radon1 wrote: (from article)"We have enough foodstuffs. As for crops, for example, we have 5.2 million tons now while the domestic consumption is 2.1 million tons. We have enough buckwheat. We have an excessive production of sugar, estimated at almost 700,000 tons, or more than the consumers need," Pavlenko said.
This is the lesson we learned in 1920. It doesn't matter a hill of beans if you have enough domestic production, if you do not keep the money circulating with sufficient velocity so that each citizen is able to purchase said foodstuffs at normal market prices. You can see their failure most simply in the amounts they pay for pensions, etc; those are supposed to be on the low end; but they are like 1000 uah a month, which amounts to $50 at best. $50 can not support market rates on those basic food stuffs for a months supply. So they can grow it till it pours out their ears, but they can then only do one of:
1. export it
2. subsidy sale it via government debt
3. let it rot.
Thus depression era food problems, just like we had; in spite of depression era production surplus... just like we had.
Only, we didn't try to fight a civil war at the same time.
This guarantees instability. Instead of #2, they needed a "food stamp" ish program which keeps the money circulating, and keeps the products moving from field to warehouse to retail store. Of course, its a lot harder to skim off money from a food stamp program than it is a government direct subsidy that distorts retail pricing.