1

Topic: Planned vs Market

Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? A unique argument - that Stalin won war. But it no more than history ignorance because on the other hand there was also a planned economy. It were  plans. In remaining it there was the full sediment so Hitler entered coupons into 39 ohm, and Stalin in the first five-years period to economy had a hunger, and the plan which many indexes fulfilled only in the fiftieth, and a standard of living below happy imperial 1913 at seven-day week in 40 to year. The argument about Stalin - is insignificant. War showed that Hitler appeared even worse the planner than Stalin. At the same time the USA prospered on the  economy. Besides without a labor feat.

2

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? Simply people see the Russian problems that the industry collapses and search for output ways. Also find the most simple: it is necessary to force. To lower the plan for each factory and a way work. Further their thought does not go anywhere, they do not think that produced it is necessary to sell and what to do if it buys nobody.

3

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, qwertyuiop, you wrote: Q> Simply people see the Russian problems that the industry collapses and search for output ways. Also find the most simple: it is necessary to force. To lower the plan for each factory and a way work. Further their thought does not go anywhere, they do not think that produced it is necessary to sell and what to do if it buys nobody. Buys. And if will not take - we disconnect gas.

4

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? A unique argument - that Stalin won war. Market at us was till 1917. All its "advantages" well-known. If you do not trust, you can look in Liberia. Or in Ukraine.

5

Re: Planned vs Market

A> If you do not trust, you can look in Liberia. Or in Ukraine. In other countries it is forbidden to look, I so understood. Clearly-clearly.

6

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? The zajapadnaja planned economy on the sustainable development concept appeared a trash

7

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? A unique argument - that Stalin won war. But it no more than history ignorance because on the other hand there was also a planned economy. It were  plans. In remaining it there was the full sediment so Hitler entered coupons into 39 ohm, and Stalin in the first five-years period to economy had a hunger, and the plan which many indexes fulfilled only in the fiftieth, and a standard of living below happy imperial 1913 at seven-day week in 40 to year. The argument about Stalin - is insignificant. War showed that Hitler appeared even worse the planner than Stalin. At the same time the USA prospered on the  economy. Besides without a labor feat. , I do not agree with you about Stalin. I think, in Germany the economy was to a lesser degree planned; besides, France and England with their market economies appeared frankly feeble in the war beginning. The planned economy allows to concentrate all resources of the country for needs of war, therefore in short-term perspective it is stronger. The market economy  is stronger in long-term perspective: at it independent manufacture is better develops, there are more freedom of creativity, the science etc. Therefore by the end of Cold war of the USA definitely moves ahead advanced the USSR on level of technological development. Earlier example - in 19 century Europe achieved the scientific and technical superiority over the Asian monarchy. Perhaps, the same England during war which I mentioned in the beginning, too can be an example: if in the war beginning England was much more feeble than Germany by the end it very much increased military power.

8

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? Because the western economy - planned. Look at large corporations - they work on the plan. And precisely also in advance plan the future incomes and sales amounts.

9

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, zverjuga, you wrote: Z> because the western economy - planned. Look at large corporations - they work on the plan. And precisely also in advance plan the future incomes and sales amounts. As an ass with a finger - the general only a root "plan".

10

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, Muxa, you wrote: A>> If you do not trust, you can look in Liberia. Or in Ukraine. M> in other countries it is forbidden to look, I so understood. Clearly-clearly. It is possible. But only and too it is necessary to look at these countries to complete the picture. That there was no illusion "here in the USA market economy and in France, we accept it too and everything, well-being becomes at once as at them". No, can become and as in Liberia. An economy type only one of many factors.

11

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, fmiracle, you wrote: F> Is not present, can become and as in Liberia. Can. Actually, at us and now it is not much better. Therefore besides an economy choice it is necessary to be engaged in its protection still. But if to select planned at us never will be as in the USA.

12

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, zverjuga, you wrote: Z> because the western economy - planned. Look at large corporations - they work on the plan. And precisely also in advance plan the future incomes and sales amounts. And how, at them it turns out? They can plan everything, but they work on the market, and there there can be competitors which  your plan to hell. Unlike a planned economy where the state guarantees sale because competitors there are not present basically. Generally, the dogma of communists that "in the west too plan" fairly bothered, it would be time to invent something .

13

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, qwertyuiop, you wrote: Q> Generally, the dogma of communists that "in the west too plan" fairly bothered, it would be time to invent something . At what here dogma of communists? That eyes happens see. Well and if to you bothered, it is your American Indian problems. Behind claims go to the western economy which works according to plan.

14

Re: Planned vs Market

What it is better, planned or market economy? The answer can be found in biology. That it is better: eugenics or evolution? All has pluses and minuses. The planned economy is based on planning, at the registration of set of parameters, the big calculations, the full registration of all data (information collection about all expenditure and needs - that by the way all cash registers in the Russian Federation now do, collecting the data for  in real time) and gives the chance  to refine system operation, twisting certain characteristics. As a matter of fact being engaged in eugenics. It is said that at well debugged planned economy it is possible to receive stable growth in 8 %, thus not to have falling. Minuses at the given system, the bad adaptability under the environment that leads to low stability. Free, market economy is similar to evolution, in it people try to earn, i.e. create variability, thus demand gives rise to selection. . This system more floppy also is most strongly adjusted for the environment, however it has also minuses... It can develop as with high rates, as well as low and to fall... I.e. can give development above 8 %, can below 8 %, and can leave in a minus... But on the average always there is a growth, is possible less than in a planned economy, however such oscillations there-here allows to be steadier.

15

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? A unique argument - that Stalin won war. But it no more than history ignorance because on the other hand there was also a planned economy. It were  plans. In remaining it there was the full sediment so Hitler entered coupons into 39 ohm, and Stalin in the first five-years period to economy had a hunger, and the plan which many indexes fulfilled only in the fiftieth, and a standard of living below happy imperial 1913 at seven-day week in 40 to year. The argument about Stalin - is insignificant. War showed that Hitler appeared even worse the planner than Stalin. At the same time the USA prospered on the  economy. Besides without a labor feat. Gleb, planned and market, the economy should be such. And works in the majority of the most developed countries. At Stalin too there was a market for it operates always and does not depend on will of the governor. But it clamped, therefore understood that it is necessary than to compensate that. Entered planning to which then still in few places paid attention. Entered the plan-order. At a qualitative hand control such economy appeared is effective, especially then when all population rallied before fascism threat. And after a victory many believed that it and is the present socialism (a development right way). You in it of the rights. The success of the USSR, led to that that almost all countries began to apply planning. But in developed market economies it is the plan-forecast. Affected positively, as well as should, for it is reasonable. It too affected myth formation about infallibility of Stalin system. After all the majority did not see the USSR from within. Worldwide began to follow on the Stalin socialist way. Cuba, Vietnam... Still the reason in that that in the USSR did not teach economy as a science. The university political economy well assorted only capitalism of a level of development of times of Charles Marx. Accordingly now economy at us do not know. The niece finished Pleshku, the economist with the experience, itself perfectly understands that almost did not give knowledge. And illiterate it is easy to "explain" all simple recipes.

16

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? A unique argument - that Stalin won war. At all only. Though it is already enough of it. Rates of increase at Stalin were the greatest in the world (probably and to this day). Principal advantage of a planned economy that it can concentrate country resources on definite purposes. In Stalin years the purpose was - industrialization and escalating of military power not to lose in approaching war. I do not have doubts that the market economy could not organize for the same short time so industry rapid growth. And at Stalin not all economy was state. More than 30 % of gross national product co-operative farms and private traders created. A problem only that our communists had a Marxist dogma that the property - angrily. Stalin too adhered to it, but it had a scent and it somehow avoided bad moves. And here its followers began to follow Marxist dogmas absolutely that led the country up a blind alley. Plus they betrayed a major principle which distinguished a socialism from capitalism. Stalin described the socialism and communism purpose - the maximum satisfaction of needs of all members of a society. And after  reforms by the purpose there was a profit obtaining. And it, in the conditions of absence of a competition, led to degradation and regeneration of communists in capitalists. GZ> but it no more than history ignorance because on the other hand there was also a planned economy. It were  plans. What communication between militaristic plans and a planned economy? At you the next attack of absence of communication in reasonings. Well, and the economy Hitlerite Germany was not planned. And the Marxist theory the plan not the purpose, and only means. It is not a system index. The main thing in the Marxist theory was absence of a private property on means of production. And Hitler had absolutely capitalist system based on a private property. The state did orders at private concerns, and those did sentences. Hitler kept on Porshah, Me and other Kruppah. So did not sweep bosh. As a matter of fact the Stalin economic system was related to one big corporation. And in Germany those there was a set and all of them were quotients. GZ> in remaining it there was the full sediment so Hitler entered coupons into 39 ohm, and Stalin in the first five-years period to economy had a hunger, Coupons entered both the United Kingdom, and France and many other countries. And hunger in Russia was and for hundreds years to Stalin. At us one continuous zone of unstable agriculture and poor harvests happen with periodicity of times in 3-15 years. Simply communists broke old system of caching of grain, and too were fond . Here hunger also led to disastrous consequences. GZ> and the plan, which many indexes fulfilled only in the fiftieth, One more false statement. The first five-years periods were fulfilled despite that the majority did not believe that it is possible. GZ> and a standard of living below happy imperial 1913 at seven-day week in 40 to year. Well, happy it was only for a bar yes misters. Otherwise this revolution so would not support. And a standard of living Stalin, and Nikolay 2 lowered to a plinth not, provisional government, and Lenin with Trotsky. Stalin took out the country from an ass and delivered on feet. And just passage to a planned economy also allowed to make it. GZ> the argument about Stalin - is insignificant. War showed that Hitler appeared even worse the planner than Stalin. It only in your imagination. And in a reality war showed that Hitler who by then has crushed under all Europe, lost the USSR in the economic plan. And this with the fact that many factories have been contracted and transported for Ural Mountains. And many also are blown simply up. Hitler had following advantages: 1. Excellent tactics of tank breaks. This tactics allowed to crush Frenchmen and Englishmen. 2. Suddenness. Misinformation and other games of politics he forced Stalin to check that does not attack on June, 22nd 1941 year. 3. Control over resources of all old Europe. 4. The strong centralized power. And for that matter, England and France were too capitalist. But they simply laid down before Hitler having spread and moving apart feet. So if you consider Hitlerite economy planned you should recognize that the planned economy is much more effective market in the military plan, at least that base that two leading capitalist economy could oppose nothing to Hitler. GZ> at the same time the USA prospered on the  economy. Besides without a labor feat. The USA produced industrialization throughout 200 last years. The USSR transited the same way for 20 years, to be exact even for 10 as the first of these 10 years have been spent for squabbles with Lenin and Trotsky and on searches of ways. So both types of economy are effective. And both have advantages and lacks. But that as the country develops and reaches the purposes depends not on economy type more, and from that who costs at a wheel.

17

Re: Planned vs Market

VD> At all only. Though it is already enough of it. Rates of increase at Stalin were the greatest in the world (probably and to this day). Driving from a bottom implies always high growth... 30-70 % growth in a year from Zimbabwe after inflation in billions percent... Or after 200 % of falling growth in 30 %... VD> Principal advantage of a planned economy that it can concentrate country resources on definite purposes. In Stalin years the purpose was - industrialization and escalating of military power not to lose in approaching war. It becomes in market economy... VD> I do not have doubts that the market economy could not organize for the same short time so industry rapid growth. The USA unless not an example, after crisis 30 years, manufacture of army production in the USA in 40 that sufficed to export on ...

18

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, alpha21264, you wrote: GZ>> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? A unique argument - that Stalin won war. A> market at us was till 1917. All its "advantages" well-known. A> If you do not trust, you can look in Liberia. Or in Ukraine. You are not right, any economy market. A trouble in pure liberalism which pours out in obedience of the USA without thinking about own interests.

19

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, zverjuga, you wrote: GZ>> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? Z> because the western economy - planned. Look at large corporations - they work on the plan. And precisely also in advance plan the future incomes and sales amounts. And the dealer in the market - too plans. Also what? Planned character is does not mean there are no schedulings. It means that players plan, there is no coherent plan. As a result - there is no vertical integration. Also it is necessary to note that the western economy it first of all small and average business.

20

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, qwertyuiop, you wrote: Q> and there there can be competitors which  your plan to hell. And it is frequent at the Boeing with Intel competitors appear?

21

Re: Planned vs Market

22

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: VD>> And for that matter, England and France were too capitalist. But they simply laid down before Hitler having spread and moving apart feet. GZ> England - is not present. I think, if not La Manche, England would be blown off as easily as France. On the other hand, if France had 4 years on militarization, Frenchmen too not bad would show themselves.

23

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? A unique argument - that Stalin won war. As  clever men which are not able to consider a planned economy and a socialism without Stalin. Over ! It is time. And market economy in the form of a piece  I behind a window see every day. These are two. Capitalism, the market - on ! Who considers all on another - over ! Only a socialism and a planned economy, and in any way differently! There is nothing to consider here and so clearly! Who writes in  words "USSR" or "Stalin" - that transited selection on  to a quota.

24

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, Cornetov, you wrote: the C> You is not right, any economy market. Only in the sense that people live by market principles. But the state can create market economy, deprive of the enterprise of independence and subordinate to a State Planning Committee. A C> the Trouble in pure liberalism which pours out in obedience of the USA without thinking about own interests. Here whence this ?!!! What communication between liberalism and submission of the USA without thinking about own interests?

25

Re: Planned vs Market

Hello, Berserk, you wrote: Clearly that plans not as in the USSR, but they are always. For example, present that in the world the new technological branch was formed. The state with pure market economy in any way does not react to it - let the market hand resolves. And the normal state starts to think, how on it to earn. Starts to flavor with grants of scientists, to prepare teachers that would train experts, gives tax privileges to the new enterprises, selects the earths, constructs an infrastructure is an operation for years and without planning here not to manage in any way. Whether and who solves this branch is perspective or not? If in the state someone makes such decisions - that is a direct way to corruption, for a small board this person recognizes manufacture   perspective and produces all privileges. Or it is necessary to produce privileges all without an exception to new branches? But then it will be the legalized robbery of the state - dream of Petrika.