|
The 1970s were absolutely the beginning of America's economic decline, which it managed to temporarily stall via globalization and a massive expansion of consumer credit. Now that the process of jumping from country to country, searching for lower and lower wages abroad while providing tolerable living standards at home is reaching its limits, with growth rates being revised downwards again and again, the immiseration of first world workers can begin in earnest to give the system a boost QE never could.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Why isn't the will to install a stable, friendly government there now, when it clearly was in 2003 and 2004? What changed? It seems that getting your plans wrecked at every opportunity and knowing that, as soon as you withdraw, someone else will come in to take over is a good way to lose your willpower and courage. Uh, the fact that Bush and the Republicans finally wore out their welcome with the American voter, helped along by the financial crisis, and were thrown out of office? If McCain had won the 08 election we would still be occupying Iraq with a new puppet leader after Maliki would be thrown out for going against us. I know the rest of the world would like to believe the US isn't actually as strong as it seems, and loves to confidently predict its immediate collapse in a hilarious and desperate attempt to convince themselves of that, but it is in fact the world hegemon and looks to remain that way basically indefinitely icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Sep 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:The 1970s were absolutely the beginning of America's economic decline, which it managed to temporarily stall via globalization and a massive expansion of consumer credit. Now that the process of jumping from country to country, searching for lower and lower wages abroad while providing tolerable living standards at home is reaching its limits, with growth rates being revised downwards again and again, the immiseration of first world workers can begin in earnest to give the system a boost QE never could. lol it's like Trotsky predicting the imminent collapse of American capitalism back in the 40s icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Sep 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:The 1970s were absolutely the beginning of America's economic decline, which it managed to temporarily stall via globalization and a massive expansion of consumer credit. Now that the process of jumping from country to country, searching for lower and lower wages abroad while providing tolerable living standards at home is reaching its limits, with growth rates being revised downwards again and again, the immiseration of first world workers can begin in earnest to give the system a boost QE never could. We call this "boom and bust" in capitalist lingo actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Are you seriously asking me the difference is between post WWII USSR and post-collapse Russia? Can you read? I'm asking what specifically made the USSR a global power, in contrast with the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation which you have said were not global powers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
What the hell are you guys even arguing about at this point, jesus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
China's economy suuuuure is weird
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:China's economy suuuuure is weird No that's the other thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
So long as nukes don't start flying or my suburbs don't mysteriously start sprouting turds all over the footpath, I couldn't care less if China's economy implodes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Great job guys, you all engaged in meaningful discussion on the Internet and were able to comprehend each other's points and really came to a consensus and a general understanding of important issues
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
goldboilermark posted:Great job guys, you all engaged in meaningful discussion on the Internet and were able to comprehend each other's points and really came to a consensus and a general understanding of important issues im gay (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
goldboilermark posted:Great job guys, you all engaged in meaningful discussion on the Internet and were able to comprehend each other's points and really came to a consensus and a general understanding of important issues that's not what internet debate forums are for
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Can you read? I'm asking what specifically made the USSR a global power, in contrast with the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation which you have said were not global powers. This is kind of an absurd question. What made the UK a global power in the 19th century while before then it was not? Furthermore when England was a Roman colony it was also not a global power. What gives? Finally why did the UK fall from global power status after WWI and WWII? What makes the same country a global power in the 19th century yet only regional power thereafter? Edit: ok I'm being a bit mean. Read 'rise and fall of the great powers' by Paul Kennedy. Excellent book- it's many factors as you might have guessed working in concert. OBL owned a copy and it was in his house when they raided it. Vladimir Putin fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Sep 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No that's the other thread. Sorry, I got confused between the armchair generals and armchair economists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Is there any other kind of economist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
One who works for a living. They're rumoured to exist, in hushed voices over business lunches.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Some of us actually do hunker down and produce vital economic indicators that everyone else uses for their research.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Is there any other kind of economist? I am not an economist so I cannot comment ...dammit, wrong thread too!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Are you seriously asking me the difference is between post WWII USSR and post-collapse Russia? The USSR's ability to compete with the US relied overwhelmingly on nuclear weapons, and it was the strongest in this regard in 1991. So asking you what the difference is between the USSR on December 25, 1991, and the Russian Federation on December 27, 1991, when it retained the overwhelming bulk of the apex of its ability to compete with the US, is a pretty valid question. The answer is that although the USSR was a superpower with global reach, that reach was tied up overwhelmingly in nuclear weapons and a willingness to throw supplies at anyone who would oppose the US, at the cost of directing the entire national output to those ends. It was never a true equal, and had to run things ragged to keep up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Russia is just Canada with a ton of nukes, very similar GDP and both are failed petro states now.
Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Russia is just Canada was a ton of nukes, very similar GDP and both are failed petro states now. Can't wait for the Russo-Canadian Arctic oil wars!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Also shrewd chinese businessmen have sunk all their money into the Australian and Canadian housing bubbles, really excited to see how that turns out for them.
Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Also shewed chinese businessmen have sunk all their money into the Australian and Canadian housing bubbles, really excited to see how that turns out for them. Probably better than the Canadians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
So glad my essay provoked such interesting discussion, A+ good job everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So glad my essay provoked such interesting discussion, A+ good job everyone. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So glad my essay provoked such interesting discussion, A+ good job everyone. I think the one thing I'd pick on it was that the development of mass production really propelled the US up to the top of the heap, not the wars so much. WWII just allowed the US to populate the earth with military bases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Dux Supremus posted:Post-WWII USSR conventionally outgunned the Western Allies by a large margin but was itself entirely outgunned by the American nuclear arsenal and its attendant delivery systems (e.g., the B-36). Cuban Missile Crisis USSR was working at a disadvantage of 1:10 in nuclear weapons against the US and would've decisively lost, even if America had been crippled. The USSR peaked compared to the US in economics circa 1969 at one-half the economic output. Detente was widely perceived as the Soviets "gaining an advantage" but was really just them catching up, and was also when their economy and living standards really fell apart. They reached their highest absolute strength militarily in the late 1980s with a notable numeric nuclear advantage (necessary to counteract the fact their delivery systems sucked) and were still scared shitless by SDI, GLCM, and Pershing II. Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles reduced much more slowly than American ones. Don't forget the Soviet Union's policy of forcing its neighboring allies to essentially be puppets, propping up distant failing states like Cuba, and arming insurgencies in Africa. By the 80's they were hemorrhaging money on all of those things and that's not even touching the completely unnecessary occupation of Afghanistan, which not even most of the Soviet upper echelon knew why they were doing it. Armchair generals and conservatives were so worried about the Ruskies blitzing over the Fulda Gap they didn't realize that the Warsaw Pact would disintegrate once Soviet soldiers were looting the Low Countries instead of running over Hungarians with tanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Dominating the world nowadays requires friends. The US has a lot of friends. Probably like a quarter of the world? Maybe a third? Countries that feel no threat and know the US is a reliable partner in most things. China, on the other hand, has taken its rise as an opportunity to be a massive dick and has alienated basically everyone, starting with literally all of its neighbors. They have some minor good relationships like Tanzania but that's it. The only reason any countries put up with their poo poo is they want the economic relationship and China is a big whiny baby that will cut you off if you don't placate them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:This is kind of an absurd question. What made the UK a global power in the 19th century while before then it was not? Furthermore when England was a Roman colony it was also not a global power. What gives? Finally why did the UK fall from global power status after WWI and WWII? What makes the same country a global power in the 19th century yet only regional power thereafter? Are you going to give an answer or are you still spluttering? The UK became the global power in the 19th century because it defeated the French Empire, its only remaining imperial competitor, and cemented its access to something like 1/4 of the resources of the globe. No state would challenge the UK again until the early 20th century. It was also the technological and economic global leader of the 19th century, and its 18th century ideological preferences like democracy and free-trade economics swept the globe. It also dismantled the Spanish Empire basically for shits and giggles after dealing with Napoleon. The UK was already a global power in the 18th century because of the technological disparity between Europe and the rest of the world, though. The Uk fell from global power status because it no longer had the resources or the political will to hold onto India and the rest of its imperial possessions after the exhausting trial and ruinous expense of WWI and WWII. With the loss of those resources it also lost its naval dominance, which had been the physical tool of its global power since the 17th century. Although the UK's ideological dominance lives on, it is no longer the leader of its ideological sphere and merely forms an important part of the global Liberal consensus that it helped to build. In economic terms, the rest of the developed world caught up to the UK and eliminated the technological lead it had enjoyed in the 19th century. Without its global empire and technological edge the UK could no longer be the world's largest economic engine with such a small population and resources. There. What made the USSR a global power, in contrast to the Russian Federation which is a regional power?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Are you going to give an answer or are you still spluttering? Same thing as the UK 19th century vs now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Same thing as the UK 19th century vs now. I'm not sold. Even if we grant the USSR China in the same sense as the British Empire had India, which is flatly preposterous, the USSR had access to: - Most of Eastern Europe, which frankly was most of communism's non-China non-Russia holdings - A very modest hunk of SE Asia on a good day - An extremely modest hunk of the Middle East on a good day, most of which was either Non Aligned Powers (thanks, Tito!) or neutral-ish but willing to accept cash and guns - Any parts of the Americas that the USA hadn't hit with a lead mallet yet, with Venezuela and Cuba staying on the team While they were definitely the preeminent not-USA world power, and could present a genuine threat and opponent largely through their nuclear arsenal (and ability to trash Europe), I really don't think they approached the UK's level of global dominance. Edit: oh, I forgot my obligatory Ceylon Addendum. They were sure as gently caress socialists, and as such received dollars from the USSR, but were also very firmly funded by the UK and not really in the Russian sphere. If anything, they're more in the Chinese sphere today than the Russian sphere yesterday, and they're hedging their bets hilariously on that too. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Anyone thinking of saying "get back on topic", shut the gently caress up. This is interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Same thing as the UK 19th century vs now. Now you're trolling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Now you're trolling. Ugh I just don't have to want to type a three page loving reply. I have enough brainwork to do on my real job. In short it's really not that hard to see how post WWII Soviet Union emerged as a global power. All the European and Asian powers were obliterated and their countries totally destroyed. Everybody saw this on the allied side and began planning for this even as the war was still ongoing. The Cold War period was self explanatory. It's widely acknowledged that the USSR strategy was not as refined as the U.S. While the U.S. could offer potential allies entry into a worldwide system of economic benefits that could ensure long term prosperity, the USSR could only really offer military assistance and subsidies. Still it must be acknowledged that the USSR challenged the U.S. for global influence in way too many locales to list. Yes we can have retrospective analyses of economic output, but the fact of the matter is that no one side could feel like they could make a move without accounting for the reaction/effects of the other side. Contrast that to post Cold War where the U.S. couls basically unilaterally invade countries without fearing repercussion from anyone. That is true global dominance. As for post collapse USSR, like I said I think what Kennedy wrote has some relevance. Great powers overextended militarily which exacerbates their economic issues and a feedback cycle which led to a collapse for the USSR. As such they couldn't transition successfully from their command economy into a market economy and lost the money/resources to be a global power. Tack on their social issues and th e loss of their republics (Ukraine, etc...) and that completes the picture of a former global power unable to regain their influence. Thank you all, this has been worse than my thesis defense. But in all seriousness I stand by my point that the USSR did all of this with a poo poo navy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
So what was different about the USSR, compared to the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation, that made it a global power while the latter two are regional powers? The U.S. "feel like they could [not] make a move without accounting for the reaction/effects of the other side" does not make the USSR a global power, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Empress Dowager Cixi was a shortsighted nitwit, a terrible ruler, and murdered her nephew out of spite. But she had that special brand of crazy that makes for great reading. Also huge thanks for everyone clarifying my understanding of this era in Chinese history. Any books anyone recommends?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
DeliciousPatriotism posted:
We used The Search for Modern China in my Chinese history class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:In short it's really not that hard to see how post WWII Soviet Union emerged as a global power. All the European and Asian powers were obliterated and their countries totally destroyed. Everybody saw this on the allied side and began planning for this even as the war was still ongoing. The Cold War period was self explanatory. It's widely acknowledged that the USSR strategy was not as refined as the U.S. While the U.S. could offer potential allies entry into a worldwide system of economic benefits that could ensure long term prosperity, the USSR could only really offer military assistance and subsidies. Still it must be acknowledged that the USSR challenged the U.S. for global influence in way too many locales to list. You're not engaging the point. The point is there basically was no difference. The USSR was not a global power, it was simply the only thing with the resources and will to even try and compete with the US, mostly because it was scared as hell of it. It did that in essentially 1.5 dimensions with nukes and cash/supplies. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So what was different about the USSR, compared to the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation, that made it a global power while the latter two are regional powers? I do think that makes the USSR a global power as it shows the USSR could exert military economic and soft power on a global scale, which you need to be able to counter the U.S. which we can all agree was and is a global superpower. E: also I answered why the Russian federation is not a global power. The destruction of the command economy and unsuccessful transition to market economy, social issues, fragmentation of the former USSR territories and other factors means it doesn't have the money, military reach, or soft power to pursue global political objectives it once did as the USSR. Vladimir Putin fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
That and its current form somehow manages to outdo the USSR in cronyism, institutionalized corruption and generalized insanity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 22:46
|
|