Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

[sunskyfan]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

Quoting John Kenneth Galbraith (who probably only walked around Moscow on a sunny day) on the virtues of the Soviet system is like quoting George W. Bush on the virtues of Saudi Arabia. When we people learn that academics are the most invested in the narrative of analysis they study? How about we quote Alan Greenspan on the health of the American economy in 2006?

One of the chief reasons that the Soviets came to "detente" with Nixon is that they needed food as in American wheat to feed their people. I was the son of a wheat farmer in Kansas when the spike hit after that deal was struck. How much more needs to be said? If you can't feed your people your system sucks.

The Soviet Union was a paper tiger after the Cuban Missile Crisis. The cold war didn't end because of a bunch of diplomacy by HWB it ended when our Air Force took out Iraq's Soviet supplied Air Defense System in the first 20 minutes of Desert Storm I. Granted they had fusion weapons had we had to respond to and respect that fact. We still do. However, they were never a systematic economic nor military threat that could seriously challenge us over time as proved out.

We must learn or lessons from the past. The world does not want to see us fail as long as we are the great multi-ethnic movement of the people striving to be open and free and prosperous. When we behave as the paranoid echo of the failed British Empire they want to see us fail. Ironically, I will finish by saying that RR brought us out of the cold war by appealing to both narratives until the former finally won out. THAT is his great legacy not his economic policy.

[Mashuri]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

Sorry, but this discussion is too focused on Reagan.

1) MAD was a US policy starting right after WW II - initially as a way to keep the Russians from invading Europe by threatening massive attacks on Soviet population centers in that event. It was Jimmy Carter and Brown who modified the policy from bombing cities to targeting Soviet leadership - again before Reagan.

As for the Soviet threat - read some Dr. Michael Hudson.

The Soviet Union was invited to participate in the IMF and World Bank but was prevented from having a proportional representation due to the IMF's control structure (i.e. US and UK with de facto veto power).

Further examination of the historical record shows that the US was extremely worried about the Soviet Union economically - not militarily. The primary worry was that the Communist model would undercut the American economy via 'free labor' - since Communism completely changed the entire capital/labor structure in the Soviet Union and its dominions.

Thus a significant part of the friction was that the US leadership of that era was under constant bombardment by US business to protect American business interests against the 'Commies'.

As for Reagan - what he did certainly helped contribute to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The problem was that the precedent set by his unprecedented deficit spending was then taken up by ALL of the successors.

Great summary. Reagan did indeed help speed up the Soviet Union demise but, in doing so, he put the U.S. on a faster track to its own economic collapse as well. It's hard to tell if the results were worth the consequences.

And here we are today: LBJ - II (Obama) with the 'Great Society' of Banks. In fact we'll probably get another Nixon...Obaminator will reprise both roles.

Interesting. I understand the LBJ part but what similarities do you see with Nixon?