Message from @Tonight at 11 - DOOM
Discord ID: 604128807959658496
show other wise
Its in the journal
you showed that it started out as more efficient
that isn't the same thing as being more productive
LEARN TO READ
the third paragraph says
the divergence STARTED before the soviets had any impact
The other is a divergence between West German and East German TFP levels. The latter turned East German industry from having a non-trivial productivity lead over its western counterpart in 1946 to trailing West German productivity by the late 1940s, and rapidly losing ground.
and no doom
its talking about institutional implementations
by productivity here they are referring to total factor productivity which is a measure of efficiency
but the 2nd paragraph states that that decoupling is not a sufficient explanation for what happened
A primary determinant in GDP
basically shit started with the decoupling
which the journal acknowledges
and then soviets made it even worse
and was their primary point for mentioning it
jesus man
this is sad
The article says: decoupling bad, soviet rule also bad
the point in mentioning it was to say that it was the primary cause of the slowdown in growth in the 40's as opposed to the change in capital stock caused by soviet reparations
Before we get into broader issues
acknowledge they started out with advantage
you keep moving goalpost and denying until your face turns red
i'm not moving goalposts lmao
i never said that east germany didn't start out with an advantage in total factor productivity
tfp is not a good proxy for gdp per capita
The journal mentioned it is . Ican show you a host of other sources discussing TFP as being primary determinant
show me otherwise
fvcking syria and mexico have some of the highest tfp measures in the world
source ?
Y'all arguing like it's *unusual* for a nation with a healthy industrial base to degrade over time under socialism. That's like half the history of socialism. The other half is places that didn't have an industrial base.....
Its june trying to make that argument
that somehow starting from same place
having 50 years to make progress
and ending up 30 percent of the gdp
is somehow normal
"starting from same place"
again you haven't demonstrated this