Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (130910)	1/29/2001 2:41:01 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572167

Joe, You have got to be kidding? The reason they gave up on Eastern European was all about $$$, not fear. They couldn't make "the mortage payments" each month. Near the end they couldn't afford to pay the troops stationed in Europe. That's just not correct. Your version of the world and mine are two very different things. The growth in the communist block slowed down in the 80s, but there was not really anything out of ordinary that happened. Money doesn't matter internally, only externally, none of the countries (probably with exception of Poland) had any problems servicing their external debt. I was talking about Russia's ability to carry and service the debt required to maintain its hold over Eastern Europe. Internally, things were better than ever before in absolute terms, and only looked somewhat bad relative to prosperous West. They were.....my understanding was that things worsened throughout the 80's, that factories were antiquated, that certain product lines like the DDR's trank (sp) car were little more than elaborate lawnmowers as an example, that assembly lines functioned poorly, that in Russia proper food was scarce in certain areas of the country etc. Apparently that was American propraganda. Anyway, as far as the financial situation is concerned, it's nothing that Stalin would not have been able to handle before breakfast. You may recall early Soviet Union handled the need for cash. They exported all the food harvested in Ukraine to the West for quick cash, leaving millions to die of starvation. Lenin and Stalin had no problem with this course of action, but the modern communist leaders did, which is one of the reasons of collapse of communism, and my original premise. Please stop referring to Stalin as some sort of God.....he's beginning to sound like your hero. Yes, Stalin pulled off that sht but it was a very different time during very different circumstances. The world was in a depression and Hitler was raising hell in Europe. Things were so bad that the allies were allied with Stalin against Germany and Hitler. If that doesn't make you question the quality of times and the weirdness of what was going on, I don't know what will. In any case Stalin would be hard pressed to pull off that sht today...not impossible but not probable either. Reagan didn't have the intelligence to act his way out of paper bag. Sorry about thinking I was having intelligent conversation here. I won't make that mistake again. First Reagan was an actor before he was president.....and he was a bad one at that. You consider that an unintelligent observation but you had no trouble condemning Gore for quitting seminary school. What makes you think he could devise a fairly complicated test to figure out where the Russians' resolve was? He did. Or someone in the administration did. And what were the components of that test. To coin a Scumbria phrase, Reagan was a moron! One only has to read his rediculous letters to Nancy Reagan to know that. Before calling someone a moron, I would generally try to be sure I was way smarter than the person I call a moron. What makes you and Scumbria think that you have what it takes to shine their shoes, not to mention calling them morons? First, the day I shine anyone's shoes is that day I die. Secondly, I know I am more intelligent then Reagan but then again many people are. And yes, he is a moron. ted