Jim F.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:16:06 +0000 "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
writes:
> Planned systems are OK at simply defined crash projects to which
> unlimited
> resources can be devoted. The Soviets had a handful of good products
> in
> machine tools, weapons systems, and the like. But you can't eat that
> stuff.
> Despite decades of efforts under Brezhnev, they failed to develop
> adequate
> consumer goods because you can't treat them like Kalashnikovs.
> Economists
> call this the difference between intensive and extensive
> development. This
> is tedious. Go read, e,g., Ellman's Socialsit Planning or Shmelev's
> &
> Popov's TheTurning point, or Nove's Economics of Feasile Socialism,
> or
> Kornai's The Socialsit System, and then if you want to discuss this
> stuff we
> can do so in an informed way. jks
> >
> >jks -- There's no comparison with Soviet goods, none. Soviet TV
> sets
> >regularly
> >exploded; the smart purchaser kept a bucket of sand by the set.
> There was a
> >actually a TV show under perestroika that was based on making fun
> of
> >worthless goods. A handful of Soviet products, machine tools and
> the like,
> >were world market quality. For the rest, Soviet industry made stuff
> that
> >was
> >
> >unmarketable.
> >
> >They built pretty good MiGs and Kalashnikovs and space stations. I
> think
> >priorities had something to do with this.
> >
> >Didn't the USSR sell cars to Latin America?
> >
> >Chris Doss
> >The Russia Journal
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.