Diseconomies of scale don't really matter in this argument...

I was going to use the pencil argument stratagos as well, but I couldn't remember it. It works with just about any product though. Don't even start on higher tier technology. Sure, a kid can build a computer in their basement, but there's no way he or any practical number of kids like him could build enough computers to even compare to the levels of production we have now. In the free everything system you'd have greatly reduced productivity and consequently revert to basic subsistence.

i actually saw a guy who did make a toaster from scratch.

http://www.thetoasterproject.org/

mining the iron, copper, and micca. (usually from disused mines not going out and finding it himself - but that's fair, the disused mines are where it was located)
smelting the iron, electrolysis to get copper wires, and the micca he pretty much hooked up directly into his home-made circuit.

Cost ~£1200 + 6 months, compared to the cheapest £4 toaster in the local market.

So don't get me wrong there are economies of scale, but i think a general principle needs to be worked out for the ideal scale or any endeavour. (and it changes with changing technology)

oh and in theory in the 'free everything' society you do still get economies of scale, i'm just not sure how they are organised.

or realised.

I would assume you just crank out what you think people want until you get bored and build something else. If you're wrong, you have a lot of toasters sitting around, and a dearth of video tape rewinders and cabbage patch kids dolls

If you're still using videotapes, you're operating in technological stone-age equipment. Not that that's inherently bad for you survivalists out there, but I'll take DVD encoded data over VHS encoded data any day of the post-apocalyptic week. Plus, I have the capability to program myself a DVD reader, unlike most people. Call it an occupational advantage.

@ stratagos: You've tried to paste a table into your post, but it doesn't come out right - I can't understand the data in the table.

And in terms of: "But neither the scale of projects nor the size of Soviet GDP meant that the allocation of resources involved was determined by market rules. Siberia's growth was entirely driven by communist planners..."

Most people know that in the Soviet Union the economy was run on a planned basis and not left up to market forces... that's kind of the point. So why do you feel the need to point this out?

@ Jaime - the original table is in the referenced link, page two if I recall

I put the entire quote in for context - mere GDP growth does not mean that a country is 'successful' on an economic level. Your thesis was that socialism works, and you used the Soviet Union as your evidence, so my response will - logically - focus on what I perceive as flaws in that system.

While those factories in Siberia could doubtlessly crank out tractors and such, I would be willing to bet that their productivity numbers compared to a Western plant would suck - and to be honest I'm having a hard time mustering the desire to *really* debate this. There are *so* many disparate sources documenting the collapse of the soviet economy that researching them all and citing all my sources seems a waste of effort - I highly doubt I'm going to convince you, so why bother?

Even if we ignore that the 'growth' in question is what set up the Soviet economy to head straight for the crapper - just like the debts of the western world are doing to the same to us - GDP is a nice yardstick, but individual productivity (ie: how much output each worker can crank out) is a much better method to see how effective an economy is.

I'm not going to bother digging up statistics showing how stark the difference is, due to the aforementioned lack of desire to talk to a brick wall, but feel free to do so yourself.

Adjutant Stormy: The only advantage VHS has is remembering exactly where you were in a movie beforeyou stopped watching it. Chapterless DVD's (such as pirated ones) are a nightmare.

@ Stratagos: I think you are mistaken to refer to "the collapse of the soviet economy". The collapse of the USSR happened in the 1980's and early 90s due to a large number of factors, of which the economy was only one and, in my view, not the main factor. The soviet economy stagnated somewhat, and certainly performed relatively poorly in the latter half of the 70s and into the 80s, but I would argue that the economy itself did not collapse - it continued to operate in a way which, for example, the economy of Zimbabwe - which HAS basically collapsed - does not.

(And on productivity I think the productivity of the Soviet economy would probably compare more favourably than you seem to assume, because the service sector was so small comparatively).

Oh and finally: "lack of desire to talk to a brick wall..."

That's not very fair. Let's remember that:

1. You challenged me to provide examples, so I did so. I'm talking about the operation of the Soviet economy because *you* asked me to.
2. I am happy to debate with you and to listen to and respond to the points you raise, so I don't see how I'm being "a brick wall". A brick wall would be refusing to address your points, and just repeating myself. I don't think I'm doing that.

Recently I listened to a TTC course on Economics which claimed that Soviet Economy experienced a zero % growth rate since the 1960s, which the lecturer said was due to a failure of a planned economy. The initial high growth rate, the lecturer said, was partly due to climbing from a low base initially, and exaggeration by bureaucrats, who were trying to please central planning.
Surely it is fact that planned economies are less efficient than market economies. Otherwise the communist block would have won the cold war. No?

@ Jamie - you are correct in that I was writing you off too quickly; my frustration with certain issues with work spilled onto you. That doesn't mean I don't thing socialists are all loons, but you did nothing to deserve the ire with which I responded, and for that I apologize.

While 'collapse' may not be the best way to describe what happened, historians *generally* agree that Perestroika and Glasnost were brought about due to a slow economic decline in the Soviet block, and an attempt to restart the economy, and those ultimately led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the introduction of a market economy (in theory - while I wouldn't exactly describe the Russian economy as 'free and open', it definitely isn't something I would call socialist any longer).

There are many ways to compare economic systems, but doing apples to apples can be a challenge when comparing the US and the Soviet Union, due to a) inaccurate reported numbers and b) measuring different things. While the Soviet economy 'worked' in the sense that things were being built and people were (mostly) being fed and clothed, the lot of a Soviet citizen was hardly sweetness and light. And while you stated a preference to decouple the economic system and the political system, the economic system of the SU *depended* upon the political system, for without the state *forcing* people to do things their way (ie: "you can move to Siberia to work in a new factory, or you can move to Siberia and rot in a gulag. Your preference?"), a socialist society just isn't going to work - without the Invisible Hand of the market to 'tell' people what is needed and what is not, central planning is required, and the only way central planning works is either if a) everyone decides that it is a keen idea to listen to Moscva or b) the people in Moscva have all the guns and will *shoot* you if you don't do what you're told.

@Spyman: "Surely it is fact that planned economies are less efficient than market economies. Otherwise the communist block would have won the cold war. No?"

No. The USSR started out so far behind the USA that when the Cold War environment caused them to spend TWO THIRDS of their GDP on military projects, there was no way that, even though they had made huge progress economically, they would be able to compete with the USA in terms of the production of consumer goods. This, coupled with a number of other factors, led to the social unrest which brought about the fall of Soviet Communism.

@stratagos: "you did nothing to deserve the ire with which I responded, and for that I apologize."

Apology accepted mate - and I appreciate you having the balls to say so. Sorry to hear about your work stress.

Building on what I said to Spyman, I agree with you that economic decline had a major part to play in the eventual fall of the USSR. However, it is my view that many of the factors which brought about that economic decline are not factors which are 'built in' to socialism or a command economy, and therefore the example of the USSR does not, in my view, prove that communism can never work. I could write a very long essay here, but I've probably bored everyone enough, so to summarise very briefly:

- I totally agree that a lot of the massive construction in Siberia was foolish, uncessary, and massively costly.

- I feel that the vast amount of military spending (as I've noted, around 66% of GDP over a prolonged period) had an substantial negative impact on the economy - although it provided employment and drove technological progress, it diverted resources away from other production which would have allowed greater improvements in the standard of living. I consider this a very imporant issue.

- I agree that when estabishing a communist system, to a certain extent it can be necessary to force people to do things where, in a market system, they would have a choice and not be forced. However I think there is a tendency to over-state the value of 'choice'. I think in a lot of cases, in a capitalist economy, people are offered 'choices' that are either meaningless, or where there is only one sensible choice. I would also argue that choice can in many cases be very economically inefficient and wasteful, because choice inherently requires over-capacity. I would also point out that, even in capitalism, you force people to do all sorts of things like pay taxes, attend school, and you force companies to meet all sorts of standards, so it's not the case that only communism "forces people to do things their way".

Ultimately, for me, the 'invisible hand of the market' inevitably condemns many people to live in poverty unecessarily while other people grow rich. That stinks, and I feel it is our duty as civilised human beings to look for a better way.

"Ultimately, for me, the 'invisible hand of the market' inevitably condemns many people to live in poverty unecessarily while other people grow rich. That stinks, and I feel it is our duty as civilised human beings to look for a better way. "

I actually agree that there must be a 'better way' - but I *don't* agree that socialism is any better.

Now, I'm pretty happy with capitalism because I make a decent wage, but I *busted my ass* to get where I am. I worked 40 hour weeks for years while taking night school to get an education, which meant I had pretty much no social life for about a *decade*, and then I moved all over the freaking country chasing a buck and a contract, which helped build my resume. I made short term sacrifices for long term gain, and while I freely admit that many people aren't in a position to make the sacrifices I did, there are others who chose not to - and while I certainly don't feel they *should* follow the path I did, I don't see it as unjust that my investment in myself is (finally!) starting to pay off.

That isn't to say I didn't have certain advantages - education costs being lower in So Cal when I lived there, for example, and being a heterosexual white male, which pretty much eliminated discrimination issues - but I sure as hell didn't get opportunity handed to me, and I certainly don't feel that I'm 'evil' for making an above average income. The government takes a nice chunk of my 'above average' income in taxes and - in theory - is supposed to use it to help those less fortunate.

Of course, they end up pissing the majority of it away, but there isn't a hell of a lot I can do about that.