The relative levels of Soviet and US GNP's used by Samuelson were conventional wisdom at the time. The base for the comparisons was Abram Bergson's work for [not in] 1955. After that there was a CIA cottage industry manufacturing Soviet GNP's. Relative to US GNP, the growth rates implied were not absurd, and even showed a falling back from time-to-time.
What was scientifically missing from all this was the extrapolation of growth rates. Rebuilding postwar is quick and cheap for any society, but catch-up is more interesting. But that wasn't understood in 1970, or even 1980. A quick and dirty perusal of per capita growth rates in Western Europe vs the US today shows that catch-up has even seemed to stop there.
Yes, these guys were all lefties, but I think more fundamentally there was a lack of understanding, a theory deficit, in other words.
To put into a different perspective: I know of no economist who saw the Soviet Union crumble before their [our] very eyes by the late 1980's at the latest.
The statistics don't seem to have been lies. Rather, they were selectively published and limited in meaning. Tons of steel? Check. Adding machines? What does that even mean? And so on.
This link is an impressive case for China being more capitalistic than we are. It should be noted that economic system doesn't have anything to do with how repressive the government is with regard to staying in power. It wasn't mentioned in this link, but I suspect that gradual privatizing and giving more decision making power closer to the work and recognizing prices are determined by demand was going on way before it was recognized by the west.
There was lots of military literature at the time that said the same thing. Soviets had more weapons and they were better.
The West threw down the gauntlet with the development of the US F 14/17/18, European Typhoon, Jaguar, Gripen, Rafale, basically all the 4th generation aircraft.
Western platforms were optimised for killing power and to operate in lower number. Russia focused on movement and overwhelming numbers.
Also if you read any quality content regarding Chernobyl you quickly see two things. Without a price signal the Soviets struggled to make allocation decisions. Their reactors designs were often driven by material availability rather than optimal design. Regularly there was not enough basic pipe, electrical and electronic devices, and many other essential components.
Having been to the former Soviet Union 6 times over the past 5 years, it became clear culturally that there was no way they would pass the US economically. Financial misreporting is commonplace, government embezzlement is everywhere, bribes are common. It would be ignorant to take economic or financial reports on face value (their analysts don’t), so how would one compare? Corruption in the government is ubiquitous.
Samuelson predicted in 1961 that the USSR would overtake the USA sometime between 1984 and 1997. As the economy had grown a lot under Stalin, this wasn't so ridiculous a prediction. He didn't seem to change his view enough over time.
As Frank said, the problem was lack of theory-- even pretty obvious theory. Simple extrapolation was stupid. Samuelson was a great theorist, but didn't htink to use his gifts when predicting from data.
The relative levels of Soviet and US GNP's used by Samuelson were conventional wisdom at the time. The base for the comparisons was Abram Bergson's work for [not in] 1955. After that there was a CIA cottage industry manufacturing Soviet GNP's. Relative to US GNP, the growth rates implied were not absurd, and even showed a falling back from time-to-time.
What was scientifically missing from all this was the extrapolation of growth rates. Rebuilding postwar is quick and cheap for any society, but catch-up is more interesting. But that wasn't understood in 1970, or even 1980. A quick and dirty perusal of per capita growth rates in Western Europe vs the US today shows that catch-up has even seemed to stop there.
Yes, these guys were all lefties, but I think more fundamentally there was a lack of understanding, a theory deficit, in other words.
To put into a different perspective: I know of no economist who saw the Soviet Union crumble before their [our] very eyes by the late 1980's at the latest.
The Soviet forecasts were based on "actual" statistics that were lies. Why does this post not mention that the "actual" statistics were false?
The statistics don't seem to have been lies. Rather, they were selectively published and limited in meaning. Tons of steel? Check. Adding machines? What does that even mean? And so on.
This link is an impressive case for China being more capitalistic than we are. It should be noted that economic system doesn't have anything to do with how repressive the government is with regard to staying in power. It wasn't mentioned in this link, but I suspect that gradual privatizing and giving more decision making power closer to the work and recognizing prices are determined by demand was going on way before it was recognized by the west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apDC4d3xW6M
It's not obvious to me that there's any real difference between trust in social science experts and left wing ideology.
There was lots of military literature at the time that said the same thing. Soviets had more weapons and they were better.
The West threw down the gauntlet with the development of the US F 14/17/18, European Typhoon, Jaguar, Gripen, Rafale, basically all the 4th generation aircraft.
Western platforms were optimised for killing power and to operate in lower number. Russia focused on movement and overwhelming numbers.
Also if you read any quality content regarding Chernobyl you quickly see two things. Without a price signal the Soviets struggled to make allocation decisions. Their reactors designs were often driven by material availability rather than optimal design. Regularly there was not enough basic pipe, electrical and electronic devices, and many other essential components.
Having been to the former Soviet Union 6 times over the past 5 years, it became clear culturally that there was no way they would pass the US economically. Financial misreporting is commonplace, government embezzlement is everywhere, bribes are common. It would be ignorant to take economic or financial reports on face value (their analysts don’t), so how would one compare? Corruption in the government is ubiquitous.
Samuelson predicted in 1961 that the USSR would overtake the USA sometime between 1984 and 1997. As the economy had grown a lot under Stalin, this wasn't so ridiculous a prediction. He didn't seem to change his view enough over time.
As Frank said, the problem was lack of theory-- even pretty obvious theory. Simple extrapolation was stupid. Samuelson was a great theorist, but didn't htink to use his gifts when predicting from data.