History Forum ~ WorldHistoria : Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev http://www.worldhistoria.com/ This is an XML content feed of; History Forum ~ WorldHistoria : Modern Europe : Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev Fri, 24 May 2013 13:03:07 +0000 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:10:48 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 10.03 360 www.worldhistoria.com/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=127474 History Forum ~ WorldHistoria http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_images/web_wiz_forums.png http://www.worldhistoria.com/ Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev : I hate it when threads turn... http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75783.html#75783 Author: fusong
Subject: 127474
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 18:10

I hate it when threads turn into personal arguments....

Of course a USSR surviving and even thriving was very possible.. as far as I am concerned
They did put a man into space before everyone else  


Edited by fusong - 24 Apr 2012 at 18:14]]> Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:10:48 +0000 http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75783.html#75783 Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev : Buckskins wrote:You can't... http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75578.html#75578 Author: gcle2003
Subject: 127474
Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 20:15

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

You can't be reasoned with. It's like arguing with a petulant child. With you black is white, and white is black when it suits you. There is obviously no point in my wasting time with you. I consider this topic closed.
Then simply stop posting to it.
Quote
PS. I don't inquire into your personal business. I expect the same manners from you.
Asking you what discipline you have studied in is germane to the argument here. It relates to the prima facie validity of your arguments, especially since you have quoted no data to support them.
 
It's hardly private business, and certainly not unmannerly to ask. Almost every conversation I've ever had with Americans has very early on, if not immediately, led to asking what a person does for a living and where they went to school.
 
If you don't want to answer the question, just say so, or just don't answer.
]]> Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:15:03 +0000 http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75578.html#75578 Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev : You can't be reasoned with.... http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75577.html#75577 Author: Buckskins
Subject: 127474
Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 19:41

You can't be reasoned with. It's like arguing with a petulant child. With you black is white, and white is black when it suits you. There is obviously no point in my wasting time with you. I consider this topic closed.

PS. I don't inquire into your personal business. I expect the same manners from you.
]]> Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:41:12 +0000 http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75577.html#75577 Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev : Buckskins wrote:So Graham,... http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75489.html#75489 Author: gcle2003
Subject: 127474
Posted: 15 Apr 2012 at 19:11

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

So Graham, your comment on there being an American depression in the 1940's is obviously nonsense. The fact that you persist in saying the Korean war "rescued" the American economy from a depression really is a load of "poppycock" sir.  I don't claim to be an economist.
That's *** obvious.
Quote
I do have plenty of common sense and recognize tosh when I see it.
You know nothing about art but you know what you like?
Quote
In the times you are referring to we were handing out gifts of billions of dollars around the world.
What des that have to do with anything? You could always print dollars. In fact, apart from the benefit to exports, those billions went a long way to keeping the value of the dollar in bounds. Otherwise the immense strength of the dollar at the time would have contributed more than it did to the depression.
Quote
Our war fighters were finishing up their Uni degrees. The housing market was flying. 6% unemployment under those circumstances is one hell of a "Depression" 
I pointed out that the GI Bill helped staved off the worst of the deflationary pressure. It added about $15 billion to government expenditure. Without it the depression would have been deeper.
 
6% (especially the way the US Bureau of Labour measures unemployment, restricting it to people receiving benefit) is depression enough. It generally equals more like 10% by European methods.
Quote
      During the Korean war the Japanese made a bundle...from us.
And the US made a bundle. WW2 didn't start in 1941. Checkout sometime US gold reserves in 1945 against those in 1939.
Quote
War costs money and lots of it. The end run is debt, and treasure thrown down a rat-hole in many cases. The quick fix is not worth the long range cost. Korea was not WW2 and can't be compared to what effect it had on our economy.
And I didn't compare it. (I assume by 'compare' you mean 'liken'.) Though in that ww2 relieved the Great Depression and Korea relieved the depression of 46/49 they played similar roles. However both the 46/49 depression and the Korean war were of course much smaller in impact than the Great Depression and ww2.
Quote
 Yes of course a PhD would have a much better understanding of it than you and I. My and your disciplines are a long way from making us economists.
I lectured in economics (in US terminology was a professor of economics). Microeconomics rather than macro admittedly. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5957.1980.tb00194.x/abstract for instance.
 
Incidentally, what's your discipliine?
 
Quote
Taking crap off the net regards economics and many other topics is hardly a reliable source for something that is as much of an art as it is a science.
USD government figures are hardly crap. At least I'm surprised to hear you say they are.
 
Just where are you claiming to get your facts from? So far you haven't come up with a single counter to any of the facts I have presented you with.


Edited by gcle2003 - 15 Apr 2012 at 19:16]]> Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:11:12 +0000 http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75489.html#75489 Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev : So Graham, your comment on there... http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75485.html#75485 Author: Buckskins
Subject: 127474
Posted: 15 Apr 2012 at 18:18

So Graham, your comment on there being an American depression in the 1940's is obviously nonsense. The fact that you persist in saying the Korean war "rescued" the American economy from a depression really is a load of "poppycock" sir.  I don't claim to be an economist. I do have plenty of common sense and recognize tosh when I see it. In the times you are referring to we were handing out gifts of billions of dollars around the world. Our war fighters were finishing up their Uni degrees. The housing market was flying. 6% unemployment under those circumstances is one hell of a "Depression" 

      During the Korean war the Japanese made a bundle...from us. War costs money and lots of it. The end run is debt, and treasure thrown down a rat-hole in many cases. The quick fix is not worth the long range cost. Korea was not WW2 and can't be compared to what effect it had on our economy. Yes of course a PhD would have a much better understanding of it than you and I. My and your disciplines are a long way from making us economists. Taking crap off the net regards economics and many other topics is hardly a reliable source for something that is as much of an art as it is a science.
]]> Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:18:29 +0000 http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75485.html#75485 Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev : Buckskins wrote: Whatdepressionare... http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75464.html#75464 Author: gcle2003
Subject: 127474
Posted: 14 Apr 2012 at 16:08

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Quote
Quote
What depression are you talking about?
The one that started in 1945/6 and went on until 1949/50.
 
The one that saw
 
(a) the Dow Jones peak at 212.28 in May 1946, drop to 201 in July, reach a low of 169 in May 1947 and not get back to 200 until April 1950
 
(b) unemployment, effectively zero in 1945, go to 3.4% at the end of 1947, 4% at end 1948, 6.6% at end  1949 and only drop back to 4.3% after the start of the Korean War.
 
(c) GDP drop in 1945-6, 1946-7, and 1948-9, with a slight upward move in 1947-8, so that GDP which had on average increased by 17% a year from 1940-45, only increased by some 4% 1945-1950.
 
(d) a 47.6 billion budget deficit in 1945 drop to 15.9 billion in 1946, then become a 4 billion surplus in 1947, followed by surpluses of 11.8 billion and o.6 billion in 1948/9, before the cold and Korean wars brought deficit spending back again.

The above is not even a recession never mind a depression.
Of course it's a depression. Depressions quite often last only a year or two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(economics)#Notable_Depressions
As for recession there are more than one case of two successive quarters of decline in GDP in the period, to use one familiar definition. There are others that the period  matches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession#Definition
The period also matches other definitions of recession. I doon't think your opinion of what constitutes a depression or recession counts for much with economists. 
Quote
Quote
Quote
When our fighting men came home of course some of them were unemployed.
It wasn't so much of returning veterans being out of a job, as their replacing the people who had been doing their jobs during the war. the iconic figure of course being Rosie the Riveter.
This may come as a shock to you, but after WW2 there was next to no wartime production jobs to be had by anyone. Not GI Joe or Rosie.
Fairly obviously there were no wartime jobs except in wartime. What do you mean by 'next to no' wartime jobs? There were wartime jobs in peacetime?
 
The thing is there weren't enough manufacturing jobs and service jobs available for Rosie or anyone else. It was a rare thing that the end of a war meant putting women out of work.
Quote
Quote
Quote
That is not a depression. Our Vets were given assistance with higher education, housing loans, civil service employment, and many other things.
None of that kept the government from being in surplus, as I pointed out above.
"I presumed what unemployment there was would have been relevant to your definition of a depression"
Yes indeed. It's actually probably the most important part of the definition. At the time, the government of the US, as those of most countries, saw full employment as the prime aim of government. Things have changed in the US since the '70s though, as is pretty obvious from current policies.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Would we be handing out Billions of Dollars if we were in a depression?
Well, yes, in fact you would if you have any sense. Depression is exactly the time to start handing out money. The GI bill you mention and similar measures were useful in ameliorating the depression. So for that matter was the Marshall plan aid, since much of it came back to the US to boost exports.
Well thanks for that lesson in economics.
You're welcome. Be nice to think you were listeninig.
Quote
We hand out Billions to foreign countries, not to mention a huge loan to the UK that was already... devoid... of the Marshal aid money. A fraction of which came back to private enterprise by way of exports. 
 
 The US economy was flying well into the 1970's.
After 1950, yes, as I pointed out originally. The early 1970s saw the depressive effect of the end of the Vietnam war, one of the reasons the country was forced off the gold standard in 1973.
Quote
You mean it took all of 4 years to climb out of the massive "depression" you envisage. How tardy of us. It's a good thing the Korean War came along to get us out of that awful "depression" and "rescue" our economy.
I didn't actually say 'massive'. And yes it was a good thing for the economy that the Korean War came along, since it created even more support for government expenditure than the incipient cold war had. And, as you'd see from the figures I gave, it didn't take four years to 'climb out of' the depression, it took just a few months when the war got hot. Up to then the economy was stagnating or declining.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Most of western Europe flourished financially post WW2. The UK was the exception.
 No to both statements, certainly in the period 1945-50. France in particular was forced into one devaluation after another and the UK was certainly in better shape than Italy, Spain, Portugal, and probably about the same as Denmark and Norway. Even the Dutch and German 'miracles' hadn't happened by 1950.
Maybe you can produce some figures to back up your claim?
Contrary to early predictions, this high growth also included many countries that had been devastated by the war, such as West Germany (Wirtschaftswunder), France (Trente Glorieuses), Japan (Japanese post-war economic miracle) and Italy (Italian economic miracle).
OK so you cannot produce any figures to back up your claim. Apart from no figures for the appropriate period, all of those leads only date economic recovery from after 1950, sometimes well after. And of course none of them produce a UK comparison.
As a sample this is from one of your sources:
Quote
In the mid- to late-1940s, wartime expenses threatened economic ruin in Japan. Post-WW2 inflation, unemployment and shortages in all areas seemed overwhelming.
Quote
Quote
Quote
I don't recall saying "money represents value" Please refrain from crediting me with your conclusions.
You said the GDP represented value. GDP is measured in money. Hence 'GDP represents value' (which you did say, albeit by quoting another source) means money measures value. Which it doesn't.
I say again. I don't recall saying that GDP represented value. Hence or un Hence.
You quoted it from Answers.com. As I pointed out. It may have literally been 'measured' not 'represented' but it came to the same thing and anyway you also denied sayiing 'measured'.
Quote
Quote
Quote
The GDP has a direct relationship with a country's financial health. To attempt in belittling such a huge indicator is beyond belief.
That anyone with so little understanding of economics has the chutzpa to say that is beyond belief.
Contrary to early predictions, this high growth also included many countries that had been devastated by the war, such as West Germany (Wirtschaftswunder), France (Trente Glorieuses), Japan (Japanese post-war economic miracle) and Italy (Italian economic miracle).
That's twice you said that. Repetition doesn't add importance.
Quote
Quote
and explain to us why so many economists can be so misguided as to disagree with you.
 
I'm not interested. You would only be twisting their comments to suit yourself, as usual.
Quote
Quote
(Numeric data above are from the davemanuel collection of government data at:

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-gdp-numbers-united-states.php 

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

with the exception of the Dow Jones, which I happen to have offline.)

So now the GDP of a country is all so important to you. No one fully understands economics. That includes the lefties you are quoting. A Ph.D in economics would not even make an expert.
As for the GDP, you seemed to believe in it so I thought I'd quote that too. I suppose now you know the GDP figures prove you wrong, you'll ignore GDP in the future. As for quoting 'lefties' all the figures I'e quoted above are US government figures from various agencies. As for a PhD it would make a hell of a lot more of an expert than someone with no qualifications at all.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 14 Apr 2012 at 16:21]]> Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:08:06 +0000 http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75464.html#75464 Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev : Whatdepressionare you talking... http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75463.html#75463 Author: Buckskins
Subject: 127474
Posted: 14 Apr 2012 at 15:27


Quote
What depression are you talking about?
Quote
The one that started in 1945/6 and went on until 1949/50.
 
The one that saw
 
(a) the Dow Jones peak at 212.28 in May 1946, drop to 201 in July, reach a low of 169 in May 1947 and not get back to 200 until April 1950
 
(b) unemployment, effectively zero in 1945, go to 3.4% at the end of 1947, 4% at end 1948, 6.6% at end  1949 and only drop back to 4.3% after the start of the Korean War.
 
(c) GDP drop in 1945-6, 1946-7, and 1948-9, with a slight upward move in 1947-8, so that GDP which had on average increased by 17% a year from 1940-45, only increased by some 4% 1945-1950.
 
(d) a 47.6 billion budget deficit in 1945 drop to 15.9 billion in 1946, then become a 4 billion surplus in 1947, followed by surpluses of 11.8 billion and o.6 billion in 1948/9, before the cold and Korean wars brought deficit spending back again.

The above is not even a recession never mind a depression.
Quote
When our fighting men came home of course some of them were unemployed.
Quote
It wasn't so much of returning veterans being out of a job, as their replacing the people who had been doing their jobs during the war. the iconic figure of course being Rosie the Riveter.

This may come as a shock to you, but after WW2 there was next to no wartime production jobs to be had by anyone. Not GI Joe or Rosie.
Quote
That is not a depression. Our Vets were given assistance with higher education, housing loans, civil service employment, and many other things.
Quote
None of that kept the government from being in surplus, as I pointed out above.

"I presumed what unemployment there was would have been relevant to your definition of a depression"
Quote
Would we be handing out Billions of Dollars if we were in a depression?
Quote
Well, yes, in fact you would if you have any sense. Depression is exactly the time to start handing out money. The GI bill you mention and similar measures were useful in ameliorating the depression. So for that matter was the Marshall plan aid, since much of it came back to the US to boost exports.
Well thanks for that lesson in economics. We hand out Billions to foreign countries, not to mention a huge loan to the UK that was already... devoid... of the Marshal aid money. A fraction of which came back to private enterprise by way of exports. 
Quote
 The US economy was flying well into the 1970's.
Quote
After 1950, yes, as I pointed out originally. The early 1970s saw the depressive effect of the end of the Vietnam war, one of the reasons the country was forced off the gold standard in 1973.

You mean it took all of 4 years to climb out of the massive "depression" you envisage. How tardy of us. It's a good thing the Korean War came along to get us out of that awful "depression" and "rescue" our economy.
Quote
Most of western Europe flourished financially post WW2. The UK was the exception.
Quote
 No to both statements, certainly in the period 1945-50. France in particular was forced into one devaluation after another and the UK was certainly in better shape than Italy, Spain, Portugal, and probably about the same as Denmark and Norway. Even the Dutch and German 'miracles' hadn't happened by 1950.
 
Quote
Maybe you can produce some figures to back up your claim?
Contrary to early predictions, this high growth also included many countries that had been devastated by the war, such as West Germany (Wirtschaftswunder), France (Trente Glorieuses), Japan (Japanese post-war economic miracle) and Italy (Italian economic miracle).
Quote
I don't recall saying "money represents value" Please refrain from crediting me with your conclusions.
Quote
You said the GDP represented value. GDP is measured in money. Hence 'GDP represents value' (which you did say, albeit by quoting another source) means money measures value. Which it doesn't.
I say again. I don't recall saying that GDP represented value. Hence or un Hence.
Quote
The GDP has a direct relationship with a country's financial health. To attempt in belittling such a huge indicator is beyond belief.
Quote
That anyone with so little understanding of economics has the chutzpa to say that is beyond belief.

Contrary to early predictions, this high growth also included many countries that had been devastated by the war, such as West Germany (Wirtschaftswunder), France (Trente Glorieuses), Japan (Japanese post-war economic miracle) and Italy (Italian economic miracle).
I'm not interested. You would only be twisting their comments to suit yourself, as usual.
Quote
(Numeric data above are from the davemanuel collection of government data at:

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-gdp-numbers-united-states.php 

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

with the exception of the Dow Jones, which I happen to have offline.)


So now the GDP of a country is all so important to you. No one fully understands economics. That includes the lefties you are quoting. A Ph.D in economics would not even make an expert.
]]> Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:27:15 +0000 http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75463.html#75463 Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev : Buckskins wrote: gcle2003... http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75461.html#75461 Author: gcle2003
Subject: 127474
Posted: 14 Apr 2012 at 13:18

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

(Thus, for instance, the immediate depression in the US after 1945, from which it was rescued by the Korean War)

What depression are you talking about?
The one that started in 1945/6 and went on until 1949/50.
 
The one that saw
 
(a) the Dow Jones peak at 212.28 in May 1946, drop to 201 in July, reach a low of 169 in May 1947 and not get back to 200 until April 1950
 
(b) unemployment, effectively zero in 1945, go to 3.4% at the end of 1947, 4% at end 1948, 6.6% at end  1949 and only drop back to 4.3% after the start of the Korean War.
 
(c) GDP drop in 1945-6, 1946-7, and 1948-9, with a slight upward move in 1947-8, so that GDP which had on average increased by 17% a year from 1940-45, only increased by some 4% 1945-1950.
 
(d) a 47.6 billion budget deficit in 1945 drop to 15.9 billion in 1946, then become a 4 billion surplus in 1947, followed by surpluses of 11.8 billion and o.6 billion in 1948/9, before the cold and Korean wars brought deficit spending back again.
Quote
When our fighting men came home of course some of them were unemployed.
It wasn't so much of returning veterans being out of a job, as their replacing the people who had been doing their jobs during the war. the iconic figure of course being Rosie the Riveter.
Quote
That is not a depression. Our Vets were given assistance with higher education, housing loans, civil service employment, and many other things.
None of that kept the government from being in surplus, as I pointed out above.
Quote
Would we be handing out Billions of Dollars if we were in a depression?
Well, yes, in fact you would if you have any sense. Depression is exactly the time to start handing out money. The GI bill you mention and similar measures were useful in ameliorating the depression. So for that matter was the Marshall plan aid, since much of it came back to the US to boost exports.
Quote
 The US economy was flying well into the 1970's.
After 1950, yes, as I pointed out originally. The early 1970s saw the depressive effect of the end of the Vietnam war, one of the reasons the country was forced off the gold standard in 1973.
Quote
Most of western Europe flourished financially post WW2. The UK was the exception.
No to both statements, certainly in the period 1945-50. France in particular was forced into one devaluation after another and the UK was certainly in better shape than Italy, Spain, Portugal, and probably about the same as Denmark and Norway. Even the Dutch and German 'miracles' hadn't happened by 1950.
 
Maybe you can produce some figures to back up your claim?
Quote
I don't recall saying "money represents value" Please refrain from crediting me with your conclusions.
You said the GDP represented value. GDP is measured in money. Hence 'GDP represents value' (which you did say, albeit by quoting another source) means money measures value. Which it doesn't.
Quote
The GDP has a direct relationship with a country's financial health. To attempt in belittling such a huge indicator is beyond belief.
That anyone with so little understanding of economics has the chutzpa to say that is beyond belief.
and explain to us why so many economists can be so misguided as to disagree with you.
 
(Numeric data above are from the davemanuel collection of government data at:

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-gdp-numbers-united-states.php 

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

with the exception of the Dow Jones, which I happen to have offline.)

]]> Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:18:10 +0000 http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75461.html#75461 Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev : Besides my trolling activity,... http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75452.html#75452 Author: Paradigm of Humanity
Subject: 127474
Posted: 14 Apr 2012 at 02:05

Besides my trolling activity, 1990s really bad times for all former USSR countries... You could see engineers, doctors (etc) when tring to sell some staff (sadly...). There was abundance of diversity in goods. Military parachutes, boats, periscopes etc... My grandfather's old soviet made radio and vacuum cleaner still works Dead

Anyway, everyone needs a strong Russia for sake of balance of power but not, not too much LOL


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 14 Apr 2012 at 02:06]]> Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:05:54 +0000 http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75452.html#75452 Soviet society from Khrushchev to Gorbachev : Now THAT is very relevant to the... http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75450.html#75450 Author: Anton
Subject: 127474
Posted: 14 Apr 2012 at 00:29

Now THAT is very relevant to the discussion about locking of USSR in her borders ;) You will perhaps be surprised to know that people from Turkey look for job in Russia as well.]]> Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:29:07 +0000 http://www.worldhistoria.com/soviet-society-from-khrushchev-to-gorbachev_topic127474_post75450.html#75450