[LindeBuzoGray]

> Markets

> We believe central economic planning elevates the worst of us and drags everyone down; markets exploit the best of us to benefit all of us

> We believe central planning is a doom loop; markets are an upward spiral

There's many things off with this. The USSR from the 1920s to early 1950s had enormous economic growth - particularly in the 1930s when so-called free markets in the West had collapsed, by the 1950s and early 1960s it was sending satellites and men to space - before the West. Also, the PRC had enormous economic growth from the early 1950s to late 1970s (and afterward as well).

Also, the US economy is centrally planned. Billions are flowing to military contractors for Israel right now as they were to the Ukraine before - the US is pumping over $800 billion (really over a trillion) this year into this centrally planned economy, and it also de facto plans for the giant medical sector. The Internet we type on was built over decades with government money.

But most importantly, as these are more minor issues - it is a false comparison. The Soviet Union had markets selling radishes for rubles, just like the US does (for dollars). So both had markets.

The difference is the USSR from the 1920s to mid-1960s made production decisions based on the general welfare, the desire for a space program etc. Workers on collective farms made their own decisions, with perhaps some government quotas. In the US decisions are made to benefit the heirs who own companies as opposed to the workers who do the work.

But that is a minor point. The point is that both had markets, little different from one another. But the distribution portion of the economy for the US is compared to the centrally planned production if the other economy. It makes no sense. The US production controlled by and for the benefit of heirs is unmentioned. The USSR-like market identical to to the US market is unmentioned. We compare US production to USSR-like distribution. The comparison makes no sense. Purposefully.

[AnimalMuppet]

There is a lot wrong with your statement. The US economy has parts that are centrally planned.

The PRC had enormous economic growth - and also a famine that killed millions of people. It was a centrally planned absolute catastrophe. Then in the 1970s, they realized that central planning wasn't going to keep working, so they moved to more of a free market approach - not totally, but much more than they had. And growth continued for several more decades.

> But the distribution portion of the economy for the US is compared to the centrally planned production if the other economy. It makes no sense.

Where are you getting this from? Certainly not from the parts you quote.

[62951413]

Workers on collective farms up until the early 70s were not allowed to have passports issued to them. Without a passport one couldn't move to a city.

Also, those millions of the most productive of them murdered in the Gulag "from the 1920s to mid-1960s" surely "made their own decisions" poorly.

Where your position touches upon reality is that the US economy has been getting increasingly centrally planned since 2008. It's a major problem.

[goatlover]

> Workers on collective farms made their own decisions, with perhaps some government quotas.

Was this before famine and being sent to prisons or killed for objecting to having their land taken by the state?

[enraged_camel]

This is a pretty crazy post full of misunderstandings and misinformation.

For example, the existence of government spending does not mean the country's economy is centrally planned. Central planning refers to a very specific type of system where the central government plans the minutiae of the economy, such as how many widgets will be produced per year and how much they will be sold for. In Western economies, those decisions are made by market participants.

[mempko]

How many board of directors out there control half the economy (boards make all the important decisions). I bet it's smaller than the number of aparachiks. US economy is centrally planned, just not all publicly planned.

[nickpp]

Of course, people in USSR were starving while free markets were making Westerners fatter and fatter.

[chrisco255]

If you design a system that can only really last for a single generation or two it's not really an appropriate model for a civilization is it?

The USSR had 3 decades of solid growth? That's cute. The U.S. has been booming for hundreds of years at this point.

The US economy is not centrally planned. Government expenditure is 37 percent of GDP, not even a majority. Even much of the government expenditures that do occur are not planned (ie a social security recipient is not dictated how they must spend it).

The USSR from the 20s to 60s made decisions based on what was good for the leaders of the USSR and what would hold power. Stalin ran the Gulag from 1929 through 1953. This was not just a form of modern slavery. People died by the millions. Up to 7 million people died in a Soviet famine from 1932-1933. The U.S. may have had bread lines at the time, but people weren't dying of mass starvation. There were a number of political purges in the 30s that cost a million or so Soviets their lives. Another famine cost 1 to 1.5 million Soviets their life in 1948. Millions more were force relocated.

[leshow]

> The U.S. has been booming for hundreds of years at this point.

Glorifying the early US economic system is not doing much for your argument.

[chrisco255]

I'm speaking to the last several hundred years including colonial times, early 1800s, post Civil War, early and late 20th century and the present. The number one economy in the world for over a century and counting.

Even in recent times, the U.S. has out-paced the EU. The U.S. economy is now 50 percent larger than the EU. There was a lot of talk of China surpassing the U.S. as recent as 8 years ago, however, the U.S. has pulled out ahead as China's growth has stalled. And the USSR no longer exists, but to the extent that you can equate it to Russia, well the Russian GDP is smaller than some individual U.S. states.

[1] https://archive.ph/zygD4 [2] https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/as-china-s-...

[meiraleal]

> The U.S. may have had bread lines at the time, but people weren't dying of mass starvation.

Only if you consider the millions that suffered mass extermination, incarceration and forced labor in the US not to be humans.

[chrisco255]

Mass extermination never occurred in the United States, what are you even talking about?

Forced labor, in the 1930s through 1960s? No. Just no.

Half of the early U.S. had slavery up til 1865 when a brutal Civil War that cost 600K plus people their lives settled the question. That was all the way back in the 1800s when Russia was still a medieval serfdom indistinguishable from a slave based economy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia), which it had conducted for over 700 years.

[meiraleal]

> Mass extermination never occurred in the United States, what are you even talking about?

You've made me curious about how the American media describes US history. It's interesting that the mass extermination of Native Americans is referred to as the "Indian Wars". It sounds almost patriotic.

> Forced labor, in the 1930s through 1960s? No. Just no.

Right. Because with the Indian Citizenship Act, the US magically transformed into a different country and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for anything that happened before 1930. But Russia...

[carpet_wheel]

Incarceration rates right now in 2023 too. Slavery is outlawed, unless...

[slibhb]

Man, what is with HN and weirdly detailed posts explaining how awesome the Soviet economy was?

For my money, the Soviet economy failed while the NATO countries succeeded for reasons described by Hayek, summarized reasonably well in Marc Andreessen's weird diatribe. At best your post is splitting hairs, at worst it's Zizek-like nonesense "20th century communists established the real free markets!"