So basically the plan was to start with supply and the work towards demand?

>>359507
The idea was to give his rich pals allda monies and then go back to sleep

Keyens advocated tight credit to curb inflation, the opposite of what Reagen did (he installed Greenspan), he advocated marginal tax rates to balance the budget for government investment in people and infrustructure (Reagen lowered marginal tax rates) and employing people directly by the government to stimulate consumer spending and fill the employment gap (Reagen simply gave money to the military to spend on...stuff). What...what exactly are you talking about when you want to somehow relate Reagen and Keynsian economics?

>>359526
The Pain thread?

and lets not forget:
arming and training and smuggling heroin for lunatics in Central Asia
going to war with Central America and working with drug lords to fund one of the armies
and in both cases, brutal sadistic treatment of the civilian population, especially in Central America with the soldiers being trained at the School of Americas then days after coming home they go out and commit the El Mozote Massacre

>>359518

"but rather HIS OWN VERSION of Keynesianism. Reagan advocated initiating deep tax cuts and simultaneous increases in military spending, while at the same time claiming that the Federal deficit would be erased."

>>359518
>and employing people directly by the government to stimulate consumer spending and fill the employment gap
Like building public transportation.
Although in fairness when Eisenhower employed this to forestall a depression after Korea they went and built the National Highway System and destroy public transportation.
>(Reagen simply gave money to the military to spend on...stuff)
And they're still waiting for that stuff or its been canceled: V-22 Osprey, RAH-66 Comanche, F-22 & F-35, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, DD-21/DD-X Zumwalt Destroyer, that artillery Daddy Bush was hocking in the 1990s, et cetera
V-22 alone has cost $29 billion to develop, has a $75 million dollar per unit price tag, and for all intents and purposes is lemon and more fragil Karen Carpenter
But they generate plenty of white collar jobs, the F-22 plant is in Newt Gingrichs district putting him in the perfect position to denounce all those welfare queens and lecture about entrepreneurial initiative

Reagan ? Who this ?

ITT: We ignore why Reagan was building up the military because we are dumb ass socialist loving retards who pretend the Soviet Union didn't exist when Reagan was in office

>>359983
Because the Soviet Union was becoming more of a threat than ever and not just barely staggering along before its total collapse.

>>359987
>implying Carter didn't gut the military and leave office with the Soviet Union in a stronger position than it was when when he entered while simultaneously leaving the US in a weaker position than it was when he entered office.

You...really need to go read a history book on the late 70s and early 80s

>>359986
Nice delete and repost, again, Carter gutted the military, the Soviet Union was actually quite powerful in 1980, from conducting a then successful invasion of Afghanistan to running a large portion of Europe and the United States still recovering from it's perceived/actual loss in Vietnam and the gasoline crisis and high interest rates that were destroying American wealth at the time, you really just don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

>>359998
Read up on Charlie Wilson's War.

>>360024
Yeah I have and if you had you'd know that Charlie Wilson and the Mujahadeen and whatnot didn't begin to turn the tide against the Soviets until 1985.

You'd also know that Reagan's acceleration of military spending which forced the Russians to accelerate their military spending was a big part of why the USSR started going broke. Combined with the Mujahadeen finally starting to make headway against the Soviets in Afghanistan thanks to the weapons we were selling and giving them through Charlie Wilson's initiative is why the Soviets started to lose control as their spending went out of control.

Which goes right back to the original point: The American military spending Reagan was enacting was specifically to help weaken the Soviets because as he proposed and was proven right on, the Soviets couldn't keep up with all the demand because of their Socialist governing structure.

god damnit supply side works retards look at McDonalds. tens of thousands of stores, cheap prices... or apple, millions of ipods made, all affordable for the average person.

WAKE UP.

>>360036
>which forced the Russians to accelerate their military spending

Actually this wasn't the case. The Soviet "spending" figures that the administration used in its justifications of our own spending were projected and largely imaginary. The Soviet Union didn't have the capital to spend on military expansion at all.

>>360036
Also, the whole concept of weakening the Soviet Union through out spending them as a measure of security is utter bullshit. The whole root of the situation in the first place was a hugely corrupt notion that the communist state was a threat to American corporate success.

>>360059

They couldn't afford to break the bank on military hardware, but they still did. Which is why the USSR died from economic, not political ramifications.

>>360067
The only difference in outcomes between the two nations is that the US survived by going WAY deeper in to debt. Hell, Reagan dismantled pretty much all of America's industry and the country as a whole has been in a death spiral ever sense, only getting a breath of air as a new war pumps more debt money in to defense industry.

dat raegenomics

>>359983

>>Implying the Soviet Union didn't exist before Reagen was in office.

>>360041
>McDonalds
>substandard food with shitty nutritional value and extremely high calories
>pays workers minimum wage with no benefits, in spite of massive profits
>hires illegals almost exclusively in my area
It's the American Dream.

>>360136
do you expect them to make food cheaper if they raised the wages? think about it.
who the fuck cares about substandard food anyway? i eat it... got a fucking problem you nazi? it's a good food for poor people like myself u cunt!

>>360162
If McDonalds was willing to sacrifice a relatively small amount of their profit margin, they could provide better food and pay workers fairly. That's the problem with supply-side economics. No matter how much you give the jews at the top, they will always find a way to squeeze more out of the people.

Corporate welfare isn't enough, large corporations have to fuck their workers and their customers.

>>360180
My favorite thing about McDonalds is how they claim to do so much for the community. However every year they give the bare minimum required to get the maximum tax break. They are about as charitable as their accountants tell them they can be.

>>360196
most mcdonalds workers don't stay for long. new workers aren't that productive anyway. plus there is no such thing as 'fair' pay... it's mutually beneficial... i dont see how you can call it extortion or anything like it. both parties agreed.

>>360061
>Also, the whole concept of weakening the Soviet Union through out spending them as a measure of security is utter bullshit.

This is what utter idiots who were born post 1990 actually believe

>>360059
>Actually this wasn't the case.

History proves you wrong

Brotip: McDonald's food isn't bad for you in reasonable quantities

It's only bad because people don't count their calories and eat there too often, aka it's entirely the consumers fault McDonald's food is "bad for them", not McDonald's

>>360212

It's certainly a romantic notion, that the US won the cold war without even firing a shot, by making the Soviet Union go bankrupt in trying to keep up on the arms race, but it really is a myth and has no basis in reality, and there is not a single shred of evidence that this was the case.

You should read up on people like Gorbachev, the Glatnost, etc, and what these things actually did, the economic circumstances in Russia through the 80s, the War in Afghanistan, etc.

>>360226
What's hilarious is you think I haven't read up on all of it. Bitch I fucking lived it. Go jack off to your fantasies that Gorby wanted to dissolve the USSR without ANY pressure from the US at all, pretend the world exists in a fucking glass bubble separating one nation from another, keep asserting there is "no evidence whatsoever" that these things occurred when they clearly did and have been recorded into history as such, your denials only make my erection harder, because it's all an attempt to pretend the Soviet Union wasn't a complete disaster and that Reagan and the US weren't directly responsible for pushing them over the edge. We were, you're wrong, the only lack of evidence here is on your side of the fence, we have actual recorded history on our side that clearly proves you wrong.

Time to go read yourself dipshit

>>359998
>from conducting a then successful invasion of Afghanistan

I sayasayasayawha?

>>360210
>no such thing as fair pay
Here's the problem. This is the mentality that supply-side economics breeds. People are tools to be used by their masters for whatever pittance their masters choose to give them. The system is then set up to make this situation a reality.

Within a few decades, employers tell you to take whatever you're given or your job will go to an illegal. They tell you that if all the workers complain too much, the plant will close shop, and move to Mexico. Meanwhile the income disparity between worker and CEOs goes from 1:30 to 1:300. The cost of everything rises, but wages remain stagnant.

If these trends continue, the American middle class will wither away until our income disparity is the same as 3rd world countries.

>>360235
In 1980 the Russians were beating the fuck shit out of the Afghans and that continued for 5 years until the Afghans started getting US military armaments and training, thats when the tide turned.

>>360231

Your angry and unwarranted outburst shows that you are more interested in preserving a narrative than in ascertaining the truth. You are afraid that this is an attempt to airbrush the US's "victory" over the SU from history. It strikes me as akin to those that will vehemently deny the fact that Stalin killed more people and was arguably worse than Hitler because they see it as an attempt to rehabilitate Hitler, that belief almost always being misguided.

I do not seek to absolve the Soviet Union of what it was, truly, an evil empire, as Reagen so succinctly put it, but I am more interested in the truth of why it collapsed, not preserving some narrative about The USA standing up for freedom, blah blah blah rah rah rah.

Any historian worth his salt will tell you that the collapse of the Soviet Union was far more complex than just a dithering old man making making some antagonistic remarks towards the soviet union in the 80s.

>>360242
blah blah blah blah

Look bro, you're attempting to pretend history doesn't happen and you can just reinvent a narrative by denying facts that don't fit your perspective. Glasnost and Gorby and all that shit was a direct and unarguable response event to the economic pressure and military pressure that the US applied to the Soviets.

You are flat out wrong on the facts, full of shit and you can cry about being vehemently attacked all you want like a little bitch but you're wrong, history proves you wrong and you know you're wrong, hence why you get so ass pained when someone tells you straight to your face in a direct fashion that you're a lying sack of horseshit

ITT:retards
supply side obviously works to a degree same with keynes

>Using the term Keynesian as if there where only two kinds of economical schools.
>Trying to re-define Reaganomics as Keynesian instead of supply-side economics
Libertarian follower of von Mises detected.
The Austrian school of economics original good ideas have all been absorbed by the other schools, there's only ideology left. (which is why there are practically no schools that teach the Austrian type and why you practically can't get a job if you espouse it)

>>360242
>Any historian worth his salt will tell you that the collapse of the Soviet Union was far more complex than just a dithering old man making making some antagonistic remarks towards the soviet union in the 80s.

Oh and no one ever said that was what happened but you, that's pure strawman bullshit and you know it flat out.

Reagan didn't just talk shit to the Soviets and they collapsed, he actively challenged them economically and militarily, while helping fund their collapse in places like Afghanistan and in South America where they were supporting communist uprisings and the economic stress they experienced led them to have no choice BUT TO COME TO THE TABLE and talk and eventually to put an end to their socialist system because it could not compete in the global arena any more as a super power and that is what Reagan did and that's why you're wrong and a fucking fraud

>>360242
>>360244
ITT: Two fags blech a lot of hot air with nothing to back either of them up.

I just wanted to say neither of you are right. You're both fucking morons and Reagan invented chocolate unicorn umbrellas with candy sprinkles which ended the cold war. there, my argument is just as relevant as both of yours.

>>360248
Well that's weird because Austrian school was the only one who called the financial crisis correctly.

>successful occupation of Afghanistan
Learn 2 history.

>>360258
Once again, in 1980 the Soviets were conducting a very successful occupation of Afghanistan.

It wasn't until 1985 that the Afghans began to pull their combat abilities together thanks to aid and training from the US that the Soviets began to get messed up in the conflict very badly.

>>360257
>The Austrian School called it correctly
Oh, I see. Not the FOLLOWERS of said school of THOUGHT then?
And what do they pin it on? If they didn't point out the Housing bubble and how it would reflect on the economy at large then you can go fuck yourself.
And protip: "Not Keynesian" does not mean Austrian.

>>360252

I am assuming your anger on this issue stems from a certain fear, a fear of what I am not entirely sure. Are you afraid of scary socialists attempting to rewrite history? Are you afraid that this black and white version of history taught to you by your schoolteacher might be wrong, and the consequences are just too unpleasant to tolerate?

Soviet defense spending remained pretty much constant through the 80s, as evidenced by this unsourced graph, but I'm sure if you want a source on that claim, you could find it if you are prepared to do some digging.

>>360258
Hahahaha, this. Afghanistan has never been successfully occupied for more than a few years. It's nickname as the "Graveyard of Empires" have been earned.

>>360036
See that doesn't make sense on so many levels.

>>360264
>pretend I"m angry
>not realize you're a fucking idiot

>Soviet defense spending remained pretty much constant through the 80s

Jesus fucking Christ you are a complete idiot. Their military spending stayed the same and they STOPPED PROVIDING BENEFITS AND THINGS PEOPLE NEEDED BACK HOME IN A NATION PREDICATED ON THE IDEA THAT THE GOVERNMENT GIVES YOU EVERYTHING. THAT MEANS PEOPLE WENT HUNGRY TO FUND THE SOVIET MILITARY SPENDING.

Now.

WHY WERE THE SOVIETS SPENDING SO MUCH?

Because Reagan forced them to compete militarily with the United States. And you'll notice, IN YOUR GRAPH ITSELF, that spending militarily stopped when the Soviet state collapsed.

So thank you for proving you are in fact one dumb cunt who does not know what the fuck he is talking about

>>360269
How so?

>>360266
A name that is unearned. Alexander the Great didn't attempt to conquer Afghanistan he went south along the mountains and invaded India instead, and kicked the shit out of them. After that no one really tried to conquer it again for thousands of years. Only the Soviets ever really tried and failed to conquer the nation. Romans sure never tried. China never tried. So what empires have been buried there except the Soviets, and then entirely predicated on the fact that US weapons and training went to the Mujahadeen there to allow them to defeat the Soviets?

Think the Persians conquered a good chunk of the place for awhile maybe

>>360239

>this is what americans actually believe

Please, we were sending young kids to die by the truckload everyday. Afghanistan was our vietnam, it was a massive mistake and destined to fail from the start. Despite any early militar victories it was a HUGE toll on the russian people. In the same way that vietnam made U.S. citizens much more critical of government action.

>>360273

Typing in caps lock makes people take your arguments more seriously.

No joke.

>>360281
>Please, we were sending young kids to die by the truckload everyday. Afghanistan was our vietnam

Again.

not in 1980.

And it only turned into that for you because....of Reagan and Charlie Wilson giving millions in cash, CIA and US military training, and weapons to the Mujahadeen to get them in a position to really have success in the war

>>360288
I'm not really concerned with your dumb fuck judgments about my arguments, since all you have to do is read a history book and you'll have no choice but to see I'm correct.

So if you don't like caps lock too fucking bad

>>360278
>Only Alexander
You are flat out retarded.
There have been numerous tries after Alexander.
And there's even 4-5 of those who could be considered successful in that the Afghanis revolts did not succeed and that they gained their independence first after the Invaders Empires crumbled. (Scythians, Arabs, Mongols, Arab-Mongol, Sikhs)

>>360273

You know Reagen only became president in 1980 right? After the major buildup in Soviet defense spending? All Reagen did was blow his budget for no reason, the SU didn't increase spending further as a result of it.

Source

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_25/b3888038_mz011.htm

>>360292

The facts are against you. The Soviet Union did not increase it's defense spending as a result of Reagan's defence buildup. Any problems it had in terms of allocating too much to it's defense budget where already there before Reagan took office.

Sorry bro.

>>360298
man I sure do love random editorial articles that people try to proclaim equate to some sort of factual retelling of history

Thanks for posting opinion as fact bro.

>>360312

It's one more source than you are able to provide.

>>360298
>>360304
Your own article rips your assertion to shreds by the way. You are really fucking stupid

>The Russians watched the budget for the U.S. military increase, culminating in Reagan's grand promise to create the Strategic Defense Initiative -- better known as Star Wars. While many U.S. experts doubted whether such a missile shield was even feasible -- and it never was built -- the Soviets were not among the skeptics. They pulled out the generals to give endless press conferences on the insanity of such an "aggressive" move, and the papers were apoplectic with criticism.

>But Reagan repeatedly upped the ante -- and the Soviets realized that the costs of matching him militarily were beyond their means. The Soviet economy was languishing: Military spending ate up 14% of the budget, while growth slowed to 2.2% -- too weak to meet the nation's economic goals. One visit to a Soviet shop would explain it all: There was nothing on the shelves. My family once waited more than an hour in a store to buy the one item for sale: cabbage. We usually steered clear of ordinary shops and headed for hard-currency stores, but the pickings were still slim: sausage that was more fat than meat; jarred, yellowed tomatoes from Bulgaria; and, of course, more cabbage. The bottom line: There were no more resources the Soviet military could eke from the civilian economy to match Reagan's buildup.

>>360314
My source is every fucking history book on the face of planet Earth.

Your source is editorial opinions that point out you're an idiot.

>>360278
>After that no one really tried to conquer it again for thousands of years

If you discount the Arabs, Turks, Mongols and Safavids.

>>360290
Communism was already in trouble in Poland in 1980/81 with the Solidarnosc strike and martial law. This was not due to Reagan, but because Breznyev had been spending too much on security ever since his ascendance to power in 1964.

The Soviet Empire had been neglecting its economy for a prolonged period of time, and this was the cause of its fall. To say that a war like Afghanistan would be able to topple a fully functional Soviet Empire is gross underestimation.

>>360319
>If you discount the Arabs, Turks, Mongols and Safavids.

The Ottomans owned a pretty good chunk of it at one point I believe.

But none of those groups you are talking about were empires.

Graveyard of Empires, with only one empire in the grave, and that because of outside help.

>The Soviet Empire had been neglecting its economy for a prolonged period of time, and this was the cause of its fall. To say that a war like Afghanistan would be able to topple a fully functional Soviet Empire is gross underestimation.

Never said that. The argument is basically did Reagan cause the fall of the USSR and the answer is yes he did. They were not in the best of shape as a nation, but they were running a successful (in 1980) campaign in Afghanistan and still very much supporting Communist uprisings in places like South America, and they were not going to collapse in 1989 like they did if it weren't for the pressure Reagan put on them by coming in, jacking up military spending, opening up trade, giving them the bluster and hard talk and then forcing them to the table. These are facts that are being denied in this thread.

>>360315

And Thus that's why they *didn't* increase military spending.

So their economic collapse can't have been caused by anything Reagen did, they did not respond to his buildup with a further buildup, because their economy was already at breaking point before it even happened.

>>360317

Cite one of these books please.

>>359998
>>360036
>>360212
>>360231
>>360242
>>360252
>>360261
Jesus it's like Team B has been brought back from the dead to post in this thread. Hey man why don't you tell us a bit about the Soviet's famous air defense system?

>>360327
>So their economic collapse can't have been caused by anything Reagen did

Jesus you're a fucking idiot. They needed to jack up military spending to MATCH WHAT REAGAN WAS DOING but COULD NOT ANYMORE because they had SUCKED SO MUCH BLOOD from the civilian sector that there was nothing left....even to the point that there were no products on store shelves, people were starving, to FUND MILITARY SPENDING to MATCH REAGAN.

Exactly what I said

>Their military spending stayed the same and they STOPPED PROVIDING BENEFITS AND THINGS PEOPLE NEEDED BACK HOME IN A NATION PREDICATED ON THE IDEA THAT THE GOVERNMENT GIVES YOU EVERYTHING. THAT MEANS PEOPLE WENT HUNGRY TO FUND THE SOVIET MILITARY SPENDING.

>Before Alexander
Darius the Great expands the Achaemenid (Persian) empire to its peak, when it takes most of Afghanistan...
The Persian empire was plagued by constant bitter and bloody tribal revolts from Afghans living in Arachosia (Kandahar, and Quetta)
>After Alexander
Persians reassert control over all of what is now Afghanistan.
Revolts by various Afghan tribes.

Repeat ad nauseam for Persians (again), Central Asians (Scythians/Yuezhi/etc), Arabs, Actual Mongols (the Khans), Muslim Turkic-Mongols, The Sikhs, the British, the Communists and sooner or later the Americans.

>>360328
You can start with Charlie Wilson's War.

Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy, which is an incredibly well sourced history of the past 300 years or so of diplomacy including the Cold War.

Then march over to Amazon and type in "Cold War" and hit search.

You can also start looking at textbooks on the subject on Amazon as well, though they're a lot more expensive.

>>360335
Brotip: If you take Afghanistan and incorporate it into your kingdom for 100 plus years that's a successful invasion and pretending that Afghanistan was the graveyard of those nation is silly beyond belief at that point

>>360335
Uh... when the hell did the Sikhs try to take Afghanistan. I haven't heard shit about that, and I've been studying the group for the last year. From what I read, they haven't really tried leaving Punjab.

>>360334

Can't you see your failure in logic here? You are claiming that because The Soviets couldn't match Reagans military buildup, that it caused the Soviet Union to collapse.

So if they didn't respond to Reagan's buildup, which they didn't, how could that have put further strain on their economy? How could something which did not happen have caused the Soviet Union to collapse? Further buildup WOULD have strained the economy too greatly, but they didn't push a further buildup did they.

The economy was already greatly weakened by an over reliance on Military spending, but all that occurred before Reagen took office. In fact the greatest level of Soviet buildup was during the Carter years.

>>360347
Emperor Ranjit Singh conquered what now comprise Pakistan's "Pashtun" provinces in the 1820s (previously a part of "Pashtunistan" or Afghanistan). When the Sikh Empire was defeated by the British, this formed the Western border of British India, and now, Pakistan. Emperor Ranjit Singh did put down insurgencies by religious Muslims in what is now the Pakistan-Afghan border area.

And there was a shitton of arming them, cultural influence that followed and what not.

>>360342

Regardless, Records do show that there was no increased Soviet Military buildup as a response to Raegen's military buildup.

The evidence that the Soviet Union collapsed due to increasing defense spending as a result of Reagen's increase to defense spending simply isn't there, even if it is a romantic historical narrative.

>>360349
>So if they didn't respond to Reagan's buildup, which they didn't

They responded as long as they were able until they were not able to any more.

Bro at this point you're just stretching to try and save face. Your own article shows you that you're wrong. Need I say more? The Soviet Union wasn't at it's peak by any means but it was still going strong in 1980, and helped out by the Iran Hostage crisis hurting America's face around the globe plus our massive cuts under Carter in military spending was allowing the Soviets the ability to basically run rough shod again, they were not on the brink of collapse until post 1985, post Reagan's policies in regards to Afghanistan (which was begun under Carter though) which forced them to make the hard choice of either continuing to punish their people to fund the military and risk a coup, or to come to the table, negotiate an end to the Cold War, so they could try to fix their economy and keep their nation stable.

>>360345
>the reason
It has never been "the reason" for that nickname you goddamn retard.
They got the title because they gained their independence from said Empires most of the time [Persians, Alexander, Persian, Some of the followups] through constant revolts within their borders.

>>360364

Actually my own article doesn't show that I am wrong, it reaffirms exactly what I am saying, that there was no further Soviet military buildup in response to Reagan's military buildup.

>>360359
Could you link me up to a source on that. Not being a dick, I just wanna read more about it.

>>360349
You need to learn some more in depth history about Soviet and American Affairs.
Glastnost was a direct result of Reagan and his continued pressure on the Soviets.

>>360369
It clearly shows that Reagan's buildup forced the Soviets to choose between further military spending or their stability and economy during a fiscal crisis. You just don't want to face the facts because you know you've been schooled.

Pic related. It's Gorby. Waving goodbye to you.

>>360369
>my selective interpretation/reading does not show I am wrong.

fix't it for you.

My whole problem with the Reagan administration's approach to the cold war was that what if the people
leading the Soviet Union where insane like
islamic fundementalists who, if they indeed were forced
to break up because of pressure from the US, would just say 'FUCK IT" and end the world in a firey helstorm
rather than concede they were beaten by capitalsit Americans

>>360374
Can't be bothered to google it up but the wiki for:
Sikhism in Pakistan
Maharaja Ranjit Singh
Sikh Empire
History of Sikhism
History of Punjab
Punjab Chiefs

Ough to have it.

>>360382
>fiery hellstorm
>capitalist as if they cared about that
don't care about the rest of your arguing but this
:D

>>360378

Usually when people claim their opponent has been schooled in an argument, they are running out of things to say themselves, and are merely seeking to shut down debate.

It did force the Soviets to choose between matching Reagan's buildup, or reallocating defense spending towards civilian purposes.

In the end they did neither, they kept defense spending where it was.

Now, it can indeed be argued that The Soviets did not do what was needed and CUT defense spending as a result of Reagan's buildup, they may have left it at such unsustainably high levels due to it, but there is no way of proving that, and if Reagan had not ordered the increased US buildup, they may have kept the status quo anyway.

But in no way can you argue that the Soviets *increased* their military spending as a result of the US buildup, because the evidence is simply against that.

>>360376

Glatnost was more about social reforms more than economic reforms, and that really had nothing to do with Reagan. People behind the Iron Curtain rarely got to hear anything ever uttered by Reagan let alone turning to him as some sort of inspiring beacon of hope and freedom in their oppressive country.

>>360382
luckily, it was sure thing that the Soviets were not nuts, dating back to guys like Khrushchev. In reality even Gorbachev was a pretty good leader.

The problem was widespread corruption in the Soviet government. For anecdotal example, the politicos would get up in the morning, and begin drinking vodka with breakfast. Essentially you had a bunch of drunks making your state decisions.

Also, a command economy communist system, to work correctly, demanded a much more sophisticated and developed infrastructure than the USSR had our could build in a timely manner.

>>360379

If you mean the bit that says The Soviet Union could not and thus did not increase military spending is selectively reading, then sure, I am selectively reading.

>>360378
Or else what? Do you actually think the Russians were so afraid of a nuclear holocaust in fucking 1983 that they simply let go of their economy and bent down before Reagan? What kind of retarded hick logic is that?

>>360391
>Usually when people claim their opponent has been schooled in an argument, they are running out of things to say themselves, and are merely seeking to shut down debate.

>thisiswhatyousaywhenyouaretryingtoconvinceyourselfyou'venotbeenschooled.jpg

You can keep trying to hem and haw around the issue and play a semantics game and all that silly shit but the facts are what they are. Reagan's spending led to their need to capitulate on the Cold War, which led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In every way possible, on this fundamental issue you are attempting to argue, you are wrong and have been shown to be so.

>>360396
The Cold War was directly predicated on the idea that both sides had to continuously out do one another, if the US made a bomb, the Soviets had to make a bigger one. When the Soviets believed the US had figured out out to put missiles in space that could intercept their missiles, they realized they could not match that sort of military spending without facing a revolt because of how fucked their economy was at the time. So they came to the table, Cold War ended. It was Reagan's increasing of military spending which made that happen.

>>360391
>I have no real response so I will just generally refute my ass being schooled; and a "glaze-over" of what Glastnost was from the index of my 4th grade Social Studies book.

>>360396
Actually Bro, a lot of the world, including the Western Nations of Europe were pretty sure the USA was the "bad guy" in the Cold War and it was going to cause WWIII.

>>360397

See, you keep ignoring the facts. The Soviet Union did not capitulate to anyone, it suffered an internal collapse between its own member states, leading to a dissolution of the union between them.


Now the facts are this. The Soviet Union was facing dire economic circumstances heading into 1980 due to a number of things, but largely because it allocated too much of it's budget to defense, and not enough to civilian purposes.

Ronald Reagan, elected president in 1980, ordered a massive buildup of US armed forces. The Soviet Union saw that they could not match this buildup, and did not respond in kind. They left defense spending where it was throughout the 80s until it's collapse.

Now, logically, if they did not increase defense spending, it cannot have collapsed from an arms race with the US.

But as I said, it can be argued that they did not make the cuts needed to their defense budget because they wanted to remain competitive and on par with the US, but by no means did they increase spending.

Maintaining the status quo ultimatly proved to be unsustainable, and despite efforts from Gorbachev for reform, deteriorating economic conditions caused an internal collapse in the USSR.

Now, the economic problems faced by the Soviet Union already existed before Ronald Reagan came to office. It was the USSR's unwillingness to do what had to be done and CUT it's defense budget, and initiate widespread social and economic reforms that led to it's ultimate collapse.

Reagan's arms race may only have been successful in that is dissuaded the Soviets from CUTTING their defense budget, but we may never know the truth of that.

>>360383
Some quick reading suggests you may be wrong about sikhs.

From wikipedia: >The Sikh Empire (from 1801-1849) was formed on the foundations of the Punjabi Army by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The Empire extended from Khyber Pass in the west, to Kashmir in the north, to Sindh in the south, and Tibet in the east.

And Khyber Pass was apparently the border between pakistan and afghanistan.

>>360405

response was about as real as being told "LOL I SKOOL U"

Next please.

>>360412

Give up bro. your making too much sense to be on /new/

>>360412
>The Soviet Union did not capitulate to anyone, it suffered an internal collapse between its own member states

Because of outside pressure. Which you want to pretend didn't exist.

Because you don't want to face this fact, everything else you said is taken in the wrong context, the proper, correct and historically factual context, which is that Reagan recognized that if the Soviets were pushed, they would collapse. That is what caused him to take the actions he took, actions which directly led to the Soviets collapsing.

Look at it this way. There's a guy standing close to a cliff, looking over. Now he's not going to fall on his own, but someone comes up and pushes him, he falls off the cliff to his death. You are like a person who comes along after, finds the guy dead at the bottom of the cliff and says "He must have fallen while looking over the edge" ignoring completely even the idea that the man was pushed.

>>360414
See, champ, the problem is you're not responding. You've resorted to arguing semantics and then refusing to debate at all.

So of course, now you're being made fun of as being totally schooled.

It's that simple, but as we've already seen, you have a lot of trouble coming to simple conclusions.

>>360412
>Reagan's arms race may only have been successful in that is dissuaded the Soviets from CUTTING their defense budget, but we may never know the truth of that.

Uh we know it because we have shit like Gorby's own biography that states that's exactly what happened. This is why you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

>>360413
They conquered Kabul. (Present day Pakistan, not including the Sindh)

Under Reagan the federal budget deficit grew at an unprecedented rate, income and wealth inequality became more pronounced. His deregulation caused problems in airline and mining safety and caused huge losses in the savings and loans industry. At the same time average wages and median family income barely rose. The savings rate and business investment actually declined. Also investments at the time declined in new plants and equipment, or research and development, but increased in unproductive activities such as hostile corporate takeovers, leveraged buyouts, junk bonds and tax shelters.

America was already in long term decline but these things just accelerated the process, in 86 Germany pulled ahead of the US to became the world's largest exporter. In 87 Tokyo Stock Exchange share of world equity surpassed that of New York SE. In 88 America lost its lead in world GNP per capita, in the same year only 1 of the 25 top banks in the world were still American, 15 of these were still American back in 1970. Then in 1989 only 5 of the world's largest 25 corporations were American.

To be fair Carter started the idiotic trend of deregulation and the shift away from Keynesian economics but it only opened the door for idiots like Reagan to totally fuck it up.

>>360423

I'm sorry? Refusing to debate? Exactly what have I been doing in this thread. Debating I thought.

I strongly suspect I am wasting my time arguing with a troll, inserting deliberate logical fallacies into their typings, but I suspect if I accuse you of that I will simply be using something "typical of brainless leftards who cant make an argument" or something like that.

Sigh.

But Kruschev threatened to nuke London and Paris in 56. So if the brits and French had ignored him and continued kicking Nasser's ass, would Kruschev have
precipitated a nuclear war which would obviously lead to the soviet union get destroyed (along with western europe and United states)?

>>360430
The only troll here has been you all along

>>360422

That's a lovely analogy but the facts that we know are against it.....almost.

If Reagan really had "pushed" The Soviet union effectively, they would have sought to counter his military buildup with an increased military buildup of their own.

Indeed, the Reagan administration did take other actions, such as persuading Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, hurting oil exports from the USSR, but probably minor in the overall scheme of things, though i cant be sure on that.

Like I said, If the Soviet Union was "pushed", it was due to their unwillingness to cut their own defense budget, which they desperately needed to do, and that may have been due to increase US military spending.

>>360430
>Help! I've been caught! Resort to using a 12th grad vocabulary all off a sudden and then type "sigh" a couple times to show how intellectually exhausted I am! That's the ticket!

Sorry, champ, but you backed yourself into the proverbial corner. If you wanna get hostile at anyone or anything, maybe check out the mirror? Target your over-anxious mouth, or perhaps your own ineptitude to defend your ridiculous assertions after the fact.

>>360439
>
If Reagan really had "pushed" The Soviet union effectively, they would have sought to counter his military buildup with an increased military buildup of their own.

Jesus fucking christ this is retard logic.

They couldn't match it. Again. Reagan saw them LOOKING OVER THE CLIFF...and recognized that if he pushed them by coming in with the bluster and ramping up military spending, that they'd be forced to make choices which would have larger ramification on the Cold War...like...ending it. Or facing internal revolt.

>>360441

I really don't now what I've done to deserve such aggressive language, I don't think I have once made a personal attack on you during this debate,.

If only anonymous men could have civilized debates across the internet, the world might be a better place.

>>360439
You guys know very little about history obviously, and even less about foreign policy. Countries do not work in a vacuum.

The entire premise of the Cold War was USSR v USA. It was that way, de facto, because that's how the two superpowers, USA and USSR, framed world politics.

I suggest you do some more reading on brinkmanship, and check out Gorbachev's biography. It's about as unbiased work on the Soviet government at the time as you can get.

>>360439
>it was due to their unwillingness to cut their own defense budget

They were unwilling to do so because they were in a fucking COLD WAR with the UNITED STATES WHO WERE CURRENTLY RAMPING UP THEIR MILITARY SPENDING THROUGH THE ROOF AND CHALLENGING THE SOVIETS TO DO THE SAME OR CAPITULATE

Fuck

>>360461

See, the Soviets did not see the increased US defense spending, saw that they could not match it and say "Right boys, time to throw in the towl. Phone Reagan and tell him we surrender" .

It did not "capitulate" to the US, in lumbered on under unsustainable circumstances and ultimately collapsed because of that, unsustainable circumstances that where in place before the US buildup ever took place.

>>360477
>See, the Soviets did not see the increased US defense spending, saw that they could not match it and say "Right boys, time to throw in the towl. Phone Reagan and tell him we surrender" .

No, but they saw that they couldnt' match it and were forced to make a clear and conscious decision to begin opening up talks between the two nations on disarmament, which was the first major step in throwing in the towel.

The final collapse was caused by separate nations splintering off but these events don't happen in a fucking vacuum, and pretending one didn't directly lead to another is laughabe

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/17/business/worldbusiness/17iht-think_2.html?pagewanted=1

The study is by William Easterly of the World Bank and Stanley Fischer of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, soon to become an IMF deputy managing director. It looks at how the Soviet economy turned from being "the hope of the future" in the 1950s to the basket case of today.

Sadly for admirers of Ronald Reagan, the study concludes that the increased Soviet defense spending provoked by Mr. Reagan's policies was not the straw that broke the back of the Evil Empire.

The Afghan war and the Soviet response to Mr. Reagan's Star Wars program caused only a relatively small rise in defense costs. And the defense effort throughout the period from 1960 to 1987 contributed only marginally to economic decline.

>>360491
If you'd been paying attention throughout the thread, many people have been saying it was an entire concert of efforts, besides just Reagan's military spending, that helped pressure the Soviets.

Reaganomics....no wonder the 80s fucking blew cock

>>360116
source or invalid data

>>360493
If you'd read the article, the collapse of the Soviet Union is blamed entirely on economic mismanagement and allocation of resources, especially machinery, that failed to keep up with productivity of Western countries, causing a widening trade gap that eventually bankrupted the country.

>>360491
>herp derp soviet union failed because they sucked at making production machines

>the collapse of the Soviet Union is blamed entirely on economic mismanagement and allocation of resources, that failed to keep up with productivity of Western countries

You realize that this is literally word for word from Reagan's mouth when he began pressuring them?

They couldn't keep up, Reagan gave them the option of keeping up or giving up, they tried to keep up, failed to do so successfully and within a decade they collapsed.

Herp a derp

>>360505
>herp derp soviet union failed because reagan was such an inspiring leader that the people rose up and took their country back for capitalism

>>360480

The position I am trying to get across is that the economic deterioration within the Soviet Union did not come about by the actions of the United States government, the Reagan administration or otherwise.

It had already begun to fester long before the 80s began, and I would argue that the seeds of it's destruction where sown from the beginning, because a command and control economy is inherently unworkable.

International pressure certainly hastened it's demise, but in my uneducated opinion the cracks in the Soviet economy where so unfixable that collapse was only a matter of time anyway. Gorbachev saw this, which is why he tried to implement his forms. He never wanted to Soviet Union to dissolve, he tried to keep it intact to the last, but ultimately he failed in his mission to prevent it.

The Soviet Union overreached during the 70s with its massive military buildup, to levels it could not support in the long term, and it's reluctance to do anything about it, and i acknowledge the threat of increased US military spending played a part in it's decisions making, is what caused it's collapse.

The economic conditions that led to it's destruction where of it's own making, caused even before the 1980, and that was the main reason for its dissolution.

The myth I am trying to dispell is that the Soviet Union disolved because Ronald Reagan stood infront of the Brandenburg gate and said "tear down this wall" or because Opressed Russians overthrew communism because they saw the light of American capitalism, (The collapse was and still is viewed negatively by most Russians) or other preposterous romantic narratives like that.

>>360513 confusing keeping up with defense spending with keeping up with food production and export products

>>360514
>herp derp you green text is a strawman that no one ever said mine is not

>>360501
And if you'd read the thread, several posters already touched on the need for a really developed production and delivery process for a socialist system to work.

>>360517
See the thing is, this is in direct contrast with top Soviet thinkers of the time and even Gorbachev himself, the man who presided over the dying USSR.

>>360519
>confusing the fact that the Soviets were forced to choose between the two and they chose the military as long as they could then realized they were going to get slaughtered in a national uprising if they didn't capitulate in the Cold War so they could re allocate resources currently spent on the military over to the civilian sector

You sure don't get how a communist/socialist system works do you? Or any government for that matter. Limited resources means they had to make a choice between continuing to fight the Cold War, or try to maintain internal stability.

>>360517
>The myth I am trying to dispell is that the Soviet Union disolved because Ronald Reagan stood infront of the Brandenburg gate and said "tear down this wall"

The only myth here is the strawmen in your head and the absolute historical revisionism you are spewing. You are wrong. Get over it. The Soviet Union would not have collapsed and had it's satellite states split off had it not been destroyed economically and militarily in a Cold War competition with a far superior economic and military model. It's just a fact.

>>360500


Dissapointing to realize the truth sometimes isn't it?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

For that particular graph. Data can be plotted and found elsewhere however.

HURR DURR SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS DON'T WORK! GIVE MONEY TO POOR PEOPLE TO MAKE THE ECONOMY BETTER!

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this from libtards and leftists. Seriously, when was the last time a poor person gave you a job? Yeah, I thought so. By giving bigger tax breaks to the wealthy on capital gains and incentivising job creation (tax reductions for hiring new employees and the like), You can almost guarantee that jobs will be created. This is exactly why supply-side economics works.

Remember when the Bush administration gave $600 to everyone who made under $80,000, and how ineffective that was? This is because the lower economic classes do less investing, and simply spend their money. While this sounds like it would work well for creating jobs, it is less effective as by the time it comes to businesses as profit, several governments have already taken their cut (sales tax, corporate income tax, etc.), meaning that less money can be used for producing new jobs.

>>360539
chart ignores inflation argument invalidated

>>360535

You continue to claim that the USSR economy was destroyed by international pressures. The Soviet Economy deteriorated due to it's own internal economic policies, it had little to do with what Reagan or anybody else said or did in the West.

>>360549

Untrue. The data can be found on the White House's website also.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

Or if you like some user edited facts, wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

>>360550
No I claim that the Soviet Union was forced to the economic brink in part because of outside economic pressure.

Communism doesn't work. That's the lesson of Reagan. It's what he taught the world. Communism cannot compete, in a world and universe in which the entirety of existence is competition and nothing more. He came in, said "They cannot compete with the economic and military power of the United States truly unleashed" and went about doing so, and it crushed them into submission.

You continue to strawman and argue things no one is arguing and you continue to ignore the simple facts that don't fit your perspective, a perspective formulated because you're on some internet crusade to "dispell a myth" that exists entirely and only inside your head.

>>360549

Or here

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

>>360564
All that is still ignoring the fact of inflation and how much the economy grew during many of those years. Chart still invalidated based on selling a false impression without including all the facts. Enjoy

>>360524
No, this is exactly what he said, the Soviet system is old and outdated, inefficient and bulky, and needs to be restructured to increase economic production to stay competitive. Even the fucking notes of the Politburo meetings never mention a need to compete with the American military buildup.

>>360570
No, debt as a percentage of GDP certainly takes all that into account, see bottom chart for more details.

>>Communism doesn't work. That's the lesson of Reagan. It's what he taught the world. Communism cannot compete, in a world and universe in which the entirety of existence is competition and nothing more. He came in, said "They cannot compete with the economic and military power of the United States truly unleashed" and went about doing so, and it crushed them into submission.

That's the sort of romantic narrative crap that has no place in the history books.

These "myths" are things preached by people, and it seems yourself included, because you have just preached a bunch of grand rhetorical nonsense with that claim, when they ignore the much more complex facts of the events.

>>360570

That's exactly what debt expressed as a percentage of GDP is, it means adjusted for inflation you nong.

Reminder that the Soviet Union is not a Communist, but a State Capitalist model of economic development, and this is even what Lenin said, "given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!" (Of course he's crazy, it's a step back not a step forward)

my face when thread

>>360584
There is no myth there. It failed. It couldn't compete because this entire existence is predicated on competition and natural selection and the Soviet Union naturally selected itself right out of existence. This is historical fact.

>>360673

Of course that part is fact, the myth is about those seeking to elevate Ronald Reagan to some sort of hero status godhood, "The lesson of Reagan" as that poster puts it. Reagan's contribution to the downfall of the Soviet union was to destroy the state of US finances ultimately for no purpose, The Soviet Union's own economic problems where already so deep that collapse, or incredibly extensive reformation, something unlikely to be achieved, was inevitable.

>>360696
> The Soviet Union's own economic problems where already so deep that collapse, or incredibly extensive reformation, something unlikely to be achieved, was inevitable.

Nothing is inevitable. Your entire argument is built on a house of sand because you cannot judge this to be true. It's pure "what if" prognostication. I'm dealing with the "what were's" you're dealing with the "What ifs" and it's why you're wrong and the only "myth" here is the junk you're selling: pure speculation.

been lurking a while

yeah its almost like a veblen thing... you know where the man(X) makes all the money(Y), and the women(Z) goes out and spends it so they can look good

where reagan is Z, the American people are X, and our countries GDP (Y) is being spent on shit we don't need... and I guess that makes wealthy producers the children, becuase they benefit from their mom spending money regardless of how much it sucks for their dad

TL;DR: Reagan was a imprudent whore spending our hard earned money, and the wealthy were the spoiled little brats suckling his taxcut teat

>>360041
MP3's are a lot cheaper

>>360036
the Soviet Union killed itself from the inside, nigger
Reagon and 'spending' had little to do with it, though his political science advisors/retards will claim credit to boost themselves

The USSR was never the powerhouse the scaremongerers claimed it to be. But i guess no one needs to be reminded how fear is used as a tool in politics.

>>360809
And now we are supposed to be feel threatened by tiny Iran whose GDP is 43 times smaller than ours. I wonder how people managed not to kill themselves out of sheer desperation during the soviet times.