Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition

[General_Urist]

You track most goods categories by their internal/CMEA/external price and modify that price rather then counting what is moving there. Its tacitly accepting that you are in an integrated market rather then an autarky zone.

Click to shrink...

Fair enough. How will the output of our resource extraction projects be indicated? I hope it's not a return to the pre-statplan days where the output of a proposed coal mine or bauxite smelter is just "I dunno trust the vibes".

Also dang I forgot not every option in that vote reallocated the HI dice. Silly me. I don't look that observant do I?

 

[Crazycryodude]

[]Plan Skeleton
--[]Profitability: Implement New Policies Retroactively (-200 RpT)
--[]Focus: Infrastructure (+6 Infra dice)
--[]Spending: 20+10% GNP (3500 RpT allocation)
--[]Targets: [FILL IN FINAL VERSION]
--[]Autodice
---[]Housing: 3 Infra dice (-180 RpT)
---[]Hydro: 4 Infra dice - Amur + Amu Darya/Syr Darya Cascades (-240 RpT)
---[]Nuclear: 1 HI die (-150 RpT)
---[]Coal: 2 HI dice (-240 RpT)
---[]CCGT: 2 LCI dice (-280 RpT)
---[]Healthcare: 2 Services dice (-130 RpT)
---[]Education: 4 Services dice (-160 RpT)

This would leave us with a discretionary spending pool of 1920 - 50 RpT (rocketry) = 1870 RpT, to spread across a total of...

Free: 4 dice
Infra: 9 dice
HI: 5 dice
LCI: 6 dice
Ag: 6 dice
Services: 10 dice

40 dice, or 46.8 RpDpT. That's already too low to activate most of our more expensive dice, so I would strongly recommend that we don't do anything expensive like a cap goods/HI focused set of targets, or bumping up autodice any higher than this. I'm honestly considering cutting the Amur Cascade already, more autodice would worsen the situation to an unacceptable point.

Additionally, any allocation spread that cuts the central budget down to 15% instead of 20% is also going to be crippling, so I think we're doing either 20+15 or 20+10. Since 20+15 would be running pretty hot in a tight labor market, and funneling more money to all the corrupt Voz cronies we're attempting to fire, I think 20+10 and aggressive action against the managers is our best shot at threading the needle. We need to lean hard into the populist angle to win political support and top cover from the Supreme Soviet, any hope of a Voz-style internal ministry support base just isn't going to happen.

The upsides are that power generation is relatively futureproofed for this FYP even if we exceed projections (hint: we probably will, we always do). Education is worth pushing up to 4 dice, and while funding medicine at 2 dice instead of 3 might sound undesirable at first glance, the 2 dice option focuses on pushing out clinic access to underserved areas while the 3 dice option drops that (and ruins our budget even harder) to double down on upgrades for existing coverage. I think 2 dice healthcare is necessary for leaning into the populist strategy to keep our job, especially since we already decided to try and court the rurals as a political base.

The last question is which set of targets to take. I think that Technical Planning can immediately be ruled out as too expensive, as well as Service Focused. Bear with me on that second one, I know we have a Services focus already so it seems like the obvious choice, but the option says we will need to invest heavily in automation and capital upgrades for HI/LCI to free up the labor - which again is probably too expensive with our already limited budget. In a similar vein, Bypassing Agriculture has the same Services target, and would thus probably require similar investment into HI/LCI that we can't afford.

So that leaves us with either Balanced Planning or Recovering Agriculture. I'm still not settled on which one, very open to debate and hope to encourage it, but if you made me pick a side right now it might be Recovering Agriculture? Ag spending tends to be pretty cheap, and this is a way to triple down on a coherent political strategy of trying to construct a populist image (literally a chicken in every pot for urban workers), as well as actually committing to funding all the small farmers we want to try and build into our own base. But I want to hear the thread's thoughts, we could make Balanced work too.

 

[Kirai]

Wrote somewhat of an effortpost on housing/healthcare/education, but definitely far from perfect.

Housing Options

-3 Dice: Cheapest option, both in terms of raw RPT but also in terms of RPT per dice. Slower housing development, aims to reduce disruption, maintains lower urban density.

In my opinion the best option considering how much we need to fix the roads. A chief complaint is that our housing programs we're developing too fast and destroying neighborhoods. It'll be good to deliberately slow this down, and would let us work on the other popular program of roads.

-5 Dice: Aims to continue redeveloping low density urban areas, but at maintaining similar levels of density. Presumably with less disruption than the previous plan. Will develop urban cores. Makes sure we don't just copy and paste the same building, instead trying to make them look nicer as well.

Not a big fan of this one. It does work towards the goal of making sure there's no communal housing, but I'm not sure how necessary this is. The word 'regenerating' is doing a lot of work here. I assume it's like the first one but more intensive, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

-7 Dice: Broad renovations of housing. Attempts to improve insulation and temperature control, appearances, and improve interior conditions.

I want to like this one, but it's too expensive for this plan. The amount of dice and resources implies that we're going to be doing this very quickly, which means a lot of disruption to peoples housing. While I would hope Klimenko is smart enough to deal with it, it's not guaranteed.



Healthcare

1 Dice: Modernize large urban hospitals at the expense of regional ones.

Very much a band-aid, we will have to work on the goddamn roads and making sure we have decent transportation infrastructure (ambulances?).

2 Dice: Build lots of standardized clinics with some capacity, use new doctors as the frontline in these more broad clinics, create transportation structure for getting to urban hospitals.

Less of a band-aid, but far from a true fix. Will build up the transportation infrastructure, but we will need to improve the roads. Worried this might overstress our medical workforce supply.

3 Dice: Work towards improving accuracy and diagnostic capabilities at clinics. Quality over quantity approach, will involve importing foreign expertise (and probably equipment).

An interesting approach, it says politically problematic so that implies we might have blowback from acknowledging this. Will hopefully save on labor by using better tools, and will work on modernizing the sector. However as Crazycryodude pointed out, it works on improving existing capacities rather than expanding it to more rural regions.



Education:

2 Dice: Focuses on the secondary education system. Extends the curriculum for students generally seeking university, will get some language and history in these nerds.

Cheap, and probably an okay reform. Does little to get outside of the STEM mindset, but might be a good band-aid.

3 Dice: Doing the above and expanding universities. Increases social science/arts in the specialty ratio (sociologist bias talking) to get out of the STEM above all else mindset.

The expansion of the university system helps with the STEM mindset, but it might also help vary the student -> party member pipeline. This would help increase it by sheer numbers and varying educations.

4 Dice: The above but even more, expands social sciences massively.

Does the above even more. I'd be worried it'd spread our social science professors thin on teaching for a long while. I do think this would be necessary to increase the pipeline, as well as up-skilling workers as we work towards increased automation in face of a possible labor crunch.

 

[Kirai]

The last question is which set of targets to take. I think that Technical Planning can immediately be ruled out as too expensive, as well as Service Focused. Bear with me on that second one, I know we have a Services focus already so it seems like the obvious choice, but the option says we will need to invest heavily in automation and capital upgrades for HI/LCI to free up the labor - which again is probably too expensive with our already limited budget. In a similar vein, Bypassing Agriculture has the same Services target, and would thus probably require similar investment into HI/LCI that we can't afford.

So that leaves us with either Balanced Planning or Recovering Agriculture. I'm still not settled on which one, very open to debate and hope to encourage it, but if you made me pick a side right now it might be Recovering Agriculture? Ag spending tends to be pretty cheap, and this is a way to triple down on a coherent political strategy of trying to construct a populist image (literally a chicken in every pot for urban workers), as well as actually committing to funding all the small farmers we want to try and build into our own base. But I want to hear the thread's thoughts, we could make Balanced work too.

Click to shrink...

Looking through the total increases (all of the increases summed) by each target

• Balanced Planning: 185
• Bypassing Agriculture: 210
• Service Focused: 175
• Recovering Agriculture: 190
• Technical Planning: 180

Balanced planning and Recovering Agriculture are roughly in the middle. Whereas services focused is technically the lowest to achieve. I do agree that Recovering Agriculture would help on the political side of things, with the populist image, but 30 is somewhat of a steep target. It might be possible with more focus put on it and improving rural infrastructure. However, I worry if we fail it again the political consequences will be steeper, perhaps leaning into the Enterprises much harder.

On instinct I'd go for Balanced Planning as more achievable, but it doesn't take as strong of a political stance, which is both good and bad.

 

[Redshirt Army]

Here are my current plan drafts:

[ ] Plan: Activate Hard Mode
-[] Profitability: Implement New Policies Retroactively (-200 RpT)
-[] Second Focus: Infrastructure (+6 Infra Dice)
-[] Spending: 15+15% GNP (2900 All Cause RpT)
-[] Target Proposal: Bypassing Agriculture (45% MFPG, 25% Capital Goods, 60% Consumer Goods, 15% Agricultural, and 65% Service Sector Valuation Increase)

-[] Autodice:
--[] Housing: 3 Infra Dice (180 RpT)
--[] Hydroelectric Power:
---[] Amur Cascade: 1 Infra Dice (60 RpT)
---[] Amu Darya and Syr Danya Hydroelectric Cascades: 3 Infra Dice (180 RpT)
--[] Nuclear Power: 1 HI Die (150 RpT)
--[] Coal Power: 2 HI Dice (240 RpT)
--[] Gas Power: 2 LCI Dice (280 RpT)
--[] Healthcare: 2 Serv Dice (130 RpT)
--[] Education: 4 Serv Dice (160 RpT)

Average of 33 RpD to spend.

Click to shrink...

[ ] Plan: Make The Managers Very Angry
-[] Profitability: Implement New Policies Retroactively (-200 RpT)
-[] Second Focus: Infrastructure (+6 Infra Dice)
-[] Spending: 20+10% GNP (3500 All Cause RpT)
-[] Target Proposal: Bypassing Agriculture (45% MFPG, 25% Capital Goods, 60% Consumer Goods, 15% Agricultural, and 65% Service Sector Valuation Increase)

-[] Autodice:
--[] Housing: 3 Infra Dice (180 RpT)
--[] Hydroelectric Power:
---[] Amur Cascade: 1 Infra Dice (60 RpT)
---[] Amu Darya and Syr Danya Hydroelectric Cascades: 3 Infra Dice (180 RpT)
--[] Nuclear Power: 1 HI Die (150 RpT)
--[] Coal Power: 2 HI Dice (240 RpT)
--[] Gas Power: 2 LCI Dice (280 RpT)
--[] Healthcare: 2 Serv Dice (130 RpT)
--[] Education: 4 Serv Dice (160 RpT)

Average of 48 RpD to spend.

Click to shrink...

And here are my justifications:

Profitability: 100 RpT is a pretty low price to pay to clear out far more of the dead chaff and also to buy more public appeasement.
Focus: Obviously Infra, those roads need to be built.

Target Proposal:
I think that it's very unlikely that we actually get the Agri sector to be significantly profitable - even going full on into chemicalization, getting to 30% will be like pulling teeth. Instead, lets focus on getting as many people out of agriculture and into the rest of our economy as we can - after all, given how the trends around the green revolution went IRL, it's probably far easier to maximize "number of workers no longer needed to do agriculture" than it is to maximize "profits of the agricultural sector".

Autodice:
-3 dice on housing is still a pretty hefty investment which will slowly chip away at the rough edges that Voz's big push left exposed, and will leave Infra dice free to finally fix the goddamn roads.
-Both of these dam systems also do useful hydrological stabilization which we'd otherwise want to do anyway, have decent electricity per dice, and also provide us with a bunch of aluminum. Going heavier on dams will also be useful if we want to do atommash next plan, since it'll give us a bunch of electricity then.
-One die on nuclear to keep the science ticking over for atommash.
-Two dice on coal and two dice on gas means that we're going to have plenty of electricity to go around. Between that, the non-ferrous from the dam systems, and the natgas expansions that we'll do for the gas plants, we shouldn't have trouble hitting our MFPG targets.
-Two dice on healthcare, since it has way better resource efficiency than three dice, and focusing on expanding coverage is more important than our top end anyhow imo.
-Four dice on education, because anyone who does anything less is a revisionist traitor wrecker. More seriously, it's cheap in terms of RpD, is critically important in the long term, and we picked the MNKh minister best suited to it.

The angry managers plan is relatively easy to pull off in terms of the raw numbers, since a 48 RpD average is semi-attainable given the low prices in Infra and Services. Just leave some dice idle to do some gas and car plants early and we should be alright - the main problem is the political issues that messing with the managers will cause.

15+15%, on the other hand, is going to be extremely difficult - we'd have to go deep into the forbidden petro-ruble to make it work.

 

[doruma1920]

[]Plan Skeleton

Click to shrink...

I approve of this plan with the Balanced Option, cause of the issues with Agriculture. Yes, politically it would be a good choice to further hammer down on building our base with Recovering Agriculture, but actually getting 30% growth is going to be very challenging.

I'd like to also grab the Upper Ob-Irtysh Cascade Dams but I understand that our RpD situation is already going to be difficult. Especially with the development of more advanced computers.

 

[Drieder]

[]Plan Skeleton with more Housing.
--[]Profitability: Implement New Policies Retroactively (-200 RpT)
--[]Focus: Infrastructure (+6 Infra dice)
--[]Spending: 20+10% GNP (3500 RpT allocation)
--[]Balanced Planning
--[]Autodice
---[]Housing: 5 Infra dice (-320 RpT)
---[]Hydro: 4 Infra dice - Amur + Amu Darya/Syr Darya Cascades (-240 RpT)
---[]Nuclear: 1 HI die (-150 RpT)
---[]Coal: 2 HI dice (-240 RpT)
---[]CCGT: 2 LCI dice (-280 RpT)
---[]Healthcare: 2 Services dice (-130 RpT)
---[]Education: 4 Services dice (-160 RpT)

 

[Vi'Talzin]

Yes, politically it would be a good choice to further hammer down on building our base with Recovering Agriculture, but actually getting 30% growth is going to be very challenging.

Click to shrink...

For everyone afraid of going after the agricultural goal, Klimenko is underestimating how much growth can be achieved actually. When we asked, Blackstar said 50% is theoretically achievable if we do structural reform and good policy. That means mechanizing and really leaning on helping small farmers, fixing transportation, doing bankruptcy reform, insurance, local market initiatives (farmers markets I think), following up on the bread program and investing a lot in meat. Like, it would require a lot of effort and some sacrifices, but it would be popular and more than achievable, as well as drastically reduce poverty.

 

[notgreat]

Electricity resource comparisons, looking at how many Resources we need to invest for each point of Electricity.

120R->35E = 3.4 R/E (but also costs coal)
Gas 1 and 2 is 140R -> 40E = 3.5 R/E (but also the gas extraction necessary will give us petrorubles)
Gas 3 is an extra 170R for 24E, hilariously not worth it at 7.1 R/E
Nuclear is 150R->18E, lol, lmao 8.3 R/E

The dams vary, but multiply the RpT by 10 to get the total resource amount. The Non-Ferrous produced also makes it a lot more valuable potentially.
Amur: 6 R/E, 10 R/NF
Ob-Irtysh: 4.3 R/E, 40 R/NF
Lena: 8 R/E, 8 R/NF
Krasnoyarsk: 9 R/E, 22 R/NF, steel
ADSD: 5.1 R/E, 22.5 R/NF, water stabilization

1 point in NF is worth roughly 1 RpT, but we can expect that to drop if we oversupply the market.

-3 dice on housing is still a pretty hefty investment which will slowly chip away at the rough edges that Voz's big push left exposed, and will leave Infra dice free to finally fix the goddamn roads.

Click to shrink...

3 dice on housing is enough to tread water and not get worse, but I'm pretty sure it won't actually improve things. Still, it is the more popular option politically since the previous housing effort got grouped together with our city renovations and is thus fairly disliked.

I'll have to think more as to what plan I want, but it's important to note that if we go 20+10 we'll get significantly less consumer goods (since those are currently highly profitable and thus auto-expanding quite rapidly)

 

[UrWishy]

50% is theoretically achievable

Click to shrink...

This is actually wrong, Blackstar said 50% growth in yield and not value

 

[Vi'Talzin]

This is actually wrong, Blackstar said 50% growth in yield and not value

Click to shrink...

To be fair they just said growth, but yeah, I missed that. But I looked it up again and she said that 30 is not impossible, we just have to "just know what you are getting into" in her words. I am guessing for that to happen we need to do what was laid out above, since a 30% increase in yield probably won't reach it.

 

[Random Member]

[] Plan Resist The Siren Call of Revisionism
--[]Profitability: Implement New Policies Retroactively (-200 RpT)
--[]Focus: Infrastructure (+6 Infra dice)
--[]Spending: 20+15% GNP (3500 RpT allocation)
--[]Balanced Planning
--[]Autodice
---[]Housing: 5 Infra dice (-320 RpT)
---[]Hydro: 4 Infra dice - Amur + Amu Darya/Syr Darya Cascades (-240 RpT)
---[]Nuclear: 1 HI die (-150 RpT)
---[]Coal: 2 HI dice (-240 RpT)
---[]CCGT: 2 LCI dice (-280 RpT)
---[]Healthcare: 2 Services dice (-130 RpT)
---[]Education: 4 Services dice (-160 RpT)

20+15 funding, anyone who complains is a wrecker.

 

[Hianny]

I basically agree with "Plan: Make The Managers Very Angry" If we are declaring war on the managers might as well do it properly this will win us no friends but it will allows us to to have a proper budget. I also feel like balanced or bypass agri is the best purely because agri is doomed and every effort that it would take to make agri rise in value is better spend almost anywhere else.

Edit: Also every effort used to squeezed out better agri profits this plan will make next plan even harder to complete

 

[Redshirt Army]

When we asked, Blackstar said 50% is theoretically achievable if we do structural reform and good policy

Click to shrink...

She said a 50% increase in yields was possible.

That doesn't actually correspond to a 30% increase in profits if it just causes food prices to go down.

 

[Red Rationalist]

I basically agree with "Plan: Make The Managers Very Angry" If we are declaring war on the managers might as well do it properly this will win us no friends but it will allows us to to have a proper budget. I also feel like balanced or bypass agri is the best purely because agri is doomed and every effort that it would take to make agri rise in value is better spend almost anywhere else.

Click to shrink...

For one, balanced planning, service focussed and technical planning have identical growth targets for agriculture (20%). We only have 3 possible growth targets in agriculture: 15% (Bypassing agriculture), 20% and 30% (Agri Focus). I also disagree with the take that agriculture is doomed. Remember, we have the black belt of Ukraine in our union. An area that today produces 10% of the 2020s global wheat production, more in specialized agricultural goods. Just based on geography, we should be an incredibly strong agricultural exporter with appropriate export incomes.
The issue is one of lacking infrastructure, the subsidy regime and lacking modernization. But those are all issue with policy and infrastructure, not issues intrinsic to the green revolution. If we can tackle those problems, agriculture should make us quite a decent rubel on the international markets. So I think agriculture is worth fixing, since we have considerable export potential.

 

[Vi'Talzin]

She said a 50% increase in yields was possible.

That doesn't actually correspond to a 30% increase in profits if it just causes food prices to go down.

Click to shrink...

Yes, this was pointed out. But she still said a 30% increase in profits is possible, so a plan going hard on agri is possible and still has a ton of benefits both political and from a poverty reduction and freeing up labor for next plan perspective. Agriculture and the countryside are far from a lost cause.

If we can tackle those problems, grain should makes quite a decent rubel on the international markets. So I think agriculture is worth fixing, since we have considerable export potential.

Click to shrink...

Grain probably loses us money, but thats what the meat industry is for, turning that grain into actually valuable stuff for our consumers and export markets and creating demand for it.

 

[Red Rationalist]

Grain probably loses us money, but thats what the meat industry is for, turning that grain into actually valuable stuff for our consumers and export markets and creating demand for it.

Click to shrink...

Grain as a specific export is currently probably unprofitable. Though the profitability is going to increase again as the world steadily moves away from agrarian economies and poorer regions start to industrialize and urbanize. In either case, we can also shift agrarian production towards more profitable export goods (meat, sunflower oil, fruits) as you point out.

 

[Hianny]

For one, balanced planning, service focussed and technical planning have identical growth targets for agriculture (20%). We only have 3 possible growth targets in agriculture: 15% (Bypassing agriculture), 20% and 30% (Agri Focus). I also disagree with the take that agriculture is doomed. Remember, we have the black belt of Ukraine in our union. An area that today produces 10% of the 2020s global wheat production, more in specialized agricultural goods. Just based on geography, we should be an incredibly strong agricultural exporter with appropriate export incomes.
The issue is one of lacking infrastructure, the subsidy regime and lacking modernization. But those are all issue with policy and infrastructure, not issues intrinsic to the green revolution. If we can tackle those problems, grain should makes quite a decent rubel on the international markets. So I think agriculture is worth fixing, since we have considerable export potential.

Click to shrink...

Yes balanced planning has the same agriculture target but it is by all other factors the easiest plan to fulfill so i am tenativly ok with it winning not that i think it should be the option chosen. And yes we can do a hard push and maybe make agri profitable for a solid 5-10 years until it goes back in the not profitable area it is just not worth it in my opinion to put so many resources in agriculture when it is in my opion a sector we should try to minimize employment and relevance of in the grand scheme of things. Subisidies are never leaving the sector that is how you run agriculture and those subsidies are only going to increase as our labour stops being dirt cheap so i would rather just make the sector run on minimum and focus on services.

 

[Red Rationalist]

And yes we can do a hard push and maybe make agri profitable for a solid 5-10 years until it goes back in the not profitable area it is just not worth it in my opinion to put so many resources in agriculture when it is in my opion a sector we should try to minimize employment and relevance of in the grand scheme of things. Subisidies are never leaving the sector that is how you run agriculture and those subsidies are only going to increase as our labour stops being dirt cheap so i would rather just make the sector run on minimum and focus on services.

Click to shrink...

Hianny, agriculture is potentially profitable in todays far more automated economy. Ukranian exports in 2020 were 41% agriculture, which shows the black belt to have tremendous export potential. Your defeatism about only be able to make it profitable for 5-10 years is wrong, there is nothing stopping us from achieving a net positive on agri with the right policies. The political will to fix agriculture is there, we just need to combine the right policies with the right investment.

 

[01paradox01]

Everyone needs to eat, and agriculture will always be viable as a consequence. This should be simple arithmetic, especially with the world's rapidly growing population. I think the reluctance to invest in agriculture is a result of biases, but that just might be me and my own uninformed opinions.

 

[Dessard]

While the higher Agri profitability targets may theoretically be achievable, they'll take not only significant roads investment but significant LCI that won't be going to profitable oil or consumer sectors. This, if we're strapped for Resources this may not be the plan for it.

 

[Hianny]

Hianny, agriculture is potentially profitable in todays far more automated economy. Ukranian exports in 2020 were 41% agriculture, which shows the black belt to have tremendous export potential. Your defeatism about only be able to make it profitable for 5-10 years is wrong, there is nothing stopping us from achieving a net positive on agri with the right policies. The political will to fix agriculture is there, we just need to combine the right policies with the right investment.

Click to shrink...

The problem is you are comparing us to Ukraine from OTL which is just not a good comparison as Ukraine is going to be far richer thus wages are going to increase and unless we systamatically fuck over every person working in agriculture then it is going to be more expensive. Furthermore yes Ukraine had an export of 41% which was about 27,1 billion which is a good amount but that isn't pure profit and that gets even worse when you factor in the 6,1 billion subsidies it is given (2018) in subsidies. I will concede it might be a little profitable but again i don't want to heavily focus on a sector with the potential to be a bit profitable if everything goes right it is just not worth it in any department especially when we can spend all those resources, political capital, and time building up the service sector instead.

 

[Vi'Talzin]

Regardless of whether it solves the profitability issue in the long long term, it would lift tens of millions out of poverty, move away from the dysfunctional mess the system is currently, synergize perfectly with our bosses' "for the little guy" and social conservative image for maximum political gains, free up a lot of labor for next plan since going after the target means helping small farms mechanize and generally make agriculture much less of a drain long term. Like, "a little profitable" is a lot better than "the countryside is a hellscape and we don't even get money to soothe our consciences about it since it is a net drain". Yes, eventually wages will catch up and profits won't reach the arbitrary goals the Supreme Soviet imposes on us, but I am not even sure this will happen in this quest's lifespan. There are a lot of really good reasons to actually try to fix most of the systemic issues in the sector so I think it is a totally viable plan.

 

[10ebbor10]

Gas 3 is an extra 170R for 24E, hilariously not worth it at 7.1 R/E

Click to shrink...

Gas 3 ( 4?) İs special in that it builds capacity for the next plan more than power now.

Might be needed, depending on how much we want to rely on coal in the future.

 

[Red Rationalist]

The problem is you are comparing us to Ukraine from OTL which is just not a good comparison as Ukraine is going to be far richer thus wages are going to increase and unless we systamatically fuck over every person working in agriculture then it is going to be more expensive.

Click to shrink...

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make here. Higher wages for workers make institutions less profitable, and our SU in '65 is going to have lower wages for agricultural workers compared to Ukraine after 20 or so years of nation building and internal investment into raising wages.

Furthermore yes Ukraine had an export of 41% which was about 27,1 billion which is a good amount but that isn't pure profit and that gets even worse when you factor in the 6,1 billion subsidies it is given (2018) in subsidies. I will concede it might be a little profitable but again i don't want to heavily focus on a sector with the potential to be a bit profitable if everything goes right it is just not worth it in any department especially when we can spend all those resources, political capital, and time building up the service sector instead.

Click to shrink...

The point I was making is that it's entirely possible for a state in 2020 to have an agriculture based export economy, especially if they have very favourable conditions like in the black belt. It was a direct counter to your argument that agriculture will be natural unprofitable due to the green revolution. To get into the specific case, ukranian agriculture had a revenue during the 2018-2019 of around 550 billion hryvina, equivalent to around 15 billion US dollars. This isn't "just a bit profitable", it's a pillar of the ukranian exports in their trade.