Re: Re: Re: why the ussr crashed

[Ken Hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting this is the first time that China has been mentioned in the
context of planniing. Shouldn't exactly the same Hayekian problems exist
there? But it is never once mentioned by Justin or anyone else until now.
Why is that? In some ways, particulalry in agriculture, China is a better
model of complete planning. A considerable amouint of USSR agricultural
produce was from small plots and there was always a contradiction between
the self-interest of collective farm dwellers who made money from private
plots and the need to increase labor and production on the collective farms.
I am not familiar with the details of development in Chinese agriculture but
there certainly was a transition from co-ops to collectives. Was this
accompanied by declines in production etc.?
   Cheers, Ken Hanly

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:

> En relación a [PEN-L:22110] Re: why the ussr crashed,
> el 22 Jul 00, a las 11:53, JKSCHW@xxxxxxx dijo:
>
> >
> > My own belief is that whichever was true, had the planning system been
> > left in place and not dismantled, the USSR would still exist and would
> > continue to limp along into the foreseeable future. I do not think
> > that the crisis, however bad it was, that lead to the introduction of
> > perestroika, was terminal. It was the "cure" that was fatal.
> >
>
> Would you predicate for China, then that insofar as the planning
> system is not dismantled, they will not suffer the fate of Russia?
> This is what Chinese leadership seem to have been thinking all the
> time (the horrible events at Tien An Men included).
> Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
> gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxx
> NUEVA DIRECCIÓN ELECTRÓNICA DESDE EL 10 DE JULIO DE 2000
> NEW E-ADDRESS AS OF JULY 10, 2000
> gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx