> In the long run, this type of 'full employment' became financially > untenable. > > Leigh > > ^^^^^^^ > > How so ? > > Charles >
Your kidding right? ^^^^ CB: Nope. My position is that the SU fell for military and political, not economic reasons. There was no starvation, homelessness or other fundamental economic crisis that caused the SU to fall. It was political. Full employment was a big plus in the SU, even in 1989. The logic of "moral hazard" as applied to unemployment in the SU is off, the point of this thread. No , it was not some strange paradox or twist from full employment and other economic benefits to the working class that turned into its opposite , as you are implying, that caused or contributed to the the fall of the SU. ^^^^^^^ Explain how paying $10 for $5 dollars worth of labor will affect the consumer cost of that product in a large scale economy? Even in socialist societies, consumers are expected to pay for the product, and even if subsidized, the money still comes from the individual's pocket even if indirectly. ^^^^ CB; Well, when did you stop beating your wife ? You ask two questions in one. You haven't demonstrated that what you say occurred occurred. For one thing, if the worker who did the $10 dollars of labor also only has to pay $5 for her socalled $10 of labor in the form of a good or service, then there's no problem, right ? Then recall that labor power can produce more than the cost of producing it. Remember that in _Capital_. So, socialist surpluses can be had from the same logic.