[Gothmog]

-Hmmm....one of the main guys who argued that the Soviet GDP was overestimated was Bergson. He also argued that there was a decrease in living standards in Stalin´s years, a thing that is usually accepted (including by me). However, looks at this data. It should actually be put in a new thread, but deserves better study.

http://www.arts.ubc.ca/econ/dp9718.pdf

[nico]

No nation with such a robust economy and high GDP would hae collapsed so fast.


Just because the size of the economy dosen't equal that the economy is robust. Russia's economy was one of the largest pre-revoultion, but that is no indictator of the robustness of the economy.

Considering the GDP you quote, USSR exports/GDP would be equal to 4%. The other values are ok.


Kay here let's do the math:

GNP: $2,500 billion, per capita $8,700; real growth rate 1.5% (1988)

Exports: $107.7 billion (f.o.b., 1987);

Imports: $96.0 billion (f.o.b., 1987)



If I am not mistaken it's her exports are around 26.9%, I ain't great at math so correct me if I am wrong.

Look to the fact that USSR was becoming an exporter of raw materials in their last years, instead of selling industrial goods abroad.


Which just goes to show the realitive low quality of goods that the USSR was creating. And that is indicitive of the cronic problem within the system, just as long as it works. Gorbi tried to increase quality but it did prove to be a hassle. The only thing that kept the USSR up was the high oil prices during the 70's and up until 1986. After that poof the safety banket was gone. The USSR was the world's second largest oil producer, shows how much the oil was needed.


This was a big increase but still tolerable-around 2-3% of GDP, which is less than the 27% net external debt the evil empire enjoys now.

Is that total debt because that was just foreign debt, Russia's current foriegn debt is high:

Debt - external:
$149 billion (2001 est.)

[Gothmog]

Just because the size of the economy dosen't equal that the economy is robust. Russia's economy was one of the largest pre-revoultion, but that is no indictator of the robustness of the economy.

-If your data is correct, then USSR would have the 2nd GDP among all countries by 1990 (maybe 3rd, depending on the results for Japan). It would be equal to 50-60% of US GDP, and per capita GDP would be close to most European nations. I´m trying to get data on overestimation of Soviet GDP, but I have dificulties to get detailed background on that. Czarist Russia never had the 2nd World GDP, and its per capita GDP was around 1/9 of USA per capita GDP in 1913. It would be around 40% in 1990 in your estimations or 25% according to mine. If your data is right, then the fall of USSR would be a mistery to me. On the other hand, it is possible that your data is a better portrait of PPP-GDP. ´m still researching.

Kay here let's do the math:

GNP: $2,500 billion, per capita $8,700; real growth rate 1.5% (1988)

Exports: $107.7 billion (f.o.b., 1987);

Imports: $96.0 billion (f.o.b., 1987)

100/2500=0,04=4%

100billion dollars=4% of 2500billion dollars

26% of 2500 billion dollars would give around 600 billion dollars.

Which just goes to show the realitive low quality of goods that the USSR was creating. And that is indicitive of the cronic problem within the system, just as long as it works. Gorbi tried to increase quality but it did prove to be a hassle. The only thing that kept the USSR up was the high oil prices during the 70's and up until 1986. After that poof the safety banket was gone. The USSR was the world's second largest oil producer, shows how much the oil was needed.

-Agree

This was a big increase but still tolerable-around 2-3% of GDP, which is less than the 27% net external debt the evil empire enjoys now.[/b]

Is that total debt because that was just foreign debt, Russia's current foriegn debt is high:

[i] Debt - external:
$149 billion (2001 est.)

-I´m talking about foreign debt too, the internal debt of the evil Empire is around 55% of GDP (for Japan is 130%). I don´t know how to calculate internal debt for pre 1991 USSR, because there was no private sector, so the government owed money to...?

[nico]

-If your data is correct, then USSR would have the 2nd GDP among all countries by 1990 (maybe 3rd, depending on the results for Japan). It would be equal to 50-60% of US GDP, and per capita GDP
would be close to most European nations.

I've seen many sources with the $2.5 trillion account. But as Jakko said GDP is not that great of a indictator. We all know that a normal Soviet didn't have $9,000 per capita living, I mean there were vastly different living standards btwn someone in Moscow and Yaktusk. The USSR was so huge that it was impossible to have a unified country in terms of PPP.

I'll give some vital stats on nations:

USA: GNP: $4,862 billion, per capita $19,800; real growth rate 3.8% (1988)

USSR:GNP: $2,500 billion, per capita $8,700; real growth rate 1.5% (1988)

Japan:GNP: $1,843 billion, per capita $15,030; real growth rate 4.8%Remember those days Japan! (1988)

W.Germany: GNP: $1,120 billion, per capita $18,370; real growth rate 3.6% (1988)

Czarist Russia never had the 2nd World GDP, and its per capita GDP was around 1/9 of USA per capita GDP in 1913

And where did I say it did my friend? One of the largest not the largest or second largest. Never the less the Russian economy was large, it didn't mean it was robust, what determines robustness is growth, and political
stability. Also the population of Russia was MUCH larger then the US at the time so...

26% of 2500 billion dollars would give around 600 billion dollars.

I am really bad at math!

so the government owed money to...?

[Gothmog]

I've seen many sources with the $2.5 trillion account. But as Jakko said GDP is not that great of a indictator.

-I know these were officials estimates, however, USSR GDP methods were diferent from western ones. Soviet estimates were accused of ignoring inflation (which overestimates GDP), but also didn´t include services (which underestimates GDP). Western estimates for Soviet GDP as relative to US GDP came from 30 to 60% (CIA).

We all know that a normal Soviet didn't have $9,000 per capita living, I mean there were vastly different living standards btwn someone in Moscow and Yaktusk. The USSR was so huge that it was impossible to have a unified country in terms of PPP.

-There were probably unequality in USSR than in USA, so GDP per capita is still a valid measure. However, we should consider:
1-How much of Soviet GDP was weapons spending?
2-How much of USSR GDP was made of poor quality and relatively expensive products (another possibility for overestimation)

And where did I say it did my friend? One of the largest not the largest or second largest. Never the less the Russian economy was large, it didn't mean it was robust, what determines robustness is growth, and political
stability. Also the population of Russia was MUCH larger then the US at the time so...

-I´m just pointing to the fact that USSR was in much better situation by 1988 than czarist Russia in 1913, if those statistics are reliable.

[Gothmog]

-Finally, I made better research. Take a look, results seems to be close to midterm between our estimates.

http://bss.sfsu.edu/fischer/IR%20360/Re ... %20CIA.htm
CIA estimates on the Soviet Union were dead wrong on the size and performance of the economy and the military burden. CIA analysts actually believed that the Soviet economy was 60 percent of the US economy and that Soviet per capita consumption was 50 percent of that of the United States. Aslund believed that these figures were too high by one- third.[44] The CIA finally began to chart lower growth rates for the Soviet economy in the mid- 1980s but by then Aslund and Aganbegyan concluded that there was zero growth in the Soviet Union between 1980 and 1986, the very years that the Carter and Reagan administration were using CIA data to justify record defense spending. The agency also failed on the crucial issue of the military burden on the economy, placing the military share of Soviet gross domestic production (GDP) between 15 and 17 percent, while some critics were arguing 25- 35&percent.

Look that Aganbegyan was one of those perestroika geniuses, could have actually underestimated the Soviet economy performance for their own purposes....If CIA estimates were inflated by one third, then the Soviet GDP would be around 1,8 trillion dollars. And if USSR was spending around 25-35% in military (which I doubt) then the reasons for collapse are quite clear. However, it must be noticed that many enterprises that produced civilian goods were part of the military industries, so USSR statistics on military expenses are not reliable

http://www.dur.ac.uk/EastAsianStudies/Kerr%20paper2.htm

1978: USSR: 40% of USA GDP. This seems to be PPP-GDP, since Chinese "raw" GDP in 1978 is much smaller

http://www.worldbank.org/transitionnews ... s22-25.htm
Quite interesting data, look at the progress of communist USSR in relation to world as a whole

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullst ... Order.html
Maddison is a major authority in long term economic growth. Always look for him...
http://www.oecdobserver.org/images//920.photo.jpg
Soviet GDP estimated in US$2trillion in 1990. Midterm between our estimates. I will take this result as being the most accurate

[nico]

I should say those were very good websites. But it still doesn't really the question, what should the USSR have done, let's agree that the USSR's economy was $2 trillion. Now should the USSR stayed on course like the DDR, or should she have reformed like China?

[Gothmog]

I should say those were very good websites. But it still doesn't really the question, what should the USSR have done, let's agree that the USSR's economy was $2 trillion. Now should the USSR stayed on course like the DDR, or should she have reformed like China?

-USSR system was not very diferent from DDR, the diference is that DDR was simply more developed in educational and technological aspects, so, going after DDR was essentially to do no changes. Neither I would like USSR to follow the China path of capitalist restoration. My point is that USSR should have "marketized" (but not decollectivized) its agriculture, made a dramatic cut in the military budget and followed a merchantilist policy based on increased exports by state owned enterprises. From a ideological standpoint, this would have resulted in much less concessions to capitalism than China made. From data we´ve researched, it is clear that USSR was not so bad by 1985 and it was possible to reform the system. The big problem is that the managerial elites WANTED to restore capitalism, even at the cost of ruining the country. As the time passes, we will have a less ideological approach to the late history of USSR and we will be really able to understand what happened.