Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

[2tallbill]

Ranetka,

Bills ball bearing factory would be insured by private insurance. Bill likes
making money so he would rebuild his factory.



What happened to the banking system? it was forced to use socialist
type "feel good" policies against it's will. The problem was 100% socialist
caused and 0% capitalist caused. The socialist in the US try to cause a
problem in an industry then blame the industry for the problem, then take
over the industry.

Look at energy, look at the car industry, at banking every single one of the
problems facing these industries is due to socialists screwing the pooch. 


[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMnSp4qEXNM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMnSp4qEXNM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[Blues Fairy]

I just think your last paragraph describes exactly what have just happened with (capitalists) banking system.

So the greedy and corrupt capitalists are all to blame for the crisis? How about the Government meddling with banking system to impose regulations for unsustainable crediting of people who had no business buying houses?  And the dishonest people in the industry making bargains with the socialist government to run away with golden parachutes after receiving billions of taxpayer money?  

Couldn't have happened if the principles of capitalism were upheld.

[2tallbill]

The problems with the banking system is due to the socialist
tinkering with it and making it more socialist.

Greed? Capitalist do not give people bad loans for greed. That's
like saying they throw money down the drain for greed.



 
Capitalist = good
Socialist  = misguided at best

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[BC]

Greed? Capitalist do not give people bad loans for greed. That's
like saying they throw money down the drain for greed.

Well whatever system, the results were visible and strikingly similar (large amounts of common folk lost their investments, jobs etc..), this time on the other side of the iron curtain. The only difference is maybe that this time 'round homes are being lost in the west.  I don't really remember this being much of a factor with the fall of the USSR.

USSR.. interesting... United States Socialist Republic??

[Shadow]

The problem with central planning socialism is that the planners no
matter how hard they try, no matter how clever, or educated or
honest make mistakes. When Central Planning socialists make mistakes
people die

The central planners can never adequately plan for everything. A
flood may cause a bearing factory to be closed. Suddenly you don't
have critical replacement parts for government made harvesters
(which have a bearing problem) and the grain which is absolutely necessary
for bread is left rotting in the fields.

This would never happen in a market economy. If Bills ball bearing factory
was flooded out then Bobs ball bearing factory (Bills competitor) would
supply the needed bearings. But none of this would be an issue since
a half dozen farming equipment supply companies would have the bearing
in stock.

And that wouldn't be a problem since there would be 10 different
brands of harvester all in competition and not just one state harvester. So if
John Deer harvesters had a bearing problem they would fix it, and have replacement
bearings at each of their dealers otherwise they would lose business to
the 9 other harvester companies.

If you multiply this one little problem which was completely unforeseeable
ten thousand times and then add in mismanagement, human errors, rosy
predictions, threats, politics, and, CYA because to be found making such a
mistake could be death anyone can see that Central planning socialism is
bound to fail.
 
Now imagine that state run system loaded with a few dishonest people
who only care about their little fiefdom and are so afraid to be caught
making a mistake that they allow things to happen even when they know
they it will be disastrous but they let it happen any because they were only
following orders.

The orders which might have been given by someone who had no clue about harvesters, bearings, etc, etc multiplied a thousand times in every industry,
service and occupation.

This goes if the central government does not have the idea to make multiple plants were they produce the same things.
Just like capitalist factories have multiple plants to ensure continuation of production.
Pointing at this as a flaw would not be a flaw of the system, but illogically not providing backup systems.

[2tallbill]

This goes if the central government does not have the idea to make multiple plants were they produce the same things.
Just like capitalist factories have multiple plants to ensure continuation of production.
Pointing at this as a flaw would not be a flaw of the system, but illogically not providing backup systems.

Nope, If the Central government builds harvesters then they have ONE design.
Maybe two factories but likely only one. They certainly don't compete with each
other.

John Deer has a harvester design but it is totally different than International Harvester,
Case Harvesters, or New Holland harvesters. They each competitively try to out do each other. They each compete for the same customers.

They are better because of competition. A farmer can buy any machine he wants. He
will buy the one he decides is the best for the price.

It's like the Lada, it could never compete with foreign competition because it didn't
have the design, styling or performance of foreign cars which have tons of competition.

[Shadow]

Nope, If the Central government builds harvesters then they have ONE design.
Maybe two factories but likely only one. They certainly don't compete with each
other.

John Deer has a harvester design but it is totally different than International Harvester,
Case Harvesters, or New Holland harvesters. They each competitively try to out do each other. They each compete for the same customers.

They are better because of competition. A farmer can buy any machine he wants. He
will buy the one he decides is the best for the price.

It's like the Lada, it could never compete with foreign competition because it didn't
have the design, styling or performance of foreign cars which have tons of competition.

How many USSR cars were there ? Please name them and the models they had.
Competition is different from the scenario you offered where if one factory fails the whole chain goes down.
Still any redesign or new design is limited by a number of factors, and done for a number of purposes.

[Blues Fairy]

How many USSR cars were there ? Please name them and the models they had.

What's the point if they were/are all crap.
Russian auto industry is a brilliant example of a product of a planned economy that can't compete even after the planned economy has been scrapped.

[Misha]

Misha, every nation that has fought to come in existence has to regret a lot of bloodshed.

Whataboutism: "SOVIET propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed “whataboutism”. Any criticism of the Soviet Union (Afghanistan, martial law in Poland, imprisonment of dissidents, censorship) was met with a “What about...” (apartheid South Africa, jailed trade-unionists, the Contras in Nicaragua, and so forth)." (source: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=E1_TDVJRSSQ).

Sorry, I must have missed the news reports of the millions of people being killed in the United States and Canada in the 20th century or the extensive network of GULAGS established in in North America.... Then again, Canada did not invade any countries the last century and execute thousands in the forests...

[2tallbill]

How many USSR cars were there ? Please name them and the models they had.
Competition is different from the scenario you offered where if one factory fails the whole chain goes down.
Still any redesign or new design is limited by a number of factors, and done for a number of purposes.

I was talking about the harvester because it was directly related to the food
supply and eating, but the answer is the same, there were much less cars, and makes and models available under the Soviet system than the capitalist system.

Very few people could even dream of buying one of the new crappy soviet cars
and if somebody could buy a car they didn't have several brands and models to
of new cars to look at.

Why don't you name a few makes and models along with their production numbers.
Only the privileged ruling class ever had a chance at many of those cars when they
were new. 

[Shadow]

I was talking about the harvester because it was directly related to the food
supply and eating, but the answer is the same, there were much less cars, and makes and models available under the Soviet system than the capitalist system.

Very few people could even dream of buying one of the new crappy soviet cars
and if somebody could buy a car they didn't have several brands and models to
of new cars to look at.

Why don't you name a few makes and models along with their production numbers.
Only the privileged ruling class ever had a chance at many of those cars when they
were new. 

Many of those harvesters are still running, and not just because people can not afford new ones.
Regarding the USSR cars, I drove a Lada myself ( long before I was thinking about RW) and concluded it could compete with any car in its class when driven properly. Going at 100Mph in a Lada you do make people think about buying a new car though 
Of course mine was an 'export version', as local production was rumoured to be lass in quality.

[BC]

Many of those harvesters are still running, and not just because people can not afford new ones.
Regarding the USSR cars, I drove a Lada myself ( long before I was thinking about RW) and concluded it could compete with any car in its class when driven properly. Going at 100Mph in a Lada you do make people think about buying a new car though 
Of course mine was an 'export version', as local production was rumoured to be lass in quality.

I was also impressed with the old Lada's, and even Volga's.. nice comfortable ride on rough roads, can take a lickin and keep on tickin..

In the OP, I asked how things would be without all those cold war expenditures..   I'm sure those funds could have been used for more tractors and vehicles.

All in all, low availability of private cars did have it's advantages..  mass transit that works, is affordable and carries no social stigma when using it.. (this alone has become a dream for many countries).  Also drives down the 'need' for a private vehicle.

Another example is homes..  Quite livable, comfortable as you wish, what is needed vs luxury.

One thing about luxury.. maintenance is quite high, usually credit is involved (living beyond current means) and learning to live without can be difficult.

An economy based on consumer credit is fragile at best. 

[OlgaH]

5.02.2009
Russian car manufacturer AvtoVaz surpassed famous Jaguar and Saab brands in terms of sales on the German car market. Last month Lada sold 198 vehicles, while Jaguar and Saab sold 138 and 112 cars subsequently.
http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/7783/

[Faux Pas]

In the OP, I asked how things would be without all those cold war expenditures..   I'm sure those funds could have been used for more tractors and vehicles.

Somewhat better I imagine but keep in mind both countries have a penchant for finding other things to do with money than better the citizenry. War is big business and that in and of itself perpetuated economy in both places.

An economy based on consumer credit is fragile at best. 

How do you deduce this? Look at the current examples of the US and Russia. Are you implying Russia's economy is stronger than the US? No matter your answer please explain it.

[BC]

Somewhat better I imagine but keep in mind both countries have a penchant for finding other things to do with money than better the citizenry. War is big business and that in and of itself perpetuated economy in both places.

War was made big business might be more accurate.

One thing about luxury.. maintenance is quite high, usually credit is involved (living beyond current means) and learning to live without can be difficult.

An economy based on consumer credit is fragile at best. 

How do you deduce this? Look at the current examples of the US and Russia. Are you implying Russia's economy is stronger than the US? No matter your answer please explain it.

For context, above, I quoted both sentences..  put the two together. 

You want a RU / US example?

ok..

Lets take a RU man with a decently maintained Lada, vs a US man with his imported Ferrari, heck even fancy Toyota, put them on a typical RU road, tell them to drive to some town a few hundred miles away that has normal roads, not highways and see who gets to the destination more relaxed, expending the least amount of funds for petrol, maintenance and wear n tear.. (the Ferrari lost it's front spoiler in a few potholes, the driver of the Toyota with sport suspension was frazzled as well).. nothing like ground clearance on the Lada.

Now put all three on EU or US roads.. All three vehicles will go 130 KMH, all will do fine and the lada will seem like it is floating on clouds.  Yes the other cars were more comfortable, the driver of the Lada was stared and ridiculed like he came from Mars.  Due to the speed limits they all got to their destination within a few minutes of each other.

One day all the drivers were fired from their jobs..  The Ferrari was repo'd, the Toyota listed for someone to take over the lease and the Lada driver still had some savings left to keep him on the road for several months.  The other drivers were in a pickle, trying to find the best way to get to the grocery store..  Oh god... I'm going to have to take a bus..  what will my neighbors think.. and it's only a mile or so to the next bus stop..

No, I'm not saying that the RU economy is in better shape than US, but I will say that the RU man is probably better 'heeled' to deal with a turbulent economy.

Living with less is not necessarily a bad thing.  Relying on credit for the bare necessities in life (roof, transport, food) is a bad thing.

[Faux Pas]

You want a RU / US example?

ok..

Lets take a RU man with a decently maintained Lada, vs a US man with his imported Ferrari, heck even fancy Toyota, put them on a typical RU road, tell them to drive to some town a few hundred miles away that has normal roads, not highways and see who gets to the destination more relaxed, expending the least amount of funds for petrol, maintenance and wear n tear.. (the Ferrari lost it's front spoiler in a few potholes, the driver of the Toyota with sport suspension was frazzled as well).. nothing like ground clearance on the Lada.

Now put all three on EU or US roads.. All three vehicles will go 130 KMH, all will do fine and the lada will seem like it is floating on clouds.  Yes the other cars were more comfortable, the driver of the Lada was stared and ridiculed like he came from Mars.  Due to the speed limits they all got to their destination within a few minutes of each other.

One day all the drivers were fired from their jobs..  The Ferrari was repo'd, the Toyota listed for someone to take over the lease and the Lada driver still had some savings left to keep him on the road for several months.  The other drivers were in a pickle, trying to find the best way to get to the grocery store..  Oh god... I'm going to have to take a bus..  what will my neighbors think.. and it's only a mile or so to the next bus stop..

No, I'm not saying that the RU economy is in better shape than US, but I will say that the RU man is probably better 'heeled' to deal with a turbulent economy.

Living with less is not necessarily a bad thing.  Relying on credit for the bare necessities in life (roof, transport, food) is a bad thing.

I dunno BC. I asked you what time it is and you explained what happens when the watchband is broken. Irrelevant.

You stated "An economy based on consumer credit is fragile at best." Your example hardly provides an explanation. I see consumer credit as the backbone of a capitalist economy as long as it isn't over extended. Which is what we are experiencing in America today. (thanks to government mettling in capitalistic principals) Cash on the barrel will stagnate and decrease any economy and you can hold up Russia as proof. Credit at any level fosters and promotes commerce and the trickle down and up effect is evident.

[Misha]

put them on a typical RU road, tell them to drive to some town a few hundred miles away that has normal roads, not highways and see who gets to the destination more relaxed, expending the least amount of funds for petrol, maintenance and wear n tear..

Have you ever thought why Russia has such bad roads to begin with? Largely due to corruption, lack of quality control, and companies who have more to gain from building bad roads that they will be paid to "repair" the bad roads they purposefully build and corrupt officials who are more than happy to look the other way as their pockets are being lines.

(the Ferrari lost it's front spoiler in a few potholes, the driver of the Toyota with sport suspension was frazzled as well).. nothing like ground clearance on the Lada.

Nonsensical comparison. I grew up in rural Canada and had to travel on muddy dirt roads as well as gravel roads and paved highway. Only an idiot would have chosen a Ferrari even if they could have afforded. If you know how to drive, the Toyota will do just fine. Most farmers drove Chevy and GMC pickup trucks that lasted a decade or more on roads as bad as any in Russia. My personal choice a Subaru that is great for both the city and driving on country dirt roads. Would take any of these options over a Lada any day.

[BC]

I dunno BC. I asked you what time it is and you explained what happens when the watchband is broken. Irrelevant.

You stated "An economy based on consumer credit is fragile at best." Your example hardly provides an explanation. I see consumer credit as the backbone of a capitalist economy as long as it isn't over extended. Which is what we are experiencing in America today. (thanks to government mettling in capitalistic principals) Cash on the barrel will stagnate and decrease any economy and you can hold up Russia as proof. Credit at any level fosters and promotes commerce and the trickle down and up effect is evident.

An economy based on consumer credit is fragile at best.

Answer your question?

[Misha]

An economy based on consumer credit is fragile at best.

General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) started issuing cars on credit in 1919 (source: http://www.bos.frb.org/education/ledger/ledger04/sprsum/credhistory.htm).

So, if an economy based on consumer credit is "fragile at best" why has the United States survived and thrived, whereas you have seen in Russia over this time period: a Revolution (1917), a collapse (1991), a default (1998) and Russia once again teetering economically?

[kievstar]

Starting around 1992 the savings to spending changed in USA for people.  Blame it on MTV.   

[GoodOlBoy]

Blame it on MTV.  

I think I 'll blame this mess on Alan Greenspan and "Slick Willie" Clinton.

Thanks to "Slick Willie" Clinton and Greenspan we are stuck with all of these Fannie Mae (FM) and Freddie Mac's (FM) toxic debts/assets.

It is a well know fact that Bill had to make a "deal" with the Democrats and Democratic leaders after the "Monica" scandal.  :evil:

You see, those GoodOl' Democratic Boy's wanted to throw old Slick Willie under the bus (impeach and removal) because he signed that "pesky" Republican "Welfare Reform Bill".

This drove the Democrats bananas. 

So in a "tit for tat" deal, Bill agreed to twist the lending institutions (FM & FM) arms to loan money to people who have NO BUSINESS borrowing money and the Democrats allowed Bill to stay in the White House with his beloved Hillary. 

Just ask Dick Morris or James Carville.  :evil:

Better yet, read their books. 

 
GOB

[BC]

General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) started issuing cars on credit in 1919 (source: http://www.bos.frb.org/education/ledger/ledger04/sprsum/credhistory.htm).

So, if an economy based on consumer credit is "fragile at best" why has the United States survived and thrived, whereas you have seen in Russia over this time period: a Revolution (1917), a collapse (1991), a default (1998) and Russia once again teetering economically?

because it wasn't always an economy based on consumer credit.  It was a producer of manufactured goods, technology and a balanced exporter.

Foreign Trade Policy Deficit Clock Deficit Chart Deficit Graph Trade Deficit Currency
In 1975, U.S. exports had exceeded foreign imports by $12,400 million, but that would be the last trade surplus the United States would see in the 20th century.

http://economics.about.com/od/foreigntrade/a/trade_deficit_h.htm

[Misha]

because it wasn't always an economy based on consumer credit.  It was a producer of manufactured goods, technology and a balanced exporter.

It has been an economy based on consumer credit for close to a century  Why did GM start selling cars on credit? Quite simple, they realized that they could sell more vehicles with credit and customers were happy because the credit could help them buy a vehicle as they could pay it off in reasonable payments.

The present financial crisis that is now hitting the United States is not a result of consumer credit (that has been around for a century in various forms) but a speculative bubble that burst. It happens that societies fall prey to collective hysteria whereby they want to buy at any price a good that they believe will be worth much more in the future. In 17th century Holland, it was tulip bulbs, in the 21st century America houses. Easy credit certainly fueled the bubble, but this was due as much to the banks that believed they would reap huge profits as the consumers who bought the houses.

[BC]

It has been an economy based on consumer credit for close to a century  Why did GM start selling cars on credit? Quite simple, they realized that they could sell more vehicles with credit and customers were happy because the credit could help them buy a vehicle as they could pay it off in reasonable payments.

Wow.. It's incredible what one can do and still not get the point across...

highlight, embold, italicize

Oh well.. can't win em all.. LOL

On your other 'bubble' points, yeah it's just too easy to get a signature on the dotted line..  folks on both sides of that table were looking for what was too good to be true. 

So similar to those enticed to this RW venture thing..  Must be human nature to get sucked in and blame everyone else for getting spit back out.

[Faux Pas]

On your other 'bubble' points, yeah it's just too easy to get a signature on the dotted line..  folks on both sides of that table were looking for what was too good to be true. 

It's not "to good to be true". It is actually viable, convenient and profitable to both borrower and lender if borrower is worthy of repaying the debt. It is when they are not qualified that creates a bubble.
 

So similar to those enticed to this RW venture thing..  Must be human nature to get sucked in and blame everyone else for getting spit back out.

Too bad those people don't have to qualify for worthiness huh?