Why Russia’s Economy Survives | Hacker News Reader

Why Russia’s Economy Survives

wsj.com

32 pointsjseliger36 comments

> When the Soviet Union confronted this array of challenges in the mid-1980s, it promptly collapsed.

Bullshit. Soviet economy was just fine at the end of the Cold War. In fact Soviet GDP per capita was half that of the US, compared to now where it's like 10% of the US. Many historians agree that there was no economic need for the Soviet Union to be dismantled.

Article reads of conventional wisdom as advocated by Cold War propaganda about the Soviet Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

The Russian SSR actually seceded, with its delegates citing economic reasons - in particular giving more than recieving.

Compared to western countries there was a palpable lack of consumer goods.

*seceded

Sorry, but I spent a few minutes trying to make sense of that :)

Every time I read about the "lack of consumer goods" in the eastern block as proof of its justified demise I kringe. On the one hand, it sounds just mean to denounce the efforts of complete nations (unfree or not) by such a mundane metric as whether you can choose between a plethora of car brands and models or just choose between "No-Car" and "Car". Having "Car" is still good. But the difference between output in the west and the east tells so much about how this diversion must have come about: much, much force. In so many aspects of daily life.

Most easterners have them, their stories of this ridiculous economy. A friend of mine owns an ash-tray that is simultaneously a rubber duck (!). But my favourite story is still the one of once-staunch socialist Dr. Wolfgang Seiffert who was part of a COMECON conference somewhere in the southern GDR in the 1960s. There, top economists of the eastern bloc conferred about why there was an ongoing shortage of toothbrushes in Saxonia. After three weeks he broke with the idea of central planning (and the mindset that created it):

1) Not only did the system provide a shortage for such an inferior day-to-day product as toothbrushes

2) The system needed its elite economists to gather for three weeks to find a solution

3) which they didn't

The eastern bloc's economic prospects were dire from the get-go and some in the elite knew very early on. It's not a coincidence that Putin comes from one part of that elite that knew all too well: the KGB.

It's not very clear how the GDP was calculated. Don't forget, the rouble was not freely convertible in USD.

But if anyone ever calculated the per capita GDP of the Soviet Union in the late 80's to be half of the US, then how come there were huge lines to buy the basic necessities, most people were driving Ladas [1] (the people who were driving anything, that is), you couldn't travel outside the communist bloc, there was a huge black market in western products (audio and video equipment, western music and movies, blue jeans, cigarettes)?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_Riva

Money was diverted to their war machine fighting the Americans. Their economy was 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the US but they were spending 2/3 of America's military budget so up to 20% of their GDP was going to the war machine.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/31/world/soviet-military-budg...

https://www.quora.com/What-was-it-like-to-live-in-the-Soviet...

> The cold war. Given the failing economy, what limited resources were available went to the military and the related science fields. The Soviet Union had lots and lots of tanks, a huge army and countless nuclear missiles. Somehow I have a feeling that the Soviet education was also quite good, it's just that the money was going elsewhere. Most other areas were quite neglected.

Apparently in the 80s they had problems producing consumer goods in general due to a declining economy and bad quality control and manufacturing processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_goods_in_the_Soviet_U...

According to your source (Wikipedia), the Soviet economy was in crisis.

"It was only when Andropov's protege Gorbachev assumed power that a determined, but ultimately unsuccessful, assault on __the economic crisis__ was undertaken."

Call this propaganda if you will: https://www.aei.org/feature/the-soviet-collapse/

The Soviet Union became increasingly dependent on grain imports into the 70s and 80s. They had paid for this grain with oil. In the eighties, the price of oil collapsed, and they were forced to take loans to pay for the grain. As the amount of the loans got larger, banks became unwilling to make them. The Soviet Union was just months from mass starvation when it collapsed.

Having lived in that country, no, it was not fine. Queues for basic foodstuff, severely limited access to services, blatant lack of any manfucatured goods, horrendous public infrastructure etc. are not the signs of a "fine" economy. When a world superpower has to carry out a "food programme" to feed the population in the 80s, it kinda speaks for itself.

A significant part of the leftist worldview depends on the idea that communism/socialism only ever failed because the west sabotaged it. In fairness, of course the west sabotaged it (see the other thread here), but of course, they sabotaged the west as well, and as Nash pointed out, stability under adversarial conditions is not an optional part of an economic system.

Now of course this isn't true, as anyone who's seen those times will tell you. There's plenty of people who emigrated who aren't exactly shy about that matter, so this is well known.

But because half of the left thinks this reflects on the very core of their favored ideology, that the state should decide everything and make it just, fair and ... (they think that somehow includes them, despite the constant reminders to the opposite). And you can see why. On a deep level there's the fear it means that UN can never work, as it depends on state power overriding local power. That global warming is unsolvable. That capitalists will always win, that ...

So you'll never convince a decent percentage on this site. The others ? They don't need convincing. The big secret of course is that a pretty decent majority of this site is extremely capitalist (I believe the current American term is liberalist), but simply know better than to go against leftist viewpoints online, because the reactions are immediate and downvoting, insults and bans will follow soon.

Depressing. Is there any reason to think Putin's strategies are unsustainable?

How is this depressing? Is it not a good thing that Putin's conservative fiscal and monetary strategies were able to keep Russia afloat?

Not if you're in a country bordering it.

Do you seriously expect Putin, of all people, to raise up neighboring countries in lieu of Russia? He is a strategist who puts his country above all else.

This is practically out of Machiavelli's The Prince: Putin "entertains" neighboring countries and keeps a strong grip over them. But he won't expend resources on them.

You have invented a straw man. The parent was referring to activity such as draining resources and stoking fears in the populace of Estonia. See http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-russia-....

Also, Russia's backing of Assad in Syria propped up a dictator assaulting civilians with banned chemical weapons and lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and a refugee crisis that disrupted a continent.

Sabre-rattling destabilizing Estonia. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-russia-...

How we supposed to read this paywalled story?

Click the "web" link under the submission title and follow the link to the article on the subsequent page. Some people find it necessary to use an incognito window.

"Why Venezuela's Economy Survives" (under Chavez)

It won't. Big government and economy stability are incompatible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com