The USSR and the USA are two world superpowers that competed for primacy in everything from the post-war period to the early 90s of the last century. Very important aspect This struggle was economics. Particularly great importance was paid to the GDP of the USSR and the USA. Comparing these indicators was a fairly powerful tool in the propaganda of both countries. But at the same time, with the help of these economic data, we can also now, through the veil of the past years, restore the actual state of affairs in the countries under study. So, what was the GDP of the USSR and the USA during the period of their rivalry?

Concept of gross product

But before analyzing the GDP of the USSR and the USA, let's find out what this concept actually is and what types of it exist.

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of all goods and services produced in a particular state or region. If we divide the total GDP by the average number of inhabitants of the territory to which it belongs, we get the gross product per capita.

Indicators can be divided into two large groups: nominal and purchasing power parity. Nominal expressed in national currency, or in terms of the currency of any other country at the established rate. When calculating GDP at parity, the ratio of currencies to each other is taken into account purchasing power regarding a specific type of goods or services.

Comparison of economic indicators before World War II

Although the main peak of rivalry between the USSR and the USA occurred in the period after World War II, to complete the picture it would be useful to look at how the dynamics of their GDP changed in the first half of the 20th century.

The pre-war period was quite difficult both for the economy of the USSR and for the country. During this time, the country was being restored after the Civil War, which resulted in two severe famine periods of 1922 and 1932-1933, and the United States in 1929-1932 was experiencing a period its history known as the Great Depression.

The economy of the country of the Soviets sank the most in relation to the US GDP immediately after the Civil War in 1922. At that time, domestic GDP was only about 13% of that in the United States. But, in the following years, the USSR began to rapidly reduce the gap. By pre-war 1940, the USSR's GDP was equal to American currency$417 billion, which was already 44% of the US figure. That is, Americans at that time had a gross domestic product of about $950 billion.

But the outbreak of war hit the USSR economy much more painfully than the American economy. This was due to the fact that the fighting took place directly on the territory of the Soviet Union, and the United States fought only abroad. By the end of World War II, the USSR's GDP was only about 17% of gross product USA. But, again, after production began to recover, the gap between the economies of the two states began to rapidly narrow.

Comparison of GDP 1950-1970

In 1950, the USSR's share in world GDP was 9.6%. This amounted to 35% of US GDP, that is, even lower than the pre-war level, but, nevertheless, much higher than the figure for the first post-war year.

In subsequent years, the difference in the size of the gross products of the two superpowers, which by that time had become the USSR and the USA, was increasingly reduced, although not at such a rapid pace as before. By 1970, the Soviet GDP was about 40% of the GDP of the United States, which was already quite an impressive figure.

USSR GDP after 1970

Most of all, we are interested in the state of the economy of the USSR and the USA after 1970 until the end when the rivalry between them reached its maximum. Therefore, for this period we will consider the GDP of the USSR by year. Then we will do the same with the gross domestic product of the United States. Well, at the final stage we will compare these results.

USSR GDP for 1970 - 1990 in million dollars:

• 1970 - 433,400;
• 1971 - 455,600;
• 1972 - 515,800;
• 1973 - 617,800;
• 1974 - 616,600;
• 1975 - 686,000;
• 1976 - 688,500;
• 1977 - 738,400;
• 1978 - 840,100;
• 1979 - 901,600;
• 1980 - 940,000;
• 1981 - 906,900;
• 1982 - 959,900;
• 1983 - 993,000;
• 1984 - 938,300;
• 1985 - 914,100;
• 1986 - 946,900;
• 1987 - 888,300;
• 1988 - 866,900;
• 1989 - 862,000;
• 1990 - 778,400.

As we can see, in 1970 the gross domestic product in the USSR was $433,400 million. Until 1973, it grew to $617,800 million. The next year there was a slight drop, and then growth resumed again. In 1980, GDP reached $940,000 million, but the following year there was a significant drop - $906,900 million. This situation was associated with a sharp drop in world oil prices. But we must pay tribute that already in 1982, GDP resumed growth. In 1983, it reached its maximum - $993,000 million. This is the largest gross domestic product for the entire existence of the Soviet Union.

But in subsequent years, an almost continuous decline began, which clearly characterized the state of the USSR economy of that period. The only episode of short-term growth occurred in 1986. The USSR's GDP in 1990 was $778,400 million. This was the seventh highest result in the world, and the Soviet Union's total share of the world's gross product was 3.4%. Thus, when compared with 1970, the gross product increased by $345,000 million, but at the same time, since 1982, it fell by $559,600 million.

But here you need to take into account one more detail: the dollar, like any currency, is subject to inflation. Therefore, 778,400 million 1990 dollars in terms of 1970 prices will be equal to 1,092 million dollars. As we can see, in this case, from 1970 to 1990 we will observe an increase in GDP in the amount of 658,600 million dollars.

We looked at the value, but if we talk about GDP at purchasing power parity, then in 1990 it was $1971.5 billion.

The value of gross product for individual republics

Now let's take a look at how much the USSR's GDP was by republic in 1990, or rather, how much, as a percentage, each subject of the Union contributed to the total gross income.

Naturally, the richest and most populous republic, the RSFSR, brought more than half into the common pot. Its share was 60.33%. Then came the second most populous and third largest republic - Ukraine. The gross domestic product of this subject of the USSR was 17.8% of the all-Union one. In third place is the second largest republic - Kazakhstan (6.8%).

Other republics had the following indicators:

• Belarus - 2.7%.
• Uzbekistan - 2%.
• Azerbaijan - 1.9%.
• Lithuania - 1.7%.
• Georgia - 1.2%.
• Turkmenistan - 1%.
• Latvia - 1%.
• Estonia - 0.7%.
• Moldova - 0.7%.
• Tajikistan - 0.6%.
• Kyrgyzstan - 0.5%.
• Armenia - 0.4%.

As we can see, Russia’s share in the all-Union GDP was greater than all other republics combined. At the same time quite high share Ukraine and Kazakhstan also had GDP. The rest of the subjects of the USSR have much less.

For a more complete picture, let's look at GDP today. Let us determine whether the order of arrangement of the former Soviet republics in terms of gross domestic product has changed.

GDP size according to the IMF for 2015:

1. Russia - $1325 billion.
2. Kazakhstan - $173 billion.
3. Ukraine - $90.5 billion.
4. Uzbekistan - $65.7 billion.
5. Belarus - $54.6 billion.
6. Azerbaijan - $54.0 billion.
7. Lithuania - $41.3 billion.
8. Turkmenistan - $35.7 billion.
9. Latvia - $27.0 billion.
10. Estonia - $22.7 billion.
11. Georgia - $14.0 billion.
12. Armenia - $10.6 billion.
13. Tajikistan - $7.82 billion.
14. Kyrgyzstan - $6.65 billion.
15. Moldova - $6.41 billion.

As we see, the undoubted leader in GDP of countries The USSR remained Russia. On this moment its gross product is $1,325 billion, which in nominal terms is even more than it was in 1990 for the entire Soviet Union. Kazakhstan came in second place, ahead of Ukraine. Uzbekistan and Belarus also swapped places. Azerbaijan and Lithuania remained in the same places they were in during Soviet times. But Georgia has noticeably slipped, leaving Turkmenistan, Latvia and Estonia ahead. Last place among post-Soviet countries Moldova has slipped. And she missed ahead of Armenia, which in Soviet times was last in terms of GDP, as well as Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

US GDP from 1970 to 1990

Now let's take a look at the dynamics of changes in the US gross domestic product during the last period of the existence of the USSR from 1970 to 1990.

Dynamics of US GDP, million dollars:

• 1970 - 1,075,900.
• 1971 - 1,167,800.
• 1972 - 1,282,400.
• 1973 - 1,428,500.
• 1974 - 1,548,800.
• 1975 - 1,688,900.
• 1976 - 1,877,600.
• 1977 - 2,086,000.
• 1978 - 2,356,600.
• 1979 - 2,632,100.
• 1980 - 2,862,500.
• 1981 - 3,211,000.
• 1982 - 3,345,000.
• 1983 - 3,638,100.
• 1984 - 4,040,700.
• 1985 - 4,346,700.
• 1986 - 4,590,200.
• 1987 - 4,870,200.
• 1988 - 5,252,600.
• 1989 - 5,657,700.
• 1990 - 5,979,600.

As we see, nominal GDP The US, unlike the USSR's gross domestic product, grew continuously from 1970 to 1990. Over 20 years it increased by $4,903,700 million.

Current level of the US economy

Since we have looked at the current state of the level of gross product in post-Soviet countries, we should find out how the United States is doing with this matter. According to the IMF, the US GDP in 2015 was $17,947 billion. This is more than three times more than in 1990.

Also, this value is several times greater than the GDP of all post-Soviet countries combined, including Russia.

Comparison of the gross product of the USSR and the USA for the period from 1970 to 1990

If we compare the level of GDP of the USSR and the USA for the period from 1970 to 1990, we will see that if in the case of the USSR, starting from 1982, the gross product began to decline, then in the United States it continuously grew.

In 1970, the gross product of the USSR was 40.3% of that of the United States, and in 1990 it was only 13.0%. In physical terms, the gap between the GDP of both countries reached $5,201,200 million.

For reference: Russia's current GDP is only 7.4% of US GDP. That is, in this regard, the situation, compared to 1990, has worsened even more.

General conclusions on the GDP of the USSR and the USA

Throughout the existence of the USSR, its gross domestic product was significantly inferior in size to that of the United States. Even in the best years for the Soviet Union, it amounted to about half the size of the American gross product. In the worst periods, namely after the Civil War and before the collapse of the Union, the level dropped to 13%.

Trying to catch up with the US economic development ended in failure, and in the early 90s of the last century the USSR ceased to exist as a state. Moreover, in 1990, the situation with the ratio of the USSR's GDP to the United States' GDP was approximately at the level of the situation after the end of the Civil War.

GDP level modern Russia is even further behind American indicators than the USSR was in 1990. But there are also objective reasons for this, since Russia currently does not include those republics that made up the Soviet Union and also contributed to the total GDP.

In the USSR, the standard of living was constantly changing. There were periods when the population was on the verge of poverty and hunger, but after them came times when Soviet citizens lived no worse than in developed Western countries.

Early years Soviet power The Bolsheviks tried to get out of the devastation that arose through their fault. Khrushchev described this period as follows: “Now we have overthrown the monarchy, the bourgeoisie, we have won our freedom, and people live worse than before. As a mechanic in Donbass before the revolution, I earned 40-45 rubles a month. Black bread cost 2 kopecks per pound (410 grams), and white bread cost 5 kopecks. Lard went for 22 kopecks per pound, eggs - a penny apiece. Good boots cost 6, at most 7 rubles. And after the revolution, wages dropped, and even greatly, while prices rose greatly.”

Only by the mid-thirties, in the seventh year of industrialization, the USSR was able to reach a high level industrial development and relatively stably provide citizens with essential goods. What is important is that by this time the Soviet Union was the first among other countries to overcome unemployment.

Stalin's breakthrough

The main thing that Stalin did was to revive national production. On the eve of the Great Patriotic War, the USSR was the second state in the world in terms of gross industrial output, only slightly behind the United States and significantly ahead of developed European countries.

After the end of the war, our state managed to overcome the devastation in a short time. Already in 1946, the salaries of workers and engineers employed at enterprises and construction sites in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East increased by 20%. The salaries of citizens with secondary specialized and higher education, including doctors, teachers and researchers.

The standard of living of the population of the USSR by 1953 - the time of Stalin's death - can be assessed based on materials from studies of the budgets of the families of workers, employees and collective farmers, which were carried out by the Central Statistical Office (CSO). According to the CSB data, the most affluent part of the population included employees of defense industry enterprises, design organizations, scientific institutions, university teachers, doctors, artel workers and military personnel.

Of the listed groups, doctors had the highest income: each member of their families received an average of 800 rubles monthly. The lowest income among the categories of the urban population was among workers of industrial enterprises - 525 per month for each family member; for peasants this income was 350 rubles. [C-BLOCK]

After the abolition of the card system, the government significantly reduced prices for food products in stores, including those that were not essential goods. For example, the cost of a cake fell from 30 to 3 rubles. The price tag at collective farm markets has also dropped by more than three times.

Food was cheap in catering establishments. Thus, lunch in the student canteen, which included soup with meat, main course with meat, compote or tea with a bun, cost only 2 rubles. Moreover, there was always free bread on the tables. Since 1949, price reductions have become commonplace, by an average of 20% per year.

In 1953, the average salary in the USSR was 719 rubles or $179. Translated into today's money - about 1600 - 1700 dollars.

Khrushchev's thaw

After Khrushchev came to power, the standard of living of Soviet citizens continued to rise. In 1957, the salaries of low-paid categories of workers and employees were increased, and from 1959 to 1965 the average salary increased almost 1.5 times. In 1964 it was first introduced pension provision collective farmers, tuition fees were also waived. The authorities are investing a lot in healthcare, and at this time there was an increase in the life expectancy of the population.

But the main thing that Khrushchev is remembered for is the massive construction of housing. During the years 1956-60, over 50 million citizens - almost a quarter of the population of the USSR - moved into their own apartments, albeit small-sized ones. [C-BLOCK]

At the same time, by the beginning of the 60s, the state’s resources for maintaining a favorable social policy began to dry up new round The Cold War led to an increase in military spending, and disruptions began in the economy. Khrushchev’s experiments in the national economy, which led to the outflow of part of the country’s gold reserves, were not in vain for the country. In 1964, there was a noticeable shortage of bread and the authorities were forced to buy grain abroad for the first time.

It is curious that it was during Khrushchev’s times that Soviet underground millionaires flourished. Among them are Siegfried Hasenfrancz and Isaac Singer, who made their fortune in the clothing industry. The first bought a spacious house and hired servants, the second loved to go out to eat in restaurants and did not deny himself anything.

Brezhnev stagnation

The voluntaristic times of Khrushchev, who proposed to catch up and overtake America, are over, and the period of Brezhnev's stagnation has begun. And the life of Soviet residents stabilized. If we take into account the current human development index, then the Soviet Union, according to its indicators, was one of the five most developed countries in the world.

Professor Sergei Lopatnikov, who lives in the USA and works at the Center for Composite Materials at the University of Delaware, argued that the standard of living of Soviet people by the 80s was not only comparable to the American one, but in some ways exceeded the quality of life of 80% of Americans at that time.

During the Brezhnev era, a fertile time came for Agriculture, oil and gas industry and rocket and space industry. average salary throughout the country was 120-130 rubles. In the 1970s, you could live comfortably even on a student scholarship of 30-50 rubles. [C-BLOCK]

But there were many categories of the population in the country who had above-average income. Thus, an associate professor at a university received 250-300 rubles a month, while the salary of metallurgists, miners, and oil workers reached 500 rubles. Any worker could purchase goods in installments or on credit at a rate not exceeding 2%.

During Brezhnev's times, the opportunity to develop personal and subsidiary farms became available. “Personal farming is a common matter” was a popular slogan at that time. The state bought surplus agricultural products from the population through the consumer cooperation system, while prices were 30-40% higher than when purchasing from collective and state farms.

During the 18-year period of Brezhnev's rule, about 1.6 billion square meters were built. m of living space, where 162 million people moved in. These were no longer Khrushchev’s small-sized apartments, but spacious and comfortable apartments.

On the eve of the crisis

By 1985, the USSR firmly occupied 1st place in Europe and 2nd in the world (after the USA) in terms of industrial and agricultural production. The average salary in 1985 in the RSFSR was 199 rubles, in the country - 150 rubles. Regular monthly expenses - payment for housing, food, transport and other necessary services - usually did not exceed 50% of income, which allowed Soviet citizens to save seriously.

Food products in the late USSR were affordable to everyone: no more than 3 rubles. 50 kopecks it cost a kilogram of meat, 16 kopecks - a loaf of white bread, about a ruble - a dozen eggs, 36 kopecks - a liter of milk, a bottle of vodka - 3 rubles 62 kopecks. [C-BLOCK]

The standard of living of the population remained consistently high, despite the fact that the first negative trends had already emerged in the economy. Andropov and Chernenko did not significantly influence the situation, although under Andropov there were attempts to inject fresh blood into the socio-economic life of the country.

Gorbachev's perestroika, designed to transform the face of socialism, led to completely unpredictable results. Due to the inept actions of the administrative apparatus, the quality of life of citizens began to invariably decline. By mid-1990, it became clear that socialist methods of running the national economy had become obsolete: the country was on the verge of market reforms.

By the beginning of 1991, prices for food products, transport and public utilities. Regular interruptions in the supply of the population began, which led to the tobacco, sugar and vodka crisis. Many essential goods became available only with coupons. For the first time in a long time, the country was faced with the problem of queues.

Shortage state budget, in other words, the excess of expenses over income amounted, according to various estimates, from 20% to 30% of gross domestic product (GDP). Unemployment and racketeering became commonplace. The country was smoothly sliding towards the redistribution of state property.

Introduction.
I would like to immediately make a reservation that in this article I am trying to cover only one aspect standard of living, and namely its material and financial component, thus leaving behind issues of health care, education, crime rates and everything else, because it is impossible to grasp the immensity.
Interest in financial side (let's call it that for simplicity) of the standard of living of the population of the USSR is caused by the main directions of my artisanal economic and sociological research, in which I try to understand as best I can on a number of issues, such as, for example, the state of labor productivity in the Russian Federation, the degree of dependence on raw materials the Russian economy, its growth rate, the economic growth potential of the Russian economy and the real level of material well-being of Russians. And for such studies economic history- an indispensable assistant.
In addition, it seems to me that there are many who want to take a retrospective look at our distant past in order not only to feel nostalgic for the past, but also to understand the present even more deeply.
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the data on the salary chart (N1) refers only to the category of workers and employees. Salaries and pensions in rural areas were significantly lower. In addition, the specific gravity rural population was highest in the Central Asian republics, therefore from the point of view cash income of the entire population, the indicators of the Central Asian republics were actually lower.

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL How much did it cost cooperative apartment in USSR?

(Cooperative housing cost approximately the average monthly salary in the construction industry of the USSR per square meter. + - 15%.

In Moscow, in the late 70s (until 1983, when prices rose by an average of 30%), apartments in a P-44 series building cost 250 rubles per square meter.)

How many years did the average USSR citizen wait to receive a free apartment?
(more than 50% of housing recipients waited for it for 5-10 years.)

**********************
The third graph again gives a result similar to the previous one. The Baltic states are in the lead with a large gap from the other republics, but Georgia and Armenia also occupy honorable 4th and 5th places, respectively. Russia here is almost in the middle of the table, while having second place according to salary level. What kind of miracles?

N3

ADDITIONAL MATERIALHow much did cars cost in the USSR?
Official retail prices for a number of goods including cars
http://istmat.info/files/uploads/15863/narhoz_rsfsr_1990_socialnoe_razvitie.pdf

for products (p. 178)
***********************
+

http://autokadabra.ru/shouts/33186

How much did cars cost in the USSR?

ZAZ -968M -4500

VAZ -2101 -5500

VAZ -21011 -6500

VAZ-2104 -7400

VAZ-2105-7700

VAZ-2106 -9100

VAZ-21061-9000

VAZ-2107-8500

VAZ-21074 -8900

VAZ-2108-8400

VAZ-21081-8340

VAZ-2121 (Niva) -9800 (after Andropov reduction)

Volga Gaz24-10 -12000

**************************************** ************
Let's move on to the last plate. Who is the most thrifty here? The first three were a very diverse team. Lithuania, Armenia and Belarus were there. Not far from them were the rest of the Baltic republics, Ukraine and the RSFSR. The Central Asian republics and Azerbaijan had significantly lower indicators.
But if there is a significant lag in almost all financial indicators While the Central Asian republics, together with Azerbaijan, can still be explained by their historical economic backwardness and traditionally larger families, Russia’s rather modest indicators, it seems to me, require some understanding.
ADDITIONAL MATERIALSocio-demographic characteristics of the population of the republics of the USSR.
Auxiliary chart N1


http://istmat.info/files/uploads/17594/naselenie_sssr._po_dannym_vsesoyuznoy_perepisi_naseleniya_1989g.pdf pp. 10-19

Auxiliary chart N2


Auxiliary chart N3

In my opinion, the roots of the emerging discrepancy between high level income of the population of the RSFSR and its insufficiently high standard of living lay in a specific domestic policy Soviet leadership of that time.
Such a significant discrepancy in the level of financial well-being that Russia suddenly developed in comparison with the group of leaders can only be explained by the influence of shadow financial flows. But speculation and the shadow sector were present throughout the entire territory of the USSR. This statement will be fair, but far from complete.. .
The fact is that the level of tolerance on the part of the authorities towards the existence of the shadow economic sector in the republics of the Soviet Union was different. While on the territory of the RSFSR they still fought against it, in a number of republics of the USSR and especially in the republics of Transcaucasia and Central Asia it was practically legalized and successfully developed on for decades!
Of course, in such “exceptional” conditions, the shadow sector in these republics had the opportunity to generate much more additional income per capita than it did in Russia.
In addition, we should not forget about the enormous negative consequences of the numerous purges carried out in relation to the most enterprising citizens of Russia during the collapse of the NEP and collectivization.
To be continued...

N4


Source

For many years, official Soviet propaganda spread the slogan “catch up and overtake America.” It is not surprising that the idea of ​​comparing the USSR with the “ developed country capitalism" was so rooted in the public consciousness that the fact that the USSR lagged behind the United States became one of the main arguments in favor of abandoning socialism and the beginning of "market reforms." Meanwhile, an attempt to “objectively” compare the level of well-being achieved by the USSR with the well-being of the USA and other Western countries encounters many difficulties. The comparison itself based on statistical data on per capita income is incorrect if it does not take into account the perceptions people about their well-being, and also if it does not take into account our desired distribution of wealth or the country's consumption and spending pattern. The feeling of comfort depends on what a person considers valuable. For example, for the Indians of one tribe, the iron irons that they kept in front of the entrance to their homes were very valuable. And China in the New Time “didn’t fall for” cheap consumer goods England and sold tea to England only for silver, so the British had to organize opium wars to conquer the Chinese market. When we compare the well-being of the Soviet people with the American people, we must be prepared for the fact that some Russian citizens will not agree with the proposed comparison parameters, because for them jeans are more important than milk. Many Russian citizens even now value the opportunity to buy milk without waiting in line and without getting up early in the morning much more than the reduction in milk consumption itself (although it is not clear whether it was worth disrupting the economy that produces so much milk to eliminate the lines). What is more important - to give the rich the opportunity to travel to the Canary Islands or to have very good medical service for the entire population? In addition, the monetary expression of the same (in someone’s estimation) comfort resulting from in different ways satisfaction of needs may be different. If some people prefer to rest more, then their income is less than that of the “hard workers”, but the life of the former, from their point of view, is no worse. Yes, many Russians still believe that they lived 10 times worse than Americans during Soviet times, but this should be taken as a subjective assessment. By at least, the statistics of their per capita income do not confirm the tenfold difference. We would like to point out that the organization of consumption in Russia or any other country can be based on national characteristics, but must necessarily correspond to the interests of the long-term survival and development of the country. If Russia as a whole does not consider the trips of its rich people to the Canary Islands as a manifestation of its well-being, then this type of consumption could not be included in the statistics.

Starting from a certain income level, prestigious goods have a very large share in consumption statistics, but the subjective assessment of the value of basic goods drops sharply. Let's remember the situation in the 80s: the entire population is fed, clothed and shod, has a roof over their head, that is, is fully provided with basic well-being. In this case, it is precisely prestigious consumption that allows one to immediately satisfy the mime of superiority. The fact that many people in the USSR were ready to monstrously overpay for jeans, modern tape recorders and the like is evidence that they no longer particularly valued basic well-being compared to prestigious consumption. But then the assessment of prestigious consumption at inflated prices turns out to be clearly inadequate. Let's imagine that the population of one country has only basic welfare, and the population of another voluntarily pays as much for prestigious goods as it spends on basic welfare. In this case, statistics show a twofold difference in consumption. But in fact, this does not indicate a twofold difference in the power of economies, since a small part of the population is engaged in the production of prestigious goods. rich country, and not half of it. As growth continues, freeing up a really small number of additional workers in a poorer country for prestige goods gives O a better estimate of consumption growth based on market prices. But this is precisely the situation that developed in the USSR, whose authorities deliberately delayed the launch of a prestigious economy until the entire population was provided with basic well-being!

But even if we forget about subjective assessments of well-being and focus on the figures of per capita income as an indicator of the country’s success, then many of the most important consumption funds characteristic of the economy of Soviet socialism are not included in the statistics. The reason is a completely different type of exchange and distribution. While “free” consumption through public funds can somehow be included in comparative statistics, the effects associated with different pricing principles for paid goods are generally difficult to track. In general, the Japanese live poorer than the Germans, but Japan's per capita GDP, in monetary terms, is higher than Germany's. The reason is the way GDP is calculated. Even if the natural goods consumed are the same, then the more money circulates in the economy, the higher the so-called standard of living, calculated on the basis of per capita income. In this case, two factors are intertwined. First, in countries with higher land rents, goods and services that do not fall into the class of exported and imported goods become especially expensive, because they cannot be exported and imported. These are, for example, heavy building materials, transport, hairdresser and utility services, hotel accommodation, services and goods included in government consumption. At the same time, classes of goods and services that are not amenable to export-import, as a rule, amount to b O most of the GDP. In the same time, exchange rate in the long term, it is determined, first of all, by the ratio of prices of exported and imported goods. The latter in countries with high land rent become cheaper relative to other goods than in countries with low land rent. (We are not considering customs duties here, which add further distortion to the exchange rate.) In Japan you can buy a television for a relatively low price, but a very modest room in a Japanese hotel will cost the same as a few days' stay in such a hotel. same class in Germany. Overestimation of property rents is not always eliminated even by such statistician tricks as recalculating exchange rates using purchasing power parity, because the set of goods taken may be inadequate. By the way, a similar effect, although to a lesser extent, is produced by Russian inflated prices, for example, for wine, compared to its price in France. High excise taxes on alcohol also provide a visible increase in GDP, just like land rent in the Japanese case. In general, the USSR was characterized by artificially low prices for energy resources, which underestimated the apparent GDP attributable to natural economic indicators similar to Western countries. The same effect had the non-inclusion in the price of the increase in utility during the exchange of goods: price regulation reduced the possibilities market valuation trade services, etc., included in the GDP of Western countries. Finally, the statistics of per capita income excluded that part of the goods and services that were produced in the “shadow” economy in addition to the official figures and were exchanged semi-legally, for example, the unregistered services of music teachers at home, apartment renovation contractors, and a doctor in exchange for mutual favors ( say, my son’s admission to university), etc. GDP statistics also do not include goods produced as part of a subsistence economy - for example, food from personal plots and dachas. All these factors characteristic of the Soviet economy give deliberately underestimated indicators of the USSR economy in comparison with its real successes.

Therefore, we want to warn the reader that any statistics comparing the well-being of Soviet people and Westerners should be treated with caution. From the point of view of the members of the Brezhnev Politburo, the level of well-being of the Soviet people was quite close to that of the West, because they compared well-being according to those parameters that they considered most important for the Soviet people: consumption of vegetables, milk and meat, housing, level of education and recreation, cultural development. From the point of view of some Soviet residents, they consumed 100 times less than the American homeless person, because although the homeless person did not have the basic wealth that the Soviet people had, he had jeans, and some Soviet residents valued jeans 100 times more than basic welfare. In terms of per capita income, calculated by statistics using the usual methods applicable to capitalist economies, the lag behind the United States was two times. With the creation of an adequate assessment system that takes into account non-monetary consumption, the backlog could perhaps be reduced by one and a half times. From the point of view of the welfare criteria adopted by the Brezhnev leadership, the lag was minimal. According to statistics of per capita income in the 80s, according to various estimates, the USSR lagged behind the USA by 2 times, but was only slightly behind Italy. In comparison with Italy, the difference in the level of consumption was, at most, in the more beautiful windows of city stores, but the standard of living of the overwhelming majority of the population in the USSR was no lower than in Italy. And the “socialist” Czechs certainly lived noticeably better than the “capitalist” Italians.

A comparison based on natural indicators is more adequate. In this case, UN statistics, for example, reveal that the Soviet Union was in the top ten countries in terms of food quality. We will present 3 tables comparing the development of Russia and other countries.

Table 2. Ratio of leading countries to the leading one(Selishchev A.S., Macroeconomics, p. 422)

	Leading country	Second country	Third country	Fourth country
	USA – 100%	USSR – 51%	Japan – 34%
	USA – 100%	USSR – 29%	England – 19%	France – 13%
	USA – 100%	Germany – 37%	USSR – 37%	England – 27%
		Russia – 123%	Germany – 113%	England – 100%
		Russia – 117%	England – 100%	France – 85%
	Russia – 132%	France –105%	England – 100%	France – 87%
Military spending
	USA – 100%	USSR – 100%	China – 18%	England – 15%
	USSR – 106%	USA –100%	China – 18%	England – 16%
	Germany – 651%	USSR – 483%	England – 161%	Japan – 154%
	Germany – 129%	Russia – 125%	England – 100%	France – 99%
	Russia – 127%	France – 119%	England – 100%	Germany – 68%
	France – 148%	England –100%	Russia – 92%	Austrian Hungary – 54%
Industrial production
	USA – 100%	USSR – 52%	Japan – 30%
	USA – 100%	USSR – 24%	Japan – 19%
	USA – 100%	Germany – 40%	England – 34%	USSR – 29%
		Germany – 109%	England – 100%	Russia – 26%
	England – 100%	China – 75%		France – 37%
	China – 319%	India – 185%	England – 100%	Russia – 59%

Source : Russett B.U.S. Hegemony: Gone or merely Diminished, and How Does it Matter? // The Political Economy of Japan Vol.2. /Ed. by Takashi Inoguchi & D.I. Okimoto. Stanford, 1988. p.87)

Table 3. Comparison of average annual per capita income in international dollars(based on purchasing power parity) 1988 (Selishchev A.S., Macroeconomics, p. 423)

Brazil
Indonesia
Britannia
Germany