by Centrallonia » Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:11 pm
by Atheris » Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:19 pm
by Baltenstein » Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:30 pm
by Kubra » Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:11 pm
Also thisBaltenstein wrote:Being a largely conscription-based force, the crumbling GDR system was as unpopular with your average NVA soldier as it was with the rest of the population. Trying to deploy the army against the peaceful protesters would have predictably led to mass fraternization rather than suppression, much like it happened in the Moscow Coup of 1991.
by Vistulange » Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:13 pm
by Novus America » Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:12 pm
Baltenstein wrote:Being a largely conscription-based force, the crumbling GDR system was as unpopular with your average NVA soldier as it was with the rest of the population. Trying to deploy the army against the peaceful protesters would have predictably led to mass fraternization rather than suppression, much like it happened in the Moscow Coup of 1991.
by Vetalia » Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:38 pm
Atheris wrote:To add on to your post; the East German government didn't "collapse overnight". East Germany and the rest of the communist bloc had been losing the Cold War since 1953 (or, arguably, 1969). Mikhail Gorbachev's rise to power was the final nail in the coffin for the Eastern Bloc (not the USSR, mind you) and communism in Europe, but it wasn't the reason that it collapsed. The East had been in decline far longer than what happened in 1989 and 1990.
by Shanghai industrial complex » Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:35 am
Vetalia wrote:Atheris wrote:To add on to your post; the East German government didn't "collapse overnight". East Germany and the rest of the communist bloc had been losing the Cold War since 1953 (or, arguably, 1969). Mikhail Gorbachev's rise to power was the final nail in the coffin for the Eastern Bloc (not the USSR, mind you) and communism in Europe, but it wasn't the reason that it collapsed. The East had been in decline far longer than what happened in 1989 and 1990.
I would say the early 1970s were the turning point in the Cold War because that was when economic stagnation began to set in and the Soviet economy was no longer capable of keeping pace with the West.
by Kowani » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:40 am
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Vetalia wrote:
I would say the early 1970s were the turning point in the Cold War because that was when economic stagnation began to set in and the Soviet economy was no longer capable of keeping pace with the West.
This was later propaganda.Economic studies show that the Soviet Union's economy still shows no signs of collapse in 1985. Although the economic data are not very good, they are not bad too.At the beginning of the reform, the Soviet Union's gold reserve was 2000 tons, and in 1991 it dropped to 200 tons. In 1985, the Soviet Union actually had no external debt; in 1991, the Soviet Union's foreign debt was about 120 billion US dollars.And all other data suggest that Gorbachev was an economic genius.Even if it can't keep up with the entire Western Script, the Soviet Union may still exist as a powerful entity.
by Shanghai industrial complex » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:44 am
Kowani wrote:Shanghai industrial complex wrote:This was later propaganda.Economic studies show that the Soviet Union's economy still shows no signs of collapse in 1985. Although the economic data are not very good, they are not bad too.At the beginning of the reform, the Soviet Union's gold reserve was 2000 tons, and in 1991 it dropped to 200 tons. In 1985, the Soviet Union actually had no external debt; in 1991, the Soviet Union's foreign debt was about 120 billion US dollars.And all other data suggest that Gorbachev was an economic genius.Even if it can't keep up with the entire Western Script, the Soviet Union may still exist as a powerful entity.
...This isn't the 1600's. Gold is not an indicator of economic strength, not even in the 80's.
by The New California Republic » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:45 am
by Novus America » Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:10 am
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Vetalia wrote:
I would say the early 1970s were the turning point in the Cold War because that was when economic stagnation began to set in and the Soviet economy was no longer capable of keeping pace with the West.
This was later propaganda.Economic studies show that the Soviet Union's economy still shows no signs of collapse in 1985. Although the economic data are not very good, they are not bad too.At the beginning of the reform, the Soviet Union's gold reserve was 2000 tons, and in 1991 it dropped to 200 tons. In 1985, the Soviet Union actually had no external debt; in 1991, the Soviet Union's foreign debt was about 120 billion US dollars.And all other data suggest that Gorbachev was an economic genius.Even if it can't keep up with the entire Western Script, the Soviet Union may still exist as a powerful entity.
by Atheris » Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:58 am
Novus America wrote:Shanghai industrial complex wrote:This was later propaganda.Economic studies show that the Soviet Union's economy still shows no signs of collapse in 1985. Although the economic data are not very good, they are not bad too.At the beginning of the reform, the Soviet Union's gold reserve was 2000 tons, and in 1991 it dropped to 200 tons. In 1985, the Soviet Union actually had no external debt; in 1991, the Soviet Union's foreign debt was about 120 billion US dollars.And all other data suggest that Gorbachev was an economic genius.Even if it can't keep up with the entire Western Script, the Soviet Union may still exist as a powerful entity.
Gold reserves are not the important thing. GPD growth dropped greatly in the period from after 1975 and remained low. Low external debt does not help much either. Romania destroyed its economy trying to pay off its debt. The austerity measures used to avoid debt harm economic growth, borrowing money is actually quite useful if you spend it on projects that generate more GDP then the consume.
Gorbachev was an economic ignoramus as well, his wrongheaded economic reforms caused more problems in many cases. He cut support to SOE’s before liberalization of prices.
Basically they had to sell at a profit despite the state controlling prices of inputs and outputs.
For example if a widget takes 1kg of iron to make, and i have to buy iron at $10 per kg but sell widgets at $5 I cannot make a profit. The more I sell the more I lose. And if the government mandates I sell at least 1 million widgets, then I am basically mandated to lose $5,000,000.
But economic problems were not the only reason the Soviet Union collapsed. The nationality problem was just as big a factor.
by Rightonrighton » Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:16 am
Centrallonia wrote:While surfing youtube came upon the following video (see below) of the East Germany (EG.) military parade of 1989. Question, yes, EG. politics and economy were in free fall but there military seemed fine. Why did the military not just take over when the bottom fell out of the government. Once in power they could have gone more to the right if they had chosen so. Or were the Soviets too entrenched in the EG. military to let that happen. Its kind of hard to believe that any nation with a functional military, unless invaded by a stronger enemy, could collapse overnight.
The video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_9jqxCVpLI
Maybe, the higher up in the military were too tightly kept in check by the government thus they could not act when the government collapsed. If they had been more independent of the government they could have acted.
So what do you think. Also, could it happen today. For example, if the Italian government collapsed and the EU. decided not to get involved, would there military step in to fill the power vacuum or also collapse.
by Atheris » Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:18 am
Rightonrighton wrote:Centrallonia wrote:While surfing youtube came upon the following video (see below) of the East Germany (EG.) military parade of 1989. Question, yes, EG. politics and economy were in free fall but there military seemed fine. Why did the military not just take over when the bottom fell out of the government. Once in power they could have gone more to the right if they had chosen so. Or were the Soviets too entrenched in the EG. military to let that happen. Its kind of hard to believe that any nation with a functional military, unless invaded by a stronger enemy, could collapse overnight.
The video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_9jqxCVpLI
Maybe, the higher up in the military were too tightly kept in check by the government thus they could not act when the government collapsed. If they had been more independent of the government they could have acted.
So what do you think. Also, could it happen today. For example, if the Italian government collapsed and the EU. decided not to get involved, would there military step in to fill the power vacuum or also collapse.
E. German Stalinism was brought down by a popular rebellion. Presumably if the officers had tried something like what you suggest, the pro-democracy ranks of the military would have stopped them.
by The New California Republic » Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:18 am
Rightonrighton wrote:Presumably if the officers had tried something like what you suggest, the pro-democracy ranks of the military would have stopped them.
by Shanghai industrial complex » Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:19 pm
Novus America wrote:Shanghai industrial complex wrote:This was later propaganda.Economic studies show that the Soviet Union's economy still shows no signs of collapse in 1985. Although the economic data are not very good, they are not bad too.At the beginning of the reform, the Soviet Union's gold reserve was 2000 tons, and in 1991 it dropped to 200 tons. In 1985, the Soviet Union actually had no external debt; in 1991, the Soviet Union's foreign debt was about 120 billion US dollars.And all other data suggest that Gorbachev was an economic genius.Even if it can't keep up with the entire Western Script, the Soviet Union may still exist as a powerful entity.
Gold reserves are not the important thing. GPD growth dropped greatly in the period from after 1975 and remained low. Low external debt does not help much either. Romania destroyed its economy trying to pay off its debt. The austerity measures used to avoid debt harm economic growth, borrowing money is actually quite useful if you spend it on projects that generate more GDP then the consume.
Gorbachev was an economic ignoramus as well, his wrongheaded economic reforms caused more problems in many cases. He cut support to SOE’s before liberalization of prices.
Basically they had to sell at a profit despite the state controlling prices of inputs and outputs.
For example if a widget takes 1kg of iron to make, and i have to buy iron at $10 per kg but sell widgets at $5 I cannot make a profit. The more I sell the more I lose. And if the government mandates I sell at least 1 million widgets, then I am basically mandated to lose $5,000,000.
But economic problems were not the only reason the Soviet Union collapsed. The nationality problem was just as big a factor.
by Novus America » Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:29 pm
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Novus America wrote:
Gold reserves are not the important thing. GPD growth dropped greatly in the period from after 1975 and remained low. Low external debt does not help much either. Romania destroyed its economy trying to pay off its debt. The austerity measures used to avoid debt harm economic growth, borrowing money is actually quite useful if you spend it on projects that generate more GDP then the consume.
Gorbachev was an economic ignoramus as well, his wrongheaded economic reforms caused more problems in many cases. He cut support to SOE’s before liberalization of prices.
Basically they had to sell at a profit despite the state controlling prices of inputs and outputs.
For example if a widget takes 1kg of iron to make, and i have to buy iron at $10 per kg but sell widgets at $5 I cannot make a profit. The more I sell the more I lose. And if the government mandates I sell at least 1 million widgets, then I am basically mandated to lose $5,000,000.
But economic problems were not the only reason the Soviet Union collapsed. The nationality problem was just as big a factor.
Planned economy is not such a stupid thing. Your description is an attempt to use the theory of market economy to describe planned economy.Planned economy is run by mathematicians, not economists.The demand side will tell the government what it needs, and then all levels of government will conduct accounting and report. The budget is then approved by the finance department and approved by the relevant bureaucrats. Finally, the factory will be told what to produce.Obviously, in the Soviet era, when there were no high-performance computers, it all needed human computation.Even Stalin could not make arbitrary decisions about prices in violation of objective laws. When an enterprise wants to purchase a part to replace the damaged part, it also has to go through such a complicated process. Obviously, it is not as flexible as the market economy.It is also impossible to predict the constantly updated civil consumer goods.
The Soviet Union's problems were not just economic, but they were clearly not irreparable.In Russian history, many time's situation is much worse than it was in the 1980s. At that time, there were many countries worse than the Soviet Union.What the Soviet Union needed was a cautious and creative reform plan.Gorbachev carried out political reform after the failure of economic reform. After the failure of political reform, he carried out institutional reform and ideological reform.After all this failed, he thought about it and found that it was the fault of the Communist Party and socialism.At this time, the Soviet Union had no energy to pay attention to Eastern Europe.The oligarchs created by Gorbachev's reform have also taken away the power of the Central Communist Party of the Soviet Union.Yeltsin took control of the army and Russia.Government officials at that time became oligarchs today.
What the Soviet Union needed was to reduce its surplus troops and gradually introduce a market economy. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union should insist on controlling state-owned enterprises rather than selling them to capitalists.Abandoning the political ambition in Central Asia and the political control over Eastern Europe.And an agreement should be reached with NATO to withdraw nuclear bombs from western and Eastern Europe and to cut down on garrison.These actions are a burden on the Soviet economy.
by Shanghai industrial complex » Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:50 pm
Novus America wrote:Shanghai industrial complex wrote:
Planned economy is not such a stupid thing. Your description is an attempt to use the theory of market economy to describe planned economy.Planned economy is run by mathematicians, not economists.The demand side will tell the government what it needs, and then all levels of government will conduct accounting and report. The budget is then approved by the finance department and approved by the relevant bureaucrats. Finally, the factory will be told what to produce.Obviously, in the Soviet era, when there were no high-performance computers, it all needed human computation.Even Stalin could not make arbitrary decisions about prices in violation of objective laws. When an enterprise wants to purchase a part to replace the damaged part, it also has to go through such a complicated process. Obviously, it is not as flexible as the market economy.It is also impossible to predict the constantly updated civil consumer goods.
The Soviet Union's problems were not just economic, but they were clearly not irreparable.In Russian history, many time's situation is much worse than it was in the 1980s. At that time, there were many countries worse than the Soviet Union.What the Soviet Union needed was a cautious and creative reform plan.Gorbachev carried out political reform after the failure of economic reform. After the failure of political reform, he carried out institutional reform and ideological reform.After all this failed, he thought about it and found that it was the fault of the Communist Party and socialism.At this time, the Soviet Union had no energy to pay attention to Eastern Europe.The oligarchs created by Gorbachev's reform have also taken away the power of the Central Communist Party of the Soviet Union.Yeltsin took control of the army and Russia.Government officials at that time became oligarchs today.
What the Soviet Union needed was to reduce its surplus troops and gradually introduce a market economy. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union should insist on controlling state-owned enterprises rather than selling them to capitalists.Abandoning the political ambition in Central Asia and the political control over Eastern Europe.And an agreement should be reached with NATO to withdraw nuclear bombs from western and Eastern Europe and to cut down on garrison.These actions are a burden on the Soviet economy.
But Gorbachev was trying some form of market socialism, but he did it backwards.
That is the point. If you are doing a transition to a market economy you have to begin to liberalization prices FIRST.
Price liberalization has five the first thing you do, because a market economy without responsive prices clearly will not work.
by Novus America » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:14 am
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Novus America wrote:
But Gorbachev was trying some form of market socialism, but he did it backwards.
That is the point. If you are doing a transition to a market economy you have to begin to liberalization prices FIRST.
Price liberalization has five the first thing you do, because a market economy without responsive prices clearly will not work.
Price liberalization-----Many countries have failed because they believe in it.China did the same at first, and then within a month the economy was close to collapse.China adjusted its policy in time and chose to gradually liberalize prices in some industries.Even today, in the field of infrastructure and bulk goods, China has chosen to maintain both planned economy and market economy.
The Soviet Union did not. They were all open at one time.This is the stupid advice from western economists.Because Gorbachev was superstitious about western economics at that time,but he forget that western economics is based on the developed market economy countries as the theoretical source,not base on Soviet Union.There is no truth in economics, and all measures must be considered by themselves.
by An Alan Smithee Nation » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:52 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, American Legionaries, Hiram Land, Ifreann, Old Neeburm, Outer Bratorke, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, Res Publica Solaris, Tiami, Turenia, Valrifall
Advertisement