Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall 28 years ago

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by m0shiach View Post

    I understand you are bit shocked that discussion has turned this way. I think I will have to wait until you calm down because counterarguments you have presented so far make no sense.
    You are being defensive, which says a lot.

    Originally posted by m0shiach View Post

    I know such economics expert like you probably may hear it for the first time but as I said Comecon had their own international banks and own foreign exchange reserve asset similar to SDR - Perevodnoy Rubl which had gold backing. So the reason why financial institutions that were powerful enough to supply one third of world economy (Socialist one) with liquidity couldnt expand their activities to the rest of the world is beyond me.
    The "Banque Commerciale pour l´Europe du Nord" comes to mind. But its role with limited reserves was not to be a global player but to facilitate transactions between west and east. The convertible ruble was there because western partners were not ready to barter for goods since better was available in the west, and barter is complicated. The convertible ruble was gold backed...but on gold ressources whose quantities were never made known. The Soviet Union was thought to sell more gold it actually made.


    Originally posted by m0shiach View Post

    What? I recommend you to read about Druzhba oil pipeline. Soviets were suppling whole of Eastern bloc with oil since early 60s. It could have been easily expanded to Western Germany and further.
    There´s more to selling oil than to transport it. Extraction capacities were close to max due the weather and available technology. There could have been ten pipelines, it would not have changed much.

    Originally posted by m0shiach View Post

    If it was true Soviets would never go to Afghanistan. They were at the peak of their might at that time. Both militarily and economically.
    The Soviet Union started losing steam at the end of the seventies, we agree here. When you put your mind to it, you make sense.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Telmar View Post
      You are being defensive, which says a lot.
      Defensive against your ad hominem argumentation - "taught by some socialist economic school" etc which is quite telling as well.

      Originally posted by Telmar View Post
      The "Banque Commerciale pour l´Europe du Nord" comes to mind. But its role with limited reserves was not to be a global player but to facilitate transactions between west and east.
      BCEN was a small French commercial bank bought by Soviet government in the 20s used for minor operations. No match for global institutions like IBEC and Vneshtorgbank which you probably never heard about. Because thats the only reason I can think of why youre dragging BCEN into this discussion.

      Originally posted by Telmar View Post
      The convertible ruble was there because western partners were not ready to barter for goods since better was available in the west, and barter is complicated.
      BCEN never held any transferable rouble (not to be confused with soviet rouble) reserves as commercial banks dont hold international reserve assets. Thats a prerogative of international banks like IMF or IBEC.
      Moreover transferable roubles were used exclusively among Comecon member countries. For deals with capitalistic world Vneshtorgbank currency reserves were used as USSR was not a member of IMF. No barter.

      Originally posted by Telmar View Post
      The convertible ruble was gold backed...but on gold ressources whose quantities were never made known. The Soviet Union was thought to sell more gold it actually made.
      Actually the United States were thought to print more dollars then they had gold reserves. Thats the only plausible explanation why US gold reserves had shrunk from 20 000 t to 8 000 t during 60s and Americans eventually suspended gold convertability.
      What Im suggesting is after USD credibility was undermined IMF members could have potentially joined transferable rouble zone by opening accounts in IBEC. All in all Comecon member states had enough gold reserves and strategic material reserves (hydrocarbons in the first place) to ensure transferable rouble convertability.

      Originally posted by Telmar View Post
      There´s more to selling oil than to transport it. Extraction capacities were close to max due the weather and available technology. There could have been ten pipelines, it would not have changed much.
      Where did you get this from? Caucasus and West Ukraine oil production regions were still operational, Volga-Urals region was FULLY operational. What kind of extreme conditions are there? Plus Timano-Pechoran, West Siberian regions became operational in the 50s-60s.
      I can give you another example of USSR hydrocarbon production capacities - Druzhba-2 was launched in 1974 increasing supplies to Eastern Europe twicefold. Not to mention Soyuz natural gas pipeline to West Germany built in mid 70s. So what max capacities are you talking about?

      Originally posted by Telmar View Post
      The Soviet Union started losing steam at the end of the seventies, we agree here.
      No comments.

      Originally posted by Telmar View Post
      When you put your mind to it, you make sense.
      Anyway sorry for waiting. Didnt really have time to finish you off.
      Last edited by m0shiach; 15-11-2017, 06:14 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by m0shiach View Post


        Anyway sorry for waiting. Didnt really have time to finish you off.
        It´s cute you think you did. Cheers.

        Comment


        • #34
          http://www.vnikitskom.ru/antique/ima...2-06226907.jpg

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by m0shiach View Post
            It did crash. Financial system at least. Look Nixon Shock. The reasons - Space Race, Vietnam etc. The parallels with late 80s USSR are obvious. The only difference the impotent Soviet nomenclature didnt benefit from 70s crisis.

            I know a thing or two about the GDR. It was kept alive by West Germany - with billions of hard Deutsche Mark.

            http://www.br.de/nachrichten/inhalt/...it-ddr100.html

            The GDR was so desperate they sold themselves out. All quality goods were exported. IKEA furnitures were also produced there for the west.

            Planwirtschaft planned by reality detached Parteisoldaten didn't work so good.


            It was so phlegmatic and lagging they had no chance despite capable engineers and superb educated population.

            Just the freedom to translate that into prosperity lacked.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by picanha View Post
              I know a thing or two about the GDR. It was kept alive by West Germany - with billions of hard Deutsche Mark.

              http://www.br.de/nachrichten/inhalt/...it-ddr100.html
              Thats very interesting but what this actually has to do with Nixon Shock and collapse of Bretton Woods system?

              Originally posted by picanha View Post
              The GDR was so desperate they sold themselves out. All quality goods were exported. IKEA furnitures were also produced there for the west.
              By the way since when large exports became an indicator of weak economy?

              Originally posted by picanha View Post
              Planwirtschaft planned by reality detached Parteisoldaten didn't work so good.
              You are talking to me as if im fan of Soviet style command economies. Im not. Neither Im idealizing privatized deregulated market economies like the one US has. Thats just another extreme. My sympathies belong to something in between - mixed economies.

              Originally posted by picanha View Post
              It was so phlegmatic and lagging they had no chance despite capable engineers and superb educated population.
              Command economies suck in terms of inovation. No doubt.

              Originally posted by picanha View Post
              Just the freedom to translate that into prosperity lacked.
              On the other hand command economies dont have such free market delights as speculative bubbles and liquidity crises.
              Last edited by m0shiach; 17-11-2017, 09:34 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by m0shiach View Post
                Thats very interesting but what this actually has to do with Nixon Shock and collapse of Bretton Woods system?

                That it wasn't the reason for collapse?

                By the way since when large exports became an indicator of weak economy?

                Since when you have to export the premium products and can't satisfy the domestic need for them at the same time?


                You are talking to me as if im fan of
                Soviet style command economies. Im not. Neither Im idealizing privatized deregulated market economies like the one US has. Thats just another extreme. My sympathies belong to something in between - mixed economies.

                It is called Soziale Marktwirtschaft in German don't know if it exists an english term for that. Basically evening out the fallouts of an allout capitalism. I also think thi sis teh best way to go. All profit from it even hardcore capitalists. Just keeping the balance is hard.


                Command economies suck in terms of inovation. No doubt.

                It depends on the motivation. See military / space exploration developmenst of the SU. Motivation to make Ivans and Ronnys life better was low though...


                On the other hand command economies dont have such free market delights as speculative bubbles and liquidity crises.

                See point above. Regulation needed. In teh end teh market economy has way more advantages than drawbacks. Complex issue.

                The problem with taking away self driven initative is that it leads to stagnation eventually.


                Comment


                • #38
                  The term would be "social market economy". Who would have thought that, eh?

                  Sidenote: An "eco-social market economy" would be even better and ours is more of a free market economy by now anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Italian debt to GDP 132% , Russian 17%

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Italy is indebted since the Medici infact they invented debt

                      Astonishingly life is still better in Italy..

                      I have many Russisn friends they say life is not good outside of St. Petersburg and Moscow.

                      Though I love the Datscha some friends have outsude of Moscow (I always feel like in the Dr. Schiwago movie) it is astonishing how rural it still is there since it is only a few 100 kms away. In the EU you have access to everything in the vicinity of metropol regions. Even outside of it you smsll supwrmarkets offering everything you need. Upcatching countries like Bulgaria and some parts of Romania (may have changed haven't been there for a few years) and unpopulated areas might be the exception.

                      So I still see an advantage in “freedom“ and entrepreneurship.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by picanha View Post
                        The problem with taking away self driven initative is that it leads to stagnation eventually.
                        Originally posted by picanha View Post
                        So I still see an advantage in “freedom“ and entrepreneurship.
                        Mate, either we finish this discussion on neutral note or I debunk most of amateur rubbish you wrote above. Choose by yourself.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          We could put it to a vote.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            That sounds too liberal, mister. TheMess comrades should make unanimous decision.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              We will give you a sporting head start.

                              Actually there are more communist millennials now in the US than anywhere.

                              In silicon valley, robot franchises want to give money to the people they disenfranchise. Its the Berkleyite revolution.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by m0shiach View Post



                                Mate, either we finish this discussion on neutral note or I debunk most of amateur rubbish you wrote above. Choose by yourself.
                                You can debunk it please. I am really interested in what regards I am wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X