Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why does socialism cause shortages?

In the case of Venezuela, Chavez introduced price controls in order to stop the capitalists profiteering. Unfortunately toilet roll manufacturers are not charities and if there is no profit to be made than nothing is produced. The main option then is to move to a planned command economy in which a civil service and technocrats decide what is produced for the public good. Industries wrestle for influence, investment and materials but tractor production in a developing economy will take priority over consumer goods.

Planned economies have their advantages when your goals are specific; fighting a war, rapid industrialisation, agricultural production. Once the Soviets turned their attention to planning the production thousands of different consumer goods the task was not only mind bogglingly complex but the system had collapsed into inertia and apathy. So down at the Soviet television factory the managers are making a nice little earner by selling copper wire at inflated prices on the side to fulfill someone elses shortage or black market racket. Result; few TVs are produced. And here we are assuming the copper wire even arrived in the first place because Comrade Harry Lime at the ministry of copper has his own rackets.

The other function of a command economy is to manage shortages rather than create them. As in WW2 Britain to ensure everyone has their fair share of basic necessities.


True but you have in Venezuela are artificially created shortages exacerbating the situation. The right tried it first when they shut off the oil supply. That was tackled. After that they shut off the electric supply, continual power shortages and blackouts due to internal sabotage by managers. The military was sent in and that was sorted.
And now its basic staples. Theres warehouses full of the stuff turning up being hoarded by private distribution chains whose supermarket shelves are empty. That may may sound ridiculous to some whos experience of the right is tory voters and the church of england. Its a very different story over there. Those people are unrelenting, theyve turned off the oil, the power, overthrown the government, refused to grow food, burned clinics and schools, targetted doctors, shot even their own supporters down like dogs .

Its war for them and theyre serious about bringing the place down . And theyve got the school par excellence with all the resources in the world behind them showing them how to do it and constantly encouraging them to do it.
10 or 15 years from now youll be reading some spook or diplomats memoirs were theyre boasting about this stuff.
 
I don't know much enough about shortages and their reasons so am interested in what others have to say.

But I do know in the former DDR (East Germany) there was very little investment in product or process development in industry and manufacturing. It seems to me the regime took all profits for their own ends, leaving nothing for companies to reinvest in product and process development. Over the long term industry fell way behind their western counterparts.

Where cars were concerned, there were massive waiting lists for a Trabbant or a Wartburg. As far as I can understand it, it wasn't so much a situation that people couldn't afford them, more that manufacturers couldn't produce them fast enough to sate demand.

On the other hand, everyone in the DDR had a job, even if some would have been unsustainable or uneconomic, in western terms.

The primary purpose of the DDR was to send maximum amounts of food and other resources to Moscow. So full employment, but no investment.
 
Last edited:
A better question might be, why does socialism make shortages transparent?
We have a housing shortage of 2 million homes in this country but people don't necessarily think of it like that unless they read newspapers. Many people do know that they can't afford a house and live with their parents. And consider their own lack of cash/good job as the cause of this. ie they blame themselves not the government.

Now imagine we elected a socialist government that promised those priced out a house for a rent/price they could afford, all they had to do was put their name on a list and wait for the construction to take place. Voilà we have a housing shortage! And people could blame it on the socialist government!

Quite. The way the question is framed leads to a particular way of thinking.

In a 'well functioning' capitalist economy you don't get shortages as the price of a good or a service is simply a factor of supply and demand. Whether the price is affordable is a related issue, but this concept also exists in a similar market oriented way of thinking - I think!
 
In the Soviet Union there were food shortages. In Cuba they lack pretty much everything. Venezuela is now struggling to provide toilet roll for its citizens.

Why is it that the more socialist* a country becomes, the more shortages we see?

*Please don't make this an x wasn't socialist thread.
shouldn't the question really by 'is there a system which doesn't cause shortages?' to which the answer is 'no'.
 
Most of the interesting points in this discussion have already been made ... but just FYI for anyone reading this thread and believing absolutely everything CasuallyRed says: the US embargo on Cuba specifically exempts food and medicine from its provisions. (Not that that is any excuse for its international bullying to be excused, but...). Yes, everythign else down to printer cartridges is covered and yes the US even attempts to extend this outrage to allegedly "allied" countries thru Helms Burton (i.e. British travel agencies which deal with Cuba being monstered and told they can't use paypal / mastercard / amex to process payment from UK clients, etc.)

Cuba is indeed free to trade with any other country in the world other than the US (that's willing to withstand US pressure) and has shortages even of the food which is (or should be) produced inside the country ... leading many Cubans I know to conclude that many shortages are not in fact generated by the embargo but by internal inefficiency, red tape, command economy not working, and corruption and theft at every level.

I do accept that when you think about it more deeply though, "shortages" as perceived in the West are more about how thoroughly we're conditioned to think of commerce as the indicator of everything. So, no goods on shop shelves = "shortage". But in situations, in capitalist countries, if there's no food at all for anyone it's called "famine" instead. And having huge temple-like megastores piled up with goods which only a small proportion of people could ever afford to buy, isn't considered "shortage" at all in capitalist setups - rather it's "the normal state of affairs" or "how business is done".
 
There's still some diversity with regard to what socialism was/is among that lot you posted above.
Agreed, but despite that, they're all (?) associated with shortages in consumer goods.
The thread title is a bit daft fez. Can we talk about capital strikes?
Daft title, fair enough. Happy to talk about capital strikes though. It's a new term for me, although the meaning is obvious. How it is carried out is less so, especially when concerning consumers goods with low capital investment. Let's talk toilet rolls again?

So the Venezuelan government start making vaguely socialist noises and some oil refineries and whatever are taken over. Multinationals pull out of the country to protest/protect assets/whatever. How does that then translate into a bog roll shortage? I can understand heavy industry being worried and not building new infrastructure for fear of nationalisation, but with bog rolls it's cheap to import, cheap to produce, low risk. If there are shortages then without price controls they become even more profitable to sell, and therefore more attractive to capitalists.

So in the absence of an embargo, what would be the mechanism that keeps toilet roll away from Vz? Trade between America and Venezuela is increasing every year so it can't be government pressure stopping imports. I have no idea how easy it is to make bog roll but it doesn't seem like it would be difficult or require much risky, expensive infrastructure. It seems like there's easy money to be made for whoever can supply it, so why is there a shortage?

If price controls/subsidies/black market sales are the answer, then what is the solution to making the basics affordable to ordinary people and stopping people from profiteering? The only thing I can think of is rationing, and then you're back to the Soviet Union and waiting lists and queues...
 
Agreed, but despite that, they're all (?) associated with shortages in consumer goods.

Yes, but at what times in the life of these societies are we talking here? What conditions were these societies in when Communists (seeking to create a socialist society, however that is defined) came to power? What kind of societies were they, and their similarities and differences? Under what pressures both internal and external did they have to contend with in order to form a new government and mobilise to create a new society? Did the model/s they created and that others followed even have 'consumer goods' as priority to begin with? Were they always the same or were modifications and reforms put in place, and to what extent?
 
Yes, but at what times in the life of these societies are we talking here? What were the conditions these societies in when Communists (seeking to create a socialist society, however that is defined) came to power? What kind of societies were they, and their similarities and differences? Under what pressures both internal and external did they have to contend with in order to form a new government and mobilise to create a new society? Did the model/s they created and that others followed even have 'consumer goods' as priority to begin with? Were they always the same or were modifications and reforms put in place, and to what extent?
I'm honestly not that knowledgeable about all this so I don't know the answers to most of this. That's why I started the thread. I know that paper was difficult to come by in 1980s Russia, though. And there was no toilet paper then either.

Is toilet paper a luxury? I can understand having different priorities to, say, inventing Soda Streams or waffle irons or any number of semi-pointless tat we have. But bog roll? That's as basic as it gets.
 
I'm honestly not that knowledgeable about all this so I don't know the answers to most of this. That's why I started the thread. I know that paper was difficult to come by in 1980s Russia, though. And there was no toilet paper then either.

Is toilet paper a luxury? I can understand having different priorities to, say, inventing Soda Streams or waffle irons or any number of semi-pointless tat we have. But bog roll? That's as basic as it gets.
do you think making soft, strong paper for your backside is a basic thing? try it and then report back.
 
I'm honestly not that knowledgeable about all this so I don't know the answers to most of this. That's why I started the thread. I know that paper was difficult to come by in 1980s Russia, though. And there was no toilet paper then either.

Is toilet paper a luxury? I can understand having different priorities to, say, inventing Soda Streams or waffle irons or any number of semi-pointless tat we have. But bog roll? That's as basic as it gets.

A soda stream in 1920s USSR, in a virtually destroyed 1950s DPRK?
 
Most of the interesting points in this discussion have already been made ... but just FYI for anyone reading this thread and believing absolutely everything CasuallyRed says: the US embargo on Cuba specifically exempts food and medicine from its provisions. (Not that that is any excuse for its international bullying to be excused, but...). Yes, everythign else down to printer cartridges is covered and yes the US even attempts to extend this outrage to allegedly "allied" countries thru Helms Burton (i.e. British travel agencies which deal with Cuba being monstered and told they can't use paypal / mastercard / amex to process payment from UK clients, etc.)

Cuba is indeed free to trade with any other country in the world other than the US (that's willing to withstand US pressure) and has shortages even of the food which is (or should be) produced inside the country ... leading many Cubans I know to conclude that many shortages are not in fact generated by the embargo but by internal inefficiency, red tape, command economy not working, and corruption and theft at every level.
.


But it patently isnt free to trade with countries. Those countries may not be subject to US sanction but their companies are .Countries dont trade in a globalised capitalist economy, companies and firms do. While the United states cannot stop a country trading per se it can stop a firm by means of threats of severe financial repercussions, fines, hassles, jail sentences, extradition and even rendition ,extra territorial measures. For most companies in the world theres a stark choice, either trade with a multi billion dollar powerhouse or a small impoverished island. Its not hard to guess what most choose. But youve consciously described that as free to trade with countries...it patently isnt.. It amounts to countries not being free because their local companies arent. While some consciously do trade with Cuba for most its simply not worth the hassle. Because in economic terms it simply isnt and businesses arent charities.


We even had a situation here in Ireland were there was a nightclub in Galway called Cuba.It turned out the staff couldnt get their pay processed simply because the bank ..or more precisely its european head office..freaked out at the name and blocked the processing. Thats an indication of the extra territorial methods used to strangle the economy.

Another thing. You mention US law permits the sale of foodstuffs and some medicines. What you deliberately omit to mention is how such sales are actually carried out . First of all theres no credit permitted,no US firm is permitted extend any line of credit as is normal . It has to be paid up front with dollars there and then before its permitted leave a warehouse...the dollar mind isnt Cubas currency so they have to be accrued from a variety of sources.Even the payment itself cannot be made direct, it has to go through a third country. Which leads to more sources taking their cut from the transfer and multiple currency conversions and more delay.
. US beauraucracy then has to issue a raft of licenses and permits and until thats done...at the US governments pleasure..it goes nowhere.

Its then not a simple matter of it going to Cuba, it has to go to a third country first and then be unloaded. And it cant go to Cuba until theres a ship willing to take it. Because any ship that goes to havana cant enter a US port for the next 6 months. For most independent shipping it doesnt make any business sense to take stuff to Havana, unsurprisingly. Now, unsurprisingly this massive fucking rigmarole causes delays. And when theres delays then very simply those foodstuffs arent in the shops on time. And very often they go off...because its food thats been sitting in a panamanian warehouse going nowhere. And sometimes live animal exports that just die . For the Cubans even buying this stuff from the Americans accrues tens of million dollars in losses, one estimate over a 100 million dollars a year racked up in unneccessary fees and logistical losses. For a small poor country like Cuba losing 100 million dollars unnecessarily is simply disastrous.

So as its basically not really worth the trouble of buying food from them, and timely deliveries cant be guaranteed, they have to look elsewhere. Trouble is elsewhere is a lot further away, and therefore also expensive. And Cuba is poor, at least in terms of hard currency.


You also never mentioned that 3 massive hurricanes in a row have wiped out a lot of Cuban agriculture, which tends to cause the odd shortage or 2 given the difficulties involved. Its been sort of important.

But youd have us believe its going into Fidels pocket instead because one of the women in white told you.
 
"While the United states cannot stop a country trading per se it can stop a firm by means of threats of severe financial repercussions, fines, hassles, jail sentences, extradition and even rendition"

Can you give some examples of jail sentences or rendition?

Re. the Helms-Burton Act

"Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have each found ways to issue waivers of Title III every six months since the enactment of Helms-Burton."

"To date, only the executives of three companies have received exclusion notices. Of the three companies to be sent such notices, only Sherritt International, a Canadian mining company, has actually had any executives banned from the United States."
http://www.coha.org/helms-burton-act-resurrecting-the-iron-curtain/

I can't see any evidence that countries such as China in any way give a flying fuck about the US embargo. It is also very easy to set up an import-export company that specialises in trading with Cuba and/or doesn't have any dealings with the US.

Can you provide any evidence that Cuba would be exporting much more than $5 billion per year? What would this consist of?
 
A small sampling of some of the companies cited in the international media as currently having commercial activities, or having had some commercial activities, or discussing some commercial activities, with enterprises within the Republic of Cuba. There are currently an estimated 4,500 companies from more than 100 countries that "do business in the Republic of Cuba" within such categories as importing to, exporting from, providing services to, or having investments within the Republic of Cuba.
UNITED KINGDOM

Air Tours
Amercham
ANZ Investment Bank
Bank of America Global Trading
Barclays Bank plc
Bass PLC
BBP Latinvest
Beta Fund Limited
Bicamex
BNP
Body Shop International
Borneo
British American Tobacco Industries plc
British Airways plc
Cable and Wireless Communications
C.E. Heath PLC
Castrol
Commonwealth Development Corp.
Cuba Club XXI
De La Rue plc
ED&F Man Sugar Limited
Export Credits Guarantee Department
Fisions
Franklin
Glaxo Wellcome
Gleneagles Golf Developments
Goldcorp Premier Ltd.
Hard Rock Cafe
Havana Asset Management
Havana International Bank
Havanatur
Heath Group
Hunters and Frankau
ICI Export
Kuoni
Lambert Frenchurch Marine Group Limited
Lloyd’s of London
LMC International
MTT Network Limited
National Engineering and Technology
Netherlands Caribbean Bank
Ninecastle Overseas Ltd.
Nueva Compania de Indias S.A.
P&I Hotels
Premier Oil Plc
Raytur Hotels
L.F. Rothschild
S.E.G. Global Advisors
Saratoga
Simon Petroleum Technology
Smith Kiline Beecham plc
Superlative Travel
Tate & Lyle
The Rank Group Plc
Thompson Tours
Tintas Gyr SA
Tour World
Transfigura Company
Unilever PLC
Walkengland
Zeneca

How many of these companies are subject to "severe financial repercussions, fines, hassles, jail sentences, extradition and even rendition"?
 
I'm honestly not that knowledgeable about all this so I don't know the answers to most of this. That's why I started the thread. I know that paper was difficult to come by in 1980s Russia, though. And there was no toilet paper then either.

Is toilet paper a luxury? I can understand having different priorities to, say, inventing Soda Streams or waffle irons or any number of semi-pointless tat we have. But bog roll? That's as basic as it gets.

its not just just toilet paper we are talking about here. Its other basic staple goods like coffee, sugar, powdered milk, flour for bread, ...the toilet paper is just more comical to think about . Its all the basic everyday stuff people rely on . Its not being distributed via a socialist model. Its being distributed via the capitalist model, by private enterprise, big and small business. By local businesses. While Venezuela has a socialist led government and a lot of socialist laws they dont have a socialist state. The economy is mixed.

So its not an issue of a scarcity of all these items under a socialist distribution system but within a capitalist private enterprise system. And this is largely why. All this stuff should be on the shelves of the supermarket chains...but it isnt. And it deliberately isnt. The shelves are kept empty for days and weeks at a time. Theres no socialist law delaying it ,in fact the law to combat hoarding says its illegal for it to be sitiing in the warehouse for any longer than 20 days. Its the private businessmen deliberately refusing to release these goods onto the Venenzuelan market until they feel like it, If ever. Venezuela is not a poor country, it can afford to import toilet paper and does. Its the business community creating the shortage in order to bring the country to a halt and overthrow the government.

This is all deliberately hoarded stuff that should be on the supermarket shelves being seized in police raids.

noticia_9126.jpg


More_hoarded_rice_1.jpg


Tons_of_hoarded_rice.jpg


hiper_caleta_de_productos_en_maracaibo.jpg


the only thing preventing those goods from being on the shelves is the deliberate decision by the businessmen not to put it on the shelves.
 
Last edited:
1980s USSR

Well, I'm no expert and I'm sure someone will be along to shoot me down later, but such problems were a very familiar feature in the USSR, weren't they? Why not look at the origins of these societies, what the governments faced in achieving their goals and why they mobilised and developed their societies in particular ways. If you're being specific about the USSR then you have some idea of what they understood socialism to be, even if you disagree with their definition of it.

In the USSR, the development of society happened in a highly distorted way with an inadequate light industry for producing consumer goods. Sure, five decades before 'restructuring' Stalinist industrialisation policy was deliberate in its drive for accumulation to provide an investment surplus, by neglecting light industry and squeezing and squeezing consumption. However, even by the 1980s (and near the end) light industry could not develop or expand as it still suffered from a large part of its revenues being taken and used to fund heavy industry.

Perestroika's success rested upon raising the standard of living of ordinary citizens by way of better production of food and consumer goods (bread rolls and bog rolls, lol). It's not as if the 1980s was where it all went wrong, nor when the stagnation began earlier, but rather the Soviet economy suffered from the structural rigidity that had occurred as a result of the 1930s policies and was never able to adequately sort out that distortion.

Also, despite resources put into industrialisation, developing the military (why did they do that?) and advanced technological achievements, Soviet society (with its diverse republics) was still very much a rural one even after WWII, with more widespread urbanisation occurring in the 1960s.

I'm reminded of Abbott Gleason's anecdotes about visiting the USSR as a young university student and while enjoying his time there he remarked how strange it could seem, sort of Third World-like with an advanced industrialised veneer. They put a man in space but the priorities of their form of economic planning (like I said going back decades before) saw ordinary Soviet life hindered and frustrated by a lack of everyday goods, whether essential or frivolous. In later years the USSR's light industries also produced mountains of tat which Soviet citizens refused to buy, rather than being unable to afford it or stuff being unavailable, but because of its shoddy quality.

When you're talking about 'socialism' here you mean the USSR and other societies that followed their models? With some modifications of their own. And a few of these societies were in an even worse state when Communists came to power.
 
You also never mentioned that 3 massive hurricanes in a row have wiped out a lot of Cuban agriculture, which tends to cause the odd shortage or 2 given the difficulties involved. Its been sort of important.

But youd have us believe its going into Fidels pocket instead because one of the women in white told you.

Unlike you, CR, I actually lived through those hurricanes on site, in Cuba. Food shortages, of domestically-produced items, far predate the hurricanes. Showing that in fact the strangulation of the embargo is NOT the only (or even necessarily the dominant) factor here.

I don't have any truck or anything to do with the Ladies in White. But nice reflexive smear tactics, anyway. Straight out of the Cuban playbook: anyone with any nuance to offer is a US stooge. Aren't you lucky to live in Ireland?
 
In the Soviet Union there were food shortages. In Cuba they lack pretty much everything. Venezuela is now struggling to provide toilet roll for its citizens.

Why is it that the more socialist* a country becomes, the more shortages we see?

*Please don't make this an x wasn't socialist thread.

Socialism doesn't cause shortages. What has invariably caused shortages, in both socialist and more-heavily capitalist economies is a combination of several things. A few of them are:
1) Top-down centralised bureaucratic control - it's common to both capitalist and socialist economies, and it's reactive rather than "proactive". This means that anything out of the norm doesn't get planned for, and consequently has to be addressed as it happens or after it happens.
2) External market manipulation, a factor that's been common for at least 200 years, and has already killed millions of people and is still killing them.
3) Internal politics - again, this goes across economies.

The main thing that can be said against socialist and communist economies as they've been practiced, is that command economies are by design, reactive to demand, rather than anticipatory, so as with point 1, there's no slack in the system if bad weather ruins the wheat harvest or suchlike.
 
I don't know much enough about shortages and their reasons so am interested in what others have to say.

But I do know in the former DDR (East Germany) there was very little investment in product or process development in industry and manufacturing. It seems to me the regime took all profits for their own ends, leaving nothing for companies to reinvest in product and process development. Over the long term industry fell way behind their western counterparts.

Where cars were concerned, there were massive waiting lists for a Trabbant or a Wartburg. As far as I can understand it, it wasn't so much a situation that people couldn't afford them, more that manufacturers couldn't produce them fast enough to sate demand.

On the other hand, everyone in the DDR had a job, even if some would have been unsustainable or uneconomic, in western terms.

Wildly inaccurate.
The DDR happily invested in industry, where they could actually export. To take the most glaringly-obvious example, look at their photographic industry. The Praktica B and BX series of cameras were groundbreaking in the '80s for their materials use, their high quality, and their low cost. At a time when their economy was shrinking, they invested in designing and building a wide new range of cameras (a dozen models, in all), and sold them in their millions.
 
In the Soviet Union there were food shortages. In Cuba they lack pretty much everything. Venezuela is now struggling to provide toilet roll for its citizens.

Why is it that the more socialist* a country becomes, the more shortages we see?

*Please don't make this an x wasn't socialist thread.
It's because socialism makes people reliant on the state and thus lazy, and then they stop turning up to their jobs in toilet roll factories and then there's no one to make toilet rolls.
 
How many of these companies are subject to "severe financial repercussions, fines, hassles, jail sentences, extradition and even rendition"?

Well Barclays were fined $300m for breaking sanctions which included dealing with Cuba.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/aug/16/barclays-fined-for-sanction-breaking

And Lloyds now refuse to deal with Cuba at all because of the threat of prosecution from the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/jun/16/lloydstsbgroup.banking
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/jun/16/lloydstsbgroup.banking

The US has said it will prosecute any businesses that have any dealings with Cuba and also have a branch in the US.
 
Well Barclays were fined $300m for breaking sanctions which included dealing with Cuba.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/aug/16/barclays-fined-for-sanction-breaking

And Lloyds now refuse to deal with Cuba at all because of the threat of prosecution from the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/jun/16/lloydstsbgroup.banking
The Barclays fine was for processing Cuba transactions via the US financial system rather than activity in the UK.

You can still use Barclays and Lloyds credit and debit cards in Cuba (unlike US cards).
 
Wildly inaccurate.
The DDR happily invested in industry, where they could actually export. To take the most glaringly-obvious example, look at their photographic industry. The Praktica B and BX series of cameras were groundbreaking in the '80s for their materials use, their high quality, and their low cost. At a time when their economy was shrinking, they invested in designing and building a wide new range of cameras (a dozen models, in all), and sold them in their millions.
VP, people often quote the photography sector where the DDR is concerned. But what about cars or motorbikes? when the border went up there was a BMW motorbike factory on the east. When the barrier came down all those years later, that factory was still producing pretty much the same ancient bikes they had made when they were separated! No investment in development at all.

There was a captive market for cars, the people wanted them, they had the money, still there were waiting lists years long, and for what? for a Trabbie or a Wartburg! hardly developed vehicles, especially if you compare to the progress made in W Germany at the same period.
 
VP, people often quote the photography sector where the DDR is concerned. But what about cars or motorbikes? when the border went up there was a BMW motorbike factory on the east. When the barrier came down all those years later, that factory was still producing pretty much the same ancient bikes they had made when they were separated! No investment in development at all.

If you knew anything about the DDR's industrial strategy, you'd know why.
The DDR was a small country. Consequently, and as they were behind the "anti-fascist rampart" by then, they decided that all DDR vehicles should run with 2-stroke engines, so that more complex production could be sold into the Soviet Union and its' satellites.
That's why you still see loads of antique Simson mopeds in Germany, and why the Trabi was the only car available to the public.

There was a captive market for cars, the people wanted them, they had the money, still there were waiting lists years long, and for what? for a Trabbie or a Wartburg! hardly developed vehicles, especially if you compare to the progress made in W Germany at the same period.

But there's no basis for comparison, is there? You're comparing a society with a bureaucratically-decided command economy with one where innovation was driven by the desire for profit.
 
... But there's no basis for comparison, is there? You're comparing a society with a bureaucratically-decided command economy with one where innovation was driven by the desire for profit.
But that is largely what the thread topic is ... why does socialism cause shortages ... DDR was socialist and they had shortages ... I would argue capitalism produces more innovation ..
 
But that is largely what the thread topic is ... why does socialism cause shortages ... DDR was socialist and they had shortages ... I would argue capitalism produces more innovation ..

You're missing the point. The opening post is talking about shortages as an inherent feature of states due to failure of production. The vehicle shortages you're talking about in the DDR were (as in the Soviet Union) deliberately engineered to minimise free movement, rather than being products of a faulty economy. Chalk and cheese.
 
You're missing the point. The opening post is talking about shortages as an inherent feature of states due to failure of production. The vehicle shortages you're talking about in the DDR were (as in the Soviet Union) deliberately engineered to minimise free movement, rather than being products of a faulty economy. Chalk and cheese.
I probably am missing the point then.

Are you saying that shortages in the DDR were the result of deliberate government policy rather than systemic issues?

There aren't that many examples of socialist countries to give us examples of what can happen in planned economies, if you had to pick a best example, in terms of socialism working well, which would you chose?
 
weltweit said:
But that is largely what the thread topic is ... why does socialism cause shortages ... DDR was socialist and they had shortages ... I would argue capitalism produces more innovation ..

capitalism gives shortages whilst discarding excess as waste. Wrap your head around that.
 
Back
Top Bottom