Who's REALLY responsible for the food crisis? (Hint: Reagan)

[CaptainZoidberg]

I foresee a major asskicking in the offing. Stas Bush is Russian and has lived most of his life there, right through the events you're talking about. You're about to get a thorough education on just what happened with regard to this when the USSR broke up and what has gone wrong since...

I wasn't really commenting on what did happen in Russia, I was commenting on how Westerners perceived what happened in Russia. But then again I could (and probably am) wrong.

[Edi]

Yes, you are. The perception you're talking about is probably not at all uncommon among those Americans who have never bothered to actually study this issue and who have never been exposed to it as a matter of course due to proximity.

It is not a matter of not being conservative enough or too conservative, it was because there was complete deregulation and robbing of assets by those in power, leaving the poor people in the dust. Follow that with mismanagement and corruption (endemic in Russia) and no wonder the results have been what they were.

Before communism, there were actually plenty of rich merchants in Russia, but they either fled or were killed in the 1920s and 1930s. I'll leave the rest of this to the people who have both the detailed knowledge and the inclination to spend long posts on it to clarify the matter further.

[K. A. Pital]

In fact, Soviet economists have contributed quite a bit to the field of economic modelling when trying to pursue the goal of a 100% centrally commanded economy.

Nobel prize That's funny considering many free market guys claim command economists never got any credentials.

China had something of a free market under the Nationalist regime

China was a warlordist anachy for a long time (and often civil wars erupted here and there), and the "Cultural RevolutioN" killed pretty much a huge lot of highly skilled people in China. No "market specialists" here is nonsense.

Also, China remained largely agrarian, with an explosively growing population due to Mao's health reform - healthy but VERY poor, that led to huge masses of cheap laboru power. It attracted capital, and voila, "market huge success".

Internally, however, China remained pretty damn controlling of the capitals moving in and out country, and made a heavy priority the stability of currency and so on. Command economy instruments pretty much helped to transition a market, especialy in light industrial complex.

The USSR wasn't conservative enough, and they tried to change too many things too fast

The USSR was more industrialized than China and enjoyed a vastly superior life standard. But that also means that it's labour was expensive - not the cheap Chinese semi-slave working for a bowl of rice - and production was capital-intensive (slated to heavy industry due to huge shift during the war, which irreversibly skewed economic proportions in the Soviet industrial sector).

China - cheap labour + light industry, a perfet combination for capital inflow which was the cause of rising life level. Meanwhile, China's metallurgy and heavy industry remained craptacular and decades behind the USSR, both for high tech and low-tech products.

Also, huge number of Chinese expats invested into the SEZ, when they were otherwise not so clearly profitable in the initial reform period; the USSR did not have the SEZ, and not nearly enough expats to make any diffference whatsoever.

Lastly, Chinese did not privatize everything or almost everything including the larger industries; they remained government-run for a long long time and many still are. The USSR privatized and broke down mega-enterprises, with disastrous results (economy of scale is not something you should ever, ever fuck with).

[K. A. Pital]

S. Korea was pretty much a command economy for quite a while in the earlier days. A lot of the chaebols enjoyed government patronage in sectors which the government deemed as vital to the future success of the Korean economy. In many ways, their actions were correct as the country's current economic strength is built upon the investments in the technology and heavy industry sectors. These sectors spent decades catching up with Japan and now have matched their rivals.

The problem with S. Korea was corruption which was widespread in the Chaebols and a lot of bad investment decisions. I'm not too familiar with their problems, which were quite complex, but suggesting that the free market was the prime reason for S. Korea's success is completely incorrect.

Oh yes, thank you. The prime Reaganite example had corporate tycoons handpicked for loyalty, because otherwise the investment in a war-torn Korea would not be strong (who in his right ming would invest into a wartorn nation?).

Also, I should draw parllels to China: China during the transition maintaned a strong grip on all of it's actions; it controlled it's market essentially, all reforms were made in a controlled environment (and those who objected to total control were dealt with in a decisive, even if brutal manner on Tian An Men; sorry, but such is history)

When political and social stability is rigidly enforced, by a strong government, it is possible to run market operations in various economic sectors with a great efficiency. It is important that the market conditions are forcibly stabilized by the government, and all instruments of contrl: soft or direct, are indeed under control.

When that stability is not enforced, you see massive economic collapse.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Thanks, Stas Bush.