Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

[RichTO90]

And,some more garbage: the negative influence of the Gerschenkron effect on the use of the international $,or ,why use the international dollar,and not the EKS method from Corrado Gini ?

Yes, why don't you? :roll: Mind you, I hope you can explain why a methodology used by the UN is so bad, especially given that Diewart's review of methodologies shows that while the EKS method (and other similarly derived methods based on Fisher binary indices) may have more theoretical rationale than the G-K system, the actual differences in result are minor, varying from 5 to 15% between the top six methodologies in a comparison between six countries. :roll:

Meanwhile, you might want to think about what an incredible strawman it is to intimate that the problems of comparing historical economic data from 1 BC is relevant to a comparison of historical economic data from 1941... :roll:

BTW, what are you "calculating" the Soviets "fed at the front" today? Has it exceeded 48 million yet? :roll:

It's so very sad, you used to be a fairly sensible lad too.

[LWD]

... 3)the CIA has probably overestimated the relative size of Soviet GNP as compared with US.

Which also implies that said estimate would overstate the Soviet GNP when compared to other GNPs wouldn't it. Looks like this pushes the estimate of the Soviet vs German GNPs down. I.e. in the opposite direction for which you are aiming.

Translation for us humble mortals : the CIA has wasted the taxpayer's money by giving wrong estimates about the Soviet GDP and its value compared to the US GDP .

??? I am constantly amazed at your ability to pull unsupported and arguablly fallacious conclusions out of the air.
The CIA estimates may have been flawed but when you want estimates of an opponent it is better to over estimate them than to underestimate them. Then there's the question of just how far off they were. If they were reasonably close the estimates were a lot more useful than not. So your contentions are all rather problematic not that that is anything unusual.

...No,not all,but the reason is that such a comparison is impossible,because the CIA was comparing 2 economies which were producing

The comparison is emphatically not impossible. Indeed the fact that the CIA made it proves the opposite. It might be difficult to get with 100 percent accuracy but if one could then it wouldn't be an estimate would it.

...It is the same for WWII,and,it is the same for a comparison of the US GDP of 1913 with the US GDP of 2013:both are different and can not be compared,because they are the artificial reflection of different economies .And,it is the same for the German and Soviet economy in WWII.

NO, NO, NO. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it can't be done. Indeed for the question at hand these estimates are surely better than the arguments you have given, of course they also point to the failure of your conjectures. Nothing new there either.

[ljadw]

Frank Shostak (economist from the Austrian school) about the use of the GDP:

The GDP framework is an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world.

Thus,why should it be wrong to consider the use of the GDP to compare 2 different economies as flawed ?

Rick Mathews :the fundamental representation of what produces GDP..........continues to be a topic of inquiry among even the elite community of the world's economist .

The income approach to determine the GDP is the sum of the following:

GDP= personal consumption expenditure (C) + Gross Private fixed investment (I) + Government expenditures and investment (G) + X (exports) -M(imports) .

But,in this model,social security expenses are not included,which makes the whole thing flawed .


L. von Mises :the attempt to determine in money the wealth of a nation is childish..

I stick to my point : one can not use the GDP to determine the GDP of a country .

[ljadw]

[quote="LWD"][quote="ljadw"]...
The comparison is emphatically not impossible. Indeed the fact that the CIA made it proves the opposite. It might be difficult to get with 100 percent accuracy but if one could then it wouldn't be an estimate would it.
[qutoe]..

Estimates should not be used in economics: no guesses,assumptions,but facts,only facts .

Theories based on assumptions,guesses,are built on quick-sand .

What is the benefit for the president of the US of a CIA paper about the strength of the Soviet economy based on guesses,saying : we assume the Soviet economy to have the strength of 50 %of the US economy,but,it also could be more or less ,we don't know ?

[LWD]

...
The comparison is emphatically not impossible. Indeed the fact that the CIA made it proves the opposite. It might be difficult to get with 100 percent accuracy but if one could then it wouldn't be an estimate would it.

Estimates should not be used in economics: no guesses,assumptions,but facts,only facts .

What an absurd thing to say. Almost every number used in economics is an estimate.

Theories based on assumptions,guesses,are built on quick-sand .

You finally understand our point then as that is a very apt description of your position (not that it qualifies as a theory), neglecting the faulty logic of course.

What is the benefit for the president of the US of a CIA paper about the strength of the Soviet economy based on guesses,saying : we assume the Soviet economy to have the strength of 50 %of the US economy,but,it also could be more or less ,we don't know ?

Knowing it's 50% plus or minus 10% is a whole lot better than having nothing at all for an estimate. Knowing that there's a good chance that it's no more than 50% is also very useful. How could you possibly think otherwise?

[RichTO90]

I stick to my point : one can not use the GDP to determine the GDP of a country .

I yield to your sophistry. Obviously, GDP cannot be used to determine GDP. Equally obviously, it is worthless to measure anything. Thus, none of these discussions seeking to measure anything have any worth and the attempt to measure anything is inherently a worthless exercise.

Or, perhaps, I will simply measure the ultimate worth of attempting to have any conversation with you. That cost benefit exercise is much easier.

Enjoy your masturbatory exercise.

[ljadw]

It is better for the president to have no informations,than to have as informations only guesses,assumptions,estimates,which mean : we don't know,it could be 50,or 100,or 10 .

No serious manager will take his decisions on the declaration : we don't know,but ,we think .

Subordinates have not to think,that's for the boss,their mission is to give facts,not more,and,not less .

What do you think would be the answer of the secretary of defense,when,on his question :what is the offensive strength of the Syrian army,the answer of the CIA would be : we don't know,but,we think it is X,but it could also be 1/3X or 2X ?

[ljadw]

I stick to my point : one can not use the GDP to determine the GDP of a country .

I yield to your sophistry. Obviously, GDP cannot be used to determine GDP. Equally obviously, it is worthless to measure anything. Thus, none of these discussions seeking to measure anything have any worth and the attempt to measure anything is inherently a worthless exercise.

Or, perhaps, I will simply measure the ultimate worth of attempting to have any conversation with you. That cost benefit exercise is much easier.

Enjoy your masturbatory exercise.

This is sophistry : it is obvious that you should read : one can not use the GDP to determine the strength of the economy of a country .

I can only say that it is sad that you are using a typo to ridicule an argument.

[RichTO90]

This is sophistry : it is obvious that you should read : one can not use the GDP to determine the strength of the economy of a country .

Sigh...do you have any idea why the notion of GDP was developed as a measure? It may not adequately measure the economic well-being of a country because it fails to account for things like leisure time, income inequality within a country and between countries, and environmental issues...none of which have any real bearing on brute force economic strength measures as existed in World War II. In fact, GDP was developed in 1937 as a measurement directly applicable to the world then and it is simply too narrow a metric for today's globalized world, but it was a very good metric for the strength of the economies warring in World War II.

I can only say that it is sad that you are using a typo to ridicule an argument.

No, I am using your ridiculous succession of ridiculous arguments to ridicule your ridiculous arguments. Along with the fast and loose treatment you have given to facts and figures in your ridiculous arguments.

Have you yet decided how many more than 48 million the Soviets mobilized? Or what mysterious inability prevented the Germans from "feeding" more troops on the Ostfront? Or why production of comparable quantities of similar types of ammunition cannot be compared in number, but only be weight? Or why production devoted to U-Boats doesn't qualify as a measure of production strength? Or why Soviet forces 6,000 kilometers from the Ostfront should be included in the numbers "fed", but German troops 1,200 kilometers away shouldn't be? Or why a Soviet strategic reserve gets included as "fed", but a German strategic reserve does not? Or why German production of 32.1-million metric tons of steel versus 30.5-million metric tons of Soviet, German production of 24.4-million tons of pig iron versus 13.8-million tons of Soviet, and German production of 61-million kWh of electricity versus 46.7-million kWh of Soviet are all measures of Soviet economic superiority? :roll:

When you begin to develop a coherent argument, supported by a few facts, then I will stop ridiculing it.

[ljadw]

Or why production of comparable quantities of similar types of ammunition cannot be compared in number, but only be weight.

This is a strawman :for the small ammunition (of which the bullets had a different weight) KDF used the number of rounds,while for the artillery shells,who had also a different weight,he used the weight .

I have no preference,but I am asking questions for the use of rounds for the small ammunition and the use of weight for the shells :why not weight for both,or numbers for both ?

And what for the aircraft : should one use the number of aircraft,or the weight,and,what about the tanks:number or weight (Soviet tanks were heavier)?

The arbitrary use is feeding the suspicion that round/weight is used,when it is in the benefit of Germany .

[LWD]

... This is sophistry : it is obvious that you should read : one can not use the GDP to determine the strength of the economy of a country .....

If GDP which was designed to measure the strength of ecomies can't be used to do so then why do you think your rather arbitrary and non inclusive alternatives can be?
It's probably valid to say if one economy has a GDP of say 100 and another 101 or possibly even 110 that they are close enough that it's hard to tell which was actually the stronger however when there is a signifcantly greater difference GDP is on a pretty good determiant for the relative strength of economies. Certainly much better than anything you have proposed.

The best evidence to date strongly points to rejecting or at least concluding that the hypothesis that the USSR's economy was stronger than the German one is unproven with the stronger argument in favor of rejection. There is no logical or rational basis for accepting the hypothesis.

[ljadw]

The GDP framework is an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world . (Frank Shostak);

The 2012 GDP of Russia is the conversion in $ of everything (goods/services) that was produced in Russia in 2012: it is a fallacy that such conversion is possible,it is also a fallacy that this conversion would give a reliable picture of the strength of the Russian economy.

[ljadw]

Definition of the GDP (from Wiki) :GDP is the market value of all officialy recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time .

1)Unless one can prove that there was a free market in the SU in WWII,GDP should not be used to measure the strength of the Soviet economy.

2)The exclusion in this definition of all NOT officialy recognized goods and services is questionable

3)The exclusion in this definition of not final goods and services is questionable .

4)The claim that it is possible to establish the value of goods and services is flawed:what about unpaid jobs,underground economy,black market?

5)What about the market value of the transformation of imported goods and of non finished exported goods ?

My neighbour is growing potatos and vegetables in his garden :what is his market value ?

What is the market value of the services produced by the US Congress?

[paspartoo]

This discussion has flown into orbit…
If the question is what economy was larger, then the answer is Germany. Look at coal, steel, aluminum production, electricity etc.
In the question of quality I think there is no discussion both for military and civilian goods.
For foodstuffs I think it was SU that had the advantage prewar? But in the period 1941-45 what would have happened without US spam? The Germans on the other hand were able to feed their people and had some success in restructuring the agricultural production of the occupied countries towards self sufficiency (prewar they were dependent on foreign foodstuffs and chemicals).
Now for GDP, it is not a good indicator in the case of closed economies because the prices are not formed by the market but by the government. There is also the question of ppp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
I will say again that the SU produced large numbers of a limited number of weapon system. The weapons were of low quality and this is noted in US evaluations during the war and in the 1950’s.
Every time ljadw think of tank production only I’d urge him to also consider other things, for example armored infantry vehicles, self propelled guns and trucks (not to mention quality of armaments).
The argument that the Soviet economy performed better than the German was a cold war theory promoted for the leftists of the world. It was supposed to be further proof of the superiority centralized Soviet model.
Without foreign assistance the SU would not be able to deal with Germany. The superiority in tank production had no direct effect on the field due to the poor construction of the vehicles and the fact that a weak economy could not provide other stuff such as: armored infantry carriers, radio in every vehicle, radioteletype equipment and cipher machines for rapid transmission of information, officers with good training and ability to improvise etc etc etc

[ljadw]

I am not thinking in tanks only .
I am not saying that the Soviet economy performed better than the German one (something which is an absurdity ,which can not be proved).
I am disagreeing with the sentence about the importance of Spam: Spam was almost meaningless .

About low quality : one could say that the quality of the Soviet weapons was lower than that of the German weapons (although this is questionable) but,this is not proving that the Soviet/German economy was stronger .

It is also useless to give raw production figures as steel or coal production :with a greater coal production than the SU,Germany produced less tanks,but OTOH,a lot of its coal production was used for the synthetic oil production.
The German crude oil production was 9.5 million ton,its synthetic production was 23.2 million,imports were 16.1 million,while the Soviet crude only production was some 100 million ton.
Can one use these figures to prove that the SU was economically stronger than Germany (or the opposite) ? NO.