Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Soviet Economic Growth

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 17 Replies | 7 Followers

Not Ranked
40 Posts
Points 2,255
The Bomb19 posted on Sun, Jul 31 2011 4:00 AM

Soviet economic growth reached 20% under Stalin's reign. As we know, this is a figure never seen in the western world. If socialism is so crummy, why were the growth rates so high? Why was the increase in the standard of living so great during this period? I think life expectancy jumped 20 years under Stalin.

Was this because the government was able to direct growth into areas of the economy that mattered; it could divert funding into investment in say manufacturing for example?

I'm not denying that living in the USSR was shit. Yes, millions died of starvation but why did the economy grow so fast if the system was so poor?

  • | Post Points: 140

All Replies

Not Ranked
2 Posts
Points 25

Centrally planned economies can have a faster growing GDP than market economies but it doesn't last. In the case of the USSR you must keep in mind that they were starting at rock bottom while countries such as the UK and the USA started their economic development early and had solid economic policies for the majority of the last few hundred years so they never had a sudden influx of capital and imported technology with which they could skip over a few decades of development. Centrally planned economies start to hit major roadblocks when it's neo-serf fueled capital accumulation rate starts running out of low hanging fruits and when questions such as should Dimitri build tractors or sew Ché shirts start getting important which in the earlier stages weren't very important since aslong as Dimitri started working it was an improvement over him being unemployed. The Soviet answer has always been when in doubt build more steel and similar goods but the benefit to the populace is limited. A superior interventionist alternative is the Chilean model of forcing workers to save a certain percentage of their money while maintaining a small government since it allows for economic calculation and competition while also giving the government control over the savings rate. Not that  Austrians approve mind you since the government has no real means of calculating the ideal savings rate since it is different for every individual person and even when simply wanting to maximize the GDP growth of a nation it isn't accurately calculable.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
6,953 Posts
Points 118,135

GameSetMatch:
Centrally planned economies can have a faster growing GDP than market economies but it doesn't last.

As if a "fast growing" GDP meant anything in the first place. [1] [2]

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
36 Posts
Points 495
Answered (Not Verified) Kaiser replied on Mon, Aug 1 2011 12:03 PM
Suggested by John James

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XbG6aIUlog

@21:20

"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgments."-Albert Einstein

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (18 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS