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089021 - The twelfth highest comment is references to a relevant (ideological) debate, with Mises given the second (and last) word: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089447 - The thirteenth highest comment is about the practicality of revisiting these ideas given greater computing power (again): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25085755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25085755 This is getting a bit silly, but you get the idea. Just going through the top comments in order reveals ideologically-heavy discussion because the topic itself is inherently political and regards matters where the average Western person (and tech person) has been propagandized more than informed on the history and economics. The majority of the comments boil down to, "it can't work because X" or "it can work because Y", all of which must have ideologically foundations on economics.
    - cbmuser 6y ago
      > This is a thread about the economy of the USSR. Most of the comments are ideological, on the side of capital, and generally incorrect and ignorant of history. As someone who actually grew up in a real communist country (East Germany), I can tell you you’re on the wrong here. I know the feeling first hand when you went into a store and wanted to buy something as ubiquitous as an electric drill and they had none, no matter which store you tried. And that was the result of a centralized economy because in West Germany, they never had that problem. The free market always balanced out supply and demand through the pricing mechanism. Leading economists in East Germany 1989 admitted in the so-called Schürer-Papier that it was the centralized socialist market that was driving factor of running the country and its economy to the ground. The USSR despite being so huge copycat a lot of designs from the West simply because the centralized market hardly allowed for any innovation on their own. Computers, cars, planes and much more were imported from the West or stolen and then copied.
      - shirakawasuna 6y ago
        Essentially none of what you said contradicts any point I've made. I am not a USSR utopian. Very much the opposite: it had very serious problems. The issue is the comparative nature, where capitalists pick and choose what counts as explanatory failure, typically ignoring things like constant aggressive wars and funding, e.g., the Stasi. There is also the matter of the means by which capitalist countries maintain themselves, as it is very, very far from a circular or sustainable system, but one that has depended very heavily on expropriation and military dominance. The position I'm presenting is not, "communism was fantastic, ideal, perfect, without core problems". It is, "communism well for a very long time despite incredible external aggression and vastly improved the lot of people who would otherwise have been put through an economic meat grinder". It is an indictment of the primary alternative economic system that bureaucratic central planning could work so decently in comparison. When looking at explanations for failure, only the most proximal analyses are given credence in pop culture (The Schuerer report was days before the fall of the DDR) and no holistic analysis is considered. To be scientific and historical about this, one must consider the alternative hypotheses, the greater picture and burdens. Let's consider one simple one: the extractive nature of western imperial economics - transferring wealth from the global south to itself. To what extent can you reject the hypothesis that a significant explanatory factor in the economic success of West Germany is the disproportionate value received from these exploitative relationships? Is it considered in the analyses and conclusions drawn? If not, why not? It seems like a very relevant question to me - there are countless examples of capitalist countries with far, far, far worse outcomes than communist ones, and they tend to be in the Global South.

shirakawasuna 6y ago

We have reached the End of History (TM), you see, and no longer need to think about that.

dang 6y ago
Can you please stop using HN for ideological battle? You've done it a lot and it's not what this site is for, regardless of which ideology you favor or disfavor. Especially please don't post unsubstantive comments like the above. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- shirakawasuna 6y ago
  This is a thread about the economy of the USSR. Most of the comments are ideological, on the side of capital, and generally incorrect and ignorant of history. It is impossible to discuss this topic without discussing and arguing ideologically-founded positions. If the guidelines are against this, the entire thread should be nuked by mods and virtually every person in the thread should be warned and/or have their comments removed. Until then, I will provide some informed, highly relevant, and historically-grounded balance to the generally libertarian/liberal techbro (ideological) narratives spread constantly on HackerNews. Edit: here's a list of what you should look at for consistency: - The top comment is an ideologically-based analysis (hey, just like mine) using non-standardized terms but presenting them as common: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088755 - The second-to-top comment is an ideological but high-level description of Chile's approach to this problem, including an ideological (but accurate) description of why it was not actually tested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25085779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25085779 - I'm replying to a comment to the third-to-the-top comment. My reply here is merely a reference to the common idea of "the end of history" for capitalist economics following the collapse of the Soviet Union, which I would guess is relevant of the removal of planned economies from their textbook. My reference to this is barely ideological at all and I'm not sure how I'd even argue that it was. - The fourth-to-the-top comment is a negative one towards the supply chains in the former Soviet bloc: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090289. Their examples of them being bad include modularity and repairability, which is of course ideological. - The fifth highest comment is a joke about the game Factorio: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089965. - The sixth highest comment is discussing a different (imo, bad) book called "Why Nations Fail": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25087224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25087224. They present the authors' position, which is of course ideological and highly capitalist. - The seventh highest comment is a link to another review. - The eight highest comment is vague guessing about computing power. - The ninth highest comment is referring to another thread from three years ago on this exact same topic. It is jam-packed with ideological positions on why planned economies can't work. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088681 - The tenth highest comment repeats apocryphal comments about Lenin and Henry Ford. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090364. Soviets existed before Ford's work and evolved in various different directions due to power dynamics. - The eleventh highest comment is a political commentary on Tetris. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089021 - The twelfth highest comment is references to a relevant (ideological) debate, with Mises given the second (and last) word: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25089447 - The thirteenth highest comment is about the practicality of revisiting these ideas given greater computing power (again): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25085755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25085755 This is getting a bit silly, but you get the idea. Just going through the top comments in order reveals ideologically-heavy discussion because the topic itself is inherently political and regards matters where the average Western person (and tech person) has been propagandized more than informed on the history and economics. The majority of the comments boil down to, "it can't work because X" or "it can work because Y", all of which must have ideologically foundations on economics.
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    > This is a thread about the economy of the USSR. Most of the comments are ideological, on the side of capital, and generally incorrect and ignorant of history. As someone who actually grew up in a real communist country (East Germany), I can tell you you’re on the wrong here. I know the feeling first hand when you went into a store and wanted to buy something as ubiquitous as an electric drill and they had none, no matter which store you tried. And that was the result of a centralized economy because in West Germany, they never had that problem. The free market always balanced out supply and demand through the pricing mechanism. Leading economists in East Germany 1989 admitted in the so-called Schürer-Papier that it was the centralized socialist market that was driving factor of running the country and its economy to the ground. The USSR despite being so huge copycat a lot of designs from the West simply because the centralized market hardly allowed for any innovation on their own. Computers, cars, planes and much more were imported from the West or stolen and then copied.
    - shirakawasuna 6y ago
      Essentially none of what you said contradicts any point I've made. I am not a USSR utopian. Very much the opposite: it had very serious problems. The issue is the comparative nature, where capitalists pick and choose what counts as explanatory failure, typically ignoring things like constant aggressive wars and funding, e.g., the Stasi. There is also the matter of the means by which capitalist countries maintain themselves, as it is very, very far from a circular or sustainable system, but one that has depended very heavily on expropriation and military dominance. The position I'm presenting is not, "communism was fantastic, ideal, perfect, without core problems". It is, "communism well for a very long time despite incredible external aggression and vastly improved the lot of people who would otherwise have been put through an economic meat grinder". It is an indictment of the primary alternative economic system that bureaucratic central planning could work so decently in comparison. When looking at explanations for failure, only the most proximal analyses are given credence in pop culture (The Schuerer report was days before the fall of the DDR) and no holistic analysis is considered. To be scientific and historical about this, one must consider the alternative hypotheses, the greater picture and burdens. Let's consider one simple one: the extractive nature of western imperial economics - transferring wealth from the global south to itself. To what extent can you reject the hypothesis that a significant explanatory factor in the economic success of West Germany is the disproportionate value received from these exploitative relationships? Is it considered in the analyses and conclusions drawn? If not, why not? It seems like a very relevant question to me - there are countless examples of capitalist countries with far, far, far worse outcomes than communist ones, and they tend to be in the Global South.