To this point, Inna noted that alcoholism was rampant, which surely did not help the economic system.
I think the mis-reporting of success is sort of baked into Russian culture. Also the lies about production and capability. See the Ukraine war.
Hijack, hidden
This is gonna be a bit of a hi-jack, but we are seeing the same thing in the US right now. But I don’t think it matters because the current administration doesn’t listen to anyone anyway.
True, but the pilots themselves were given physicals before their flights. Heavy drinking would have disqualified them. So I imagine that most of the alcohol pilfered from the aircraft was destined for the black market. I can’t even imagine willfully buying alcohol that tastes like rubber and metal, so that kind of speaks to both the lack of consumer goods and the depths of alcoholism in the Soviet Union.
In the corrupt Russian Federation?
Before it is poured in the plane, it comes in cans- and isnt beer commonly sold in cans?
Well, I suppose the pilot could have tried to bribe the doctor with alcohol.
They weren’t so bold as to take it before it was put into the plane. It was needed to make the plane work, after all. If they failed to complete their flights, they wouldn’t be military pilots for too long. They would use the least amount of it they could for the flight, then manipulate the counter to make it seem like the alcohol was being used the entire time, and drain the remainder from the aircraft.
It’s mentioned in the video above that it tasted like rubber and metal, and there were several methods used to try to remove that taste.
Soda and beer cans have a thin plastic liner sprayed on the inside to preserve their flavor.
[Moderating]
No it won’t be, because we’re dropping that right now.
One issue was that the Soviet-era production enterprises were sold off the cronies who became instant billionaires. The resulting economy became a free-for-all kleptocracy. And rather than (like China did) encouraging the development of the economy, the government was more concerned as time went on about ensuring those billionaires toed the new party line. (Plenty of stories of “entrepreneurs” and their fall from grace - the lucky ones into exile) That was a government intent on ensuring that it maintained some control. Plus, a very active criminal sector that no doubt had no problem extorting anyone appearing to do well, and a crabs-in-bucket approach to success. One article I read said Russia was “A third-world country with a gas station”.
(Old joke about Russian mentality - God appears to Ivan and says ‘Ivan, you have been my faithful servant all these years. For that, I will give you anything you wish for. But… your neighbour Vlad has also been my devout servant, so whatever you wish for, I will give him twice as much.’
Ivan thinks for a minute, then says ‘O Lord, take one of my testicles.’)
Cuba has adopted market economics in their new constitution.
North Korea’s unofficial economy is a massive unregulated black market.
China abandoned central planning in 1978, and their economy grew dramatically after that.
Laos and Vietnam, both communist, have also adopted market reforms.
I’m not an economist but I get the impression that total central planning is a failure. Mixed economic systems with an overlapping mixture of public and private sectors seems to work the best. Some things works best with the public sector, some best with the private, etc.
I feel China has set a good model of what works. You have market reforms, but you have the public sector involved a wide range of areas. China has used its mixed system to outsmart the US’s overreliance on the private system and its flaws (short term thinking, obsession with quarterly profits, willingness to cause long term problems in exchange for short term profits) while avoiding the flaws of the USSR and its overreliance on a public sector controlling everything.
Not in the Constitution, but in a series of laws-
Cuban lawmakers Thursday adopted nearly 200 historic free-market reforms aimed at rescuing the Communist island from a severe crisis aggravated by a U.S. oil blockade.
In a landmark speech to the National Assembly, Prime Minister Manuel Marrero unveiled 176 measures aimed at rolling back the state’s role in the economy and attracting investment in everything from banking to tourism and agriculture.
But-
They were adopted in a unanimous show of hands by lawmakers at a session which ended with President Miguel Diaz-Canel intoning Castro’s famous revolutionary slogan: “Socialism or death!”
and-
Cuba’s one-party communist state outlaws political pluralism, bans independent media, suppresses dissent, and severely restricts basic civil liberties. The government continues to dominate the economy despite recent reforms that permit some private-sector activity. The regime’s undemocratic character has not changed despite a generational transition in political leadership between 2018 and 2021 that included the introduction of a new constitution…The constitution identifies the PCC as the “superior driving force of society and the state.” All other political parties are illegal. Political dissent is a punishable offense, and dissidents are systematically harassed, detained, physically assaulted, and imprisoned for minor infractions. …None of Cuba’s nominally elected officials are chosen through free and fair contests, and major policy decisions are reserved for the PCC leadership in practice. The National Assembly, which the constitution describes as the “supreme organ of state power,” has little independent influence, meets for brief sessions twice a year, and votes unanimously on nearly all matters before it.
In other words- Cuba continues to be a Communist Dictatorship, and what the National Assembly or “Constitution” says is virtually meaningless.
Yes, that is the point some of us are making.
Economically it mostly works, but Freedom is illusionary.
I would say that is accurate. Government and socialized services are needed to provide a stable infrastructure, legal / regulatory framework, social safety nets, and critical services that are not best served through the free market.
Private enterprise and free markets are necessary for efficient distribution of resources and services that best meets the wants and needs of the people. Keeping in mind “efficient” does not necessarily mean everyone has access to necessary services.
Too much centralization you end up with inefficient distribution based on flawed perception, political agendas and cronyism. Too much unregulated free market you end up with excessive risk-taking, wild income disparity, and all sorts of other problems.
I’m sure the Chinese system has it’s own flaws. I’ve just not studied it extensively. I just remember Japan being the Next Big Thing in the 80s with all their kooky management practices and government partnering with big business, all of which led to decades of economic stagnation.
The most telling thing about flaws in the American economic system is the pervasive Wolf of Wall Street image of investment banking as a path to obscene wealth and hedonistic drug and prostitute-fueled lifestyles.
Not really the image I want to have for people responsible for securing my money.
I read an interesting perspective on this a few years ago- no idea if it’s accurate.
The problem with the Soviet consumer economy (the argument went) was that everything was cheap. Because everything was cheap, there was never any reason not to buy, even if you had no use for it. Because everything was bought immediately, availability was low and stores were empty. Those unneeded items were trade goods, swapped for what the consumer actually needed, and more valuable than the money used to buy them.
The obvious solution would be to raise prices and force people to make real choices about what they needed, but that was both politically and ideologically unviable. Obviously.
The problem was less management practices and government partnering with big business but rather their failure to handle the fallout of the collapse of the bubble and the not bailing out the banks.
The partnership of the government and the private sector did not help.
They called it the “Third Sector” and the theory was that the government had money and could rely on the expertise of the private sector to guide investments.
The problem was that with the government funding the investments then the people and companies proposing projects no longer had to justify the risks so unprofitable projects became the norm. (Because it was the bubble, the provide sector wasn’t making really good decisions on their own, either.)
At the time, I was peripherally involved with a couple of projects. It wasn’t a good system because the government officials just didn’t have the experience and expertise to make good decisions.
I’m not an expert on the history of the Japanese economy but that was my understanding as well. I seem to recall something along those lines where Japan had a bunch of “zombie companies” that were propped up by the government while being completely unprofitable.
Which speaks to the core problem of centralized planning. The government playing favorites and throwing money at companies to keep them going even when they are no longer viable.
That was much worse in the 80s than later.
Japan National Railways, for example, while it wasn’t a zombie company, it was run much less efficiently than private companies. It was privatized in 1987 and they had to restructure the entire organization.
Likewise, JAL had far greater expenses than ANA until it was also privatized the same year.
The companies I worked for did a lot of business with NHK, the national broadcasters, and it was crazy the things they did. The procurement manager wanted a trip to the States so when they made a large purchase, we had to include first class tickets and accommodations for him. Naturally, that just increased the cost to the tax payers.
And not only when they are no longer viable.
there isn’t accountability for mistakes, and bureaucrats with limited experience are spending the people’s money.
Back in the early 90s, one of these Third Sector companies was trying to make an automated car system. It was a complete joke but good god they burned through cash.
It’s funny. Governments are lousy at running businesses, but as we’re seeing today, businessmen are just at lousy at running governments. Maybe people should just stay in their lane.
[Moderating]
A reminder that this is FQ. There’s probably a historical consensus about the Soviet Union, but current events are more politically debateable.
There is some fair amount of truth in that. Businesspeople often try to run things as “efficiently” as possible. Government isn’t really meant to be “efficient”. It’s meant to create services and infrastructure everyone uses. Theoretically they have to do it within budgets. But they can’t be like “let’s only provide busses and schools to our most profitable customers.”
Also keep in mind that businesspeople are just as guilty of spending money on bullshit when it’s not their money.
Most of the tech or consulting firms I’ve worked for, when times were good, we had no problem spending money on massive parties and corporate outings and other bullshit that had nothing to do with driving the bottom line. It’s just worse in government because governments are orders of magnitude larger than the largest corporations, their customers can’t not pay their taxes and they can actually just print money if they want.
When I first entered the business world, I was a bit on the rebellious side. The boss had made some technically flawed decisions. When I pointed out that everyone agreed that they were flawed, his answer was ‘This is not a democracy.’. It did take me a while to accept that reality but ultimately I did. When the technical flaws ultimately sink a company, I move on to the next.
Business people when they get into government have trouble accepting that the opposite now applies. ‘This is a democracy.’
This was never a purely factual question, and I’ve moved it to IMHO.