According to Table One in the document you linked, for most of the 20th century, India was almost 40 ranks wealthier per capita than the USA. Are you really claiming this data is extremely unlikely to be significantly wrong?
You’re proving taw’s point. You are so eager to find faults that you don’t even double check long enough to realize that the table is ordered form poorest to wealthiest. If that’s not selective perception I don’t know what is.
Point. I will freely grant I was skimming looking for flaws; but some of those rankings still look dubious. What data are they based on? Official figures on the wealth of communist countries greatly differed from reality—in particular, compare the official exchange rates with the actual black market ones. (Comparing wealth across countries sensitively depends on the exchange rates used.)
As for the general argument, when an unlikely (and probably politically motivated) claim is presented, are you saying you think ‘skim briefly looking for flaws’ is a bad approach to take, at least initially? If so, would you apply that same standard to other unlikely claims?
As for the general argument, when an unlikely (and probably politically motivated) claim is presented, are you saying you think ‘skim briefly looking for flaws’ is a bad approach to take, at least initially?
No, but once you spot “flaws” you should at least check whether they actually are.
Yeah, thinking about it, it’s been quite some time since I’ve seen anyone try to defend the Soviet Union on economic grounds; in the old days, those who did so, tended to do it based on obviously off the wall ‘data’. I should really have realized anything quite that flaky wouldn’t likely be linked approvingly from LW, and updated my priors accordingly.
So chalk one up for be careful about reacting off the cuff to X just because it seems to resemble previously encountered Y and Z.
Trust me here that I am not defending the Soviet Union in terms of any moral or ultimate economic success (I have ties to a “Former Soviet Republic” and know the failings on both accounts)...but it should be noted that the rate of growth of the Soviet economy, and the rate of improvement of quality of life, outpaced that of Western Europe and the US from time of the revolution to about the late 50′s early 60′s (give or take).
It should be noted that Russia at the time of the revolution was barely “developed” and was fully in the grips of a system based on serfdom bordering on (if not actually equivalent to) slavery. It was, in common parlance, “backwards”. They were coming from quite the depths, and made great strides.
In doing so, they brought their standard of living up, and their level of “development” up, while managing to bring their agricultural production down. Sooner or later it was all a diminishing return, but the Soviet system in the early years was at least defensible on certain grounds.
Ultimately that system did not succeed, but it points the notion that different systems might be better for different things. What might have happened had the Soviets edged towards capitalism more in the manner of recent China, or if they had not bankrupted themselves on military spending? (and by extension, what can we as capitalists learn from that last point?)
According to Table One in the document you linked, for most of the 20th century, India was almost 40 ranks wealthier per capita than the USA. Are you really claiming this data is extremely unlikely to be significantly wrong?
You’re proving taw’s point. You are so eager to find faults that you don’t even double check long enough to realize that the table is ordered form poorest to wealthiest. If that’s not selective perception I don’t know what is.
Point. I will freely grant I was skimming looking for flaws; but some of those rankings still look dubious. What data are they based on? Official figures on the wealth of communist countries greatly differed from reality—in particular, compare the official exchange rates with the actual black market ones. (Comparing wealth across countries sensitively depends on the exchange rates used.)
As for the general argument, when an unlikely (and probably politically motivated) claim is presented, are you saying you think ‘skim briefly looking for flaws’ is a bad approach to take, at least initially? If so, would you apply that same standard to other unlikely claims?
No, but once you spot “flaws” you should at least check whether they actually are.
Yeah, thinking about it, it’s been quite some time since I’ve seen anyone try to defend the Soviet Union on economic grounds; in the old days, those who did so, tended to do it based on obviously off the wall ‘data’. I should really have realized anything quite that flaky wouldn’t likely be linked approvingly from LW, and updated my priors accordingly.
So chalk one up for be careful about reacting off the cuff to X just because it seems to resemble previously encountered Y and Z.
Trust me here that I am not defending the Soviet Union in terms of any moral or ultimate economic success (I have ties to a “Former Soviet Republic” and know the failings on both accounts)...but it should be noted that the rate of growth of the Soviet economy, and the rate of improvement of quality of life, outpaced that of Western Europe and the US from time of the revolution to about the late 50′s early 60′s (give or take).
It should be noted that Russia at the time of the revolution was barely “developed” and was fully in the grips of a system based on serfdom bordering on (if not actually equivalent to) slavery. It was, in common parlance, “backwards”. They were coming from quite the depths, and made great strides.
In doing so, they brought their standard of living up, and their level of “development” up, while managing to bring their agricultural production down. Sooner or later it was all a diminishing return, but the Soviet system in the early years was at least defensible on certain grounds.
Ultimately that system did not succeed, but it points the notion that different systems might be better for different things. What might have happened had the Soviets edged towards capitalism more in the manner of recent China, or if they had not bankrupted themselves on military spending? (and by extension, what can we as capitalists learn from that last point?)