Kenneth Campbell writes >> But I will take the bait. Show me what you have learned about "eastern >> Germany" and why that section of that country would be a tad less able >> to produce cars. (You can do it!)
The issue is not whether East Germany, or any other socialist economy, was less "able" to produce a safe car. The issue is whether a socialist economy would "value" safety more so than a capitalist economy and implement those values. If true, I would assume that, at any level of development, there would be evidence that the finished product evidenced a relative level of safety concerns compared to other factors (style, cost, functionality, efficiency, etc.), and that relative importance compared to other factors could be compared to relative level of importance in a capitalist product. In the United States, Volvos have excellent reputations for safety. Let's assume that Volvos do reflect an increased importance of safety compared to other factors, as compared to other automobiles. Would that be because of the social relations and means of production in Sweden? Would that be because of a Swedish personality trait going back centuries? Would that be because of a random occurrence? If the former, it might support the argument. However, I don't see how, for instance, the Yugo or the Trabant, support the argument. I mean, is there any evidence that when the Trabants were being designed, the designers decided, based upon available resources, to sacrifice a certain level of functionality for safety, as compared to designers of a comparable car in a capitalist economy? I am no expert, but I think the opposite was probably true. And if so, why does that not refute the original hypothesis? David Shemano
