4 ms·

> It is highly doubtful that fair compensation for the privatization of public property is possible even in principle. What? The state-owned dairy farms had a

> It is highly doubtful that fair compensation for the privatization of public property is possible even in principle. What? The state-owned dairy farms had a cost, covered by the citizens, presumably in the form of taxation. And they had a product: dairy. After privatization, tax revenue ceases to be collected for the dairy farm. People instead pay for the same products directly. Of course the criminal and the corrupt can interfere with this, and continue to impose the tax burden or some such, but exactly what compensation is incalculable here? The farm had a value to the citizens in proportion to how much value it generated for how much cost. And it still does.

asciilifeform 15y ago
Taxation in the Western sense was not key to the Soviet economy. You are thinking using the concepts of a world where money is the main unit of exchange. The USSR was not such a world. That country was run quite a bit like a non-profit version of a giant American corporation. Does upper management at IBM levy taxes on the Shipping Department or Human Resources?
- mbateman 15y ago
  Okay but you can at least go some way in translating my point in terms of valuations more generally. Different divisions within large corporations do have a specific amount of value, and are sometimes thought of as assets and even split off and sold. If you don't like currency you can use whatever metric of value you'd like. I realize there are a lot of assumptions about valuation, property, and/or currency built into my criticism that you or anyone sympathetic to Soviet-style public ownership would probably reject. But that's part of the reason why I pointed it out. You have to accept a lot of IMO implausible views to claim that a publicly owned dairy farm has incomparably more value to citizens than a privately owned one. You seem to be claiming that many Russians at least implicitly hold these views. I hope that's not true.
  - wnight 15y ago
    A publicly and privately run dairy both produce milk. That is their only similarity. The private dairy enriches only the owner, the public dairy enriches everyone. If your only concern is buying a widget then selling your share in the widget factory doesn't seem like a bad idea - they'll keep making them. But if you're concerned about affording the widget it's a horrible idea. As soon as your cash runs out you're widget-less. As such, and seeing as how this is pretty obvious to most everyone, privatization is theft in most people's eyes. There is no fair price when the government is selling our means of productions/resources for short-term gain. No sane person would do it, and no honest representative would do it for them.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      You're implying that it's never in anyone's best interest to sell ownership in a business, when wealthy, successful, well-educated and self-interested people do that every day in every stock exchange all over the world.
      - wnight 15y ago
        Yes, but rarely for a non-earning resource, unless they're short on that specific resource elsewhere. (Such as needing Vespene for an upgrade...) Selling your productive assets is economic death. Renting them out, or selling your share of non-renewable resources, might make sense.
        philwelch 15y ago
        A government that privatizes industry sells businesses in exchange for short term cash, and in exchange for greater long term productivity in the economy as a whole, productivity which is in turn taxed.
    - gaius 15y ago
      the private dairy enriches only the owner, the public dairy enriches everyone That's a snappy soundbite, but the fact is in the West where we have privately-owned dairies, we don't have queues around the block for butter. Now who's enriched?

asciilifeform 15y ago

Taxation in the Western sense was not key to the Soviet economy. You are thinking using the concepts of a world where money is the main unit of exchange. The USSR was not such a world. That country was run quite a bit like a non-profit version of a giant American corporation. Does upper management at IBM levy taxes on the Shipping Department or Human Resources?

mbateman 15y ago
Okay but you can at least go some way in translating my point in terms of valuations more generally. Different divisions within large corporations do have a specific amount of value, and are sometimes thought of as assets and even split off and sold. If you don't like currency you can use whatever metric of value you'd like. I realize there are a lot of assumptions about valuation, property, and/or currency built into my criticism that you or anyone sympathetic to Soviet-style public ownership would probably reject. But that's part of the reason why I pointed it out. You have to accept a lot of IMO implausible views to claim that a publicly owned dairy farm has incomparably more value to citizens than a privately owned one. You seem to be claiming that many Russians at least implicitly hold these views. I hope that's not true.
- wnight 15y ago
  A publicly and privately run dairy both produce milk. That is their only similarity. The private dairy enriches only the owner, the public dairy enriches everyone. If your only concern is buying a widget then selling your share in the widget factory doesn't seem like a bad idea - they'll keep making them. But if you're concerned about affording the widget it's a horrible idea. As soon as your cash runs out you're widget-less. As such, and seeing as how this is pretty obvious to most everyone, privatization is theft in most people's eyes. There is no fair price when the government is selling our means of productions/resources for short-term gain. No sane person would do it, and no honest representative would do it for them.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    You're implying that it's never in anyone's best interest to sell ownership in a business, when wealthy, successful, well-educated and self-interested people do that every day in every stock exchange all over the world.
    - wnight 15y ago
      Yes, but rarely for a non-earning resource, unless they're short on that specific resource elsewhere. (Such as needing Vespene for an upgrade...) Selling your productive assets is economic death. Renting them out, or selling your share of non-renewable resources, might make sense.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        A government that privatizes industry sells businesses in exchange for short term cash, and in exchange for greater long term productivity in the economy as a whole, productivity which is in turn taxed.
  - gaius 15y ago
    the private dairy enriches only the owner, the public dairy enriches everyone That's a snappy soundbite, but the fact is in the West where we have privately-owned dairies, we don't have queues around the block for butter. Now who's enriched?