That doesn't mean it was profitable. The price could have been set for political reasons. Or it could have been set by the marginal cost of the launch, ignoring entirely the development cost that was written off when the USSR collapsed. Or it could have been enough to simply pay for the weight of the astronaut in a rocket that was going up anyway, like a hotel will sell rooms at a deep discount just to not lose as much money if it cannot otherwise. If communism produces goods and services cheaper than the free market, we'd be awash in Soviet goods.
The US government produces goods and services at "cheap" prices, but the losses are made up for by the taxpayer.
> which can often be less efficient than alternatives
You mean my whole youth lived around Soviet-made goods is an 'anecdotal evidence'?
Well, perhaps I should have tried living in those fantasy Soviet Unions some people on the internet love so much. Those must have been magnificent states!
Well, it does remain anecdotal evidence. The point of the above commenter is that while they could be made the lack of creativity in planned economies lead to them not being made, not that there were made.
You talk about planned economy shows that you learned about it from third-party sources. There was an abundance of creativity, it just wasn't aimed at creating consumer goods, because they just could not be made in the planned economy at all.
Yes what you present is anecdotal evidence. Also nobody is saying they like the Soviet Union that is an idiotic strawman. My point is that they could be made but the USSR wasn’t gearing its economy towards consumer goods because it was a military state who cared almost entirely about heavy industry to benefit its military industrial complex and competition with the US.
While that is true, the USSR produced a better military and more, higher quality consumer goods than most nations of it's size.
That said, it is certain that the soviet system was suboptimal in a great many ways.
But, crucially to the fact at hands, 1960s' USSR produced better rockets to send people to the ISS, at a lower cost, than 2021's USA, so there something beyond the free market in this particular case.
I'm sorry, what else are you suggesting? That we let the free market figure out by itself how to maintain the ISS without signing any government contract?
Also, Falcon 9 wasn't the product of a government contract.
I’m not arguing the US isn’t a better system. I’m saying had the USSR decided to allocate its resources towards consumer goods, it’s ridiculous to think they couldn’t have had a large industry.
It's ridiculous to think that that could produce anything good for consumers. The system just didn't work towards that goal. You can't design a fashionable piece of clothing if you have a 5 year plan imposed on you.
That doesn't mean it was profitable. The price could have been set for political reasons. Or it could have been set by the marginal cost of the launch, ignoring entirely the development cost that was written off when the USSR collapsed. Or it could have been enough to simply pay for the weight of the astronaut in a rocket that was going up anyway, like a hotel will sell rooms at a deep discount just to not lose as much money if it cannot otherwise. If communism produces goods and services cheaper than the free market, we'd be awash in Soviet goods.
The US government produces goods and services at "cheap" prices, but the losses are made up for by the taxpayer.
> which can often be less efficient than alternatives
I'd like to see a case of that.