nut bra!
#44
Re: nut bra!
they were both incredibly powerful, but in the US if you wanted to work at Mcdonalds you could work at Mcdonalds, if you wanted to be an engineer, you could be an engineer, in USSR, if you wanted to work at mcdonalds you would be an engineer.
#45
Re: nut bra!
Main article: Economy of the Soviet Union
Prior to its collapse, the Soviet Union had the largest centrally directed economy in the world. The government established its economic priorities through central planning, a system under which administrative decisions rather than the market determined resource allocation and prices.
Since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the country grew from a largely underdeveloped peasant society with minimal industry to become the second largest industrial power in the world. According to Soviet statistics, the country's share in world industrial production grew from 4 percent to 20 percent between 1913 and 1980. Although many Western analysts considered these claims to be inflated, the Soviet achievement remained remarkable. Recovering from the calamitous events of World War II, the country's economy had maintained a continuous though uneven rate of growth. Living standards, although still modest for most inhabitants by Western standards, had improved, and Soviet citizens of the late 1980s had a measure of economic security.
Although these past achievements were impressive, in the mid-1980s Soviet leaders faced many problems. Production in the consumer and agricultural sectors was often inadequate (see Agriculture of the Soviet Union). Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s, when collectivization met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, famine, and between 5-10 millions of deaths, particularly in Ukraine, but also in the Volga River area and Kazakhstan. In the consumer and service sectors, a lack of investment resulted in black markets in some areas.
In addition, since the 1970s, the growth rate had slowed substantially. Extensive economic development, based on vast inputs of materials and labor, was no longer possible; yet the productivity of Soviet assets remained low compared with other major industrialized countries. Product quality needed improvement. Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to promote the creativity and productivity urgently needed in a highly developed, modern economy.
Conceding the weaknesses of their past approaches in solving new problems, the leaders of the late 1980s were seeking to mold a program of economic reform to galvanize the economy. The leadership, headed by Mikhail Gorbachev, was experimenting with solutions to economic problems with an openness (glasnost) never before seen in the history of the economy. One method for improving productivity appeared to be a strengthening of the role of market forces. Yet reforms in which market forces assumed a greater role would signify a lessening of authority and control by the planning hierarchy.
Assessing developments in the economy was difficult for Western observers. The country contained enormous economic and regional disparities. Yet analyzing statistical data broken down by region was a cumbersome process. Furthermore, Soviet statistics themselves might have been of limited use to Western analysts because they are not directly comparable with those used in Western countries. The differing statistical concepts, valuations, and procedures used by communist and noncommunist economists made even the most basic data, such as the relative productivity of various sectors, difficult to assess. Most Western analysts, and some Soviet economists, doubted the accuracy of the published statistics, recognizing that the industrial growth figures tend to be inflated.
Prior to its collapse, the Soviet Union had the largest centrally directed economy in the world. The government established its economic priorities through central planning, a system under which administrative decisions rather than the market determined resource allocation and prices.
Since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the country grew from a largely underdeveloped peasant society with minimal industry to become the second largest industrial power in the world. According to Soviet statistics, the country's share in world industrial production grew from 4 percent to 20 percent between 1913 and 1980. Although many Western analysts considered these claims to be inflated, the Soviet achievement remained remarkable. Recovering from the calamitous events of World War II, the country's economy had maintained a continuous though uneven rate of growth. Living standards, although still modest for most inhabitants by Western standards, had improved, and Soviet citizens of the late 1980s had a measure of economic security.
Although these past achievements were impressive, in the mid-1980s Soviet leaders faced many problems. Production in the consumer and agricultural sectors was often inadequate (see Agriculture of the Soviet Union). Crises in the agricultural sector reaped catastrophic consequences in the 1930s, when collectivization met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, famine, and between 5-10 millions of deaths, particularly in Ukraine, but also in the Volga River area and Kazakhstan. In the consumer and service sectors, a lack of investment resulted in black markets in some areas.
In addition, since the 1970s, the growth rate had slowed substantially. Extensive economic development, based on vast inputs of materials and labor, was no longer possible; yet the productivity of Soviet assets remained low compared with other major industrialized countries. Product quality needed improvement. Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to promote the creativity and productivity urgently needed in a highly developed, modern economy.
Conceding the weaknesses of their past approaches in solving new problems, the leaders of the late 1980s were seeking to mold a program of economic reform to galvanize the economy. The leadership, headed by Mikhail Gorbachev, was experimenting with solutions to economic problems with an openness (glasnost) never before seen in the history of the economy. One method for improving productivity appeared to be a strengthening of the role of market forces. Yet reforms in which market forces assumed a greater role would signify a lessening of authority and control by the planning hierarchy.
Assessing developments in the economy was difficult for Western observers. The country contained enormous economic and regional disparities. Yet analyzing statistical data broken down by region was a cumbersome process. Furthermore, Soviet statistics themselves might have been of limited use to Western analysts because they are not directly comparable with those used in Western countries. The differing statistical concepts, valuations, and procedures used by communist and noncommunist economists made even the most basic data, such as the relative productivity of various sectors, difficult to assess. Most Western analysts, and some Soviet economists, doubted the accuracy of the published statistics, recognizing that the industrial growth figures tend to be inflated.
#47
Re: nut bra!
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/136/3...s_gun_long.jpg
US soldier...
http://rantburg.com/images/iragunny.jpg
IRA member...
which one would u rather be?
US soldier...
http://rantburg.com/images/iragunny.jpg
IRA member...
which one would u rather be?
#48
Re: nut bra!
russian failed because by being communist, they they free healthcare.. didnt have to pay for college.. the government even payed you if you got good grades.. i dont understand why everyone is hatin.. russia followed a dream but unfortunatly failed.. that left it crippeled.. and im sure you know but russia doesnt have many reasoures as america does.. thats another key factor.. good farm land is important.. plus when u have constant attacks from does damn ****** chychyns or w/e they called.. and finland stealing your lumber and china whoring russias land..
#49
Re: nut bra!
If you will notice, always wearing masks...
http://multimedia.carlton.com/images...guardian20.jpg
http://multimedia.carlton.com/images...guardian20.jpg
#50
Re: nut bra!
Originally Posted by AK-47
they were both incredibly powerful, but in the US if you wanted to work at Mcdonalds you could work at Mcdonalds, if you wanted to be an engineer, you could be an engineer, in USSR, if you wanted to work at mcdonalds you would be an engineer.
#51
Re: nut bra!
Originally Posted by i-dub
i dont understand why everyone is hatin..
because you didn't have the right to your land, and buisness or land wasowned by the government, but you were ALLOWED to use it.plus, if you bashed stalin like so many poeple bash bush, you'd be killed, and many many MANY poeple were quit poor in the colder regions
#53
Re: nut bra!
Originally Posted by AK-47
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/136/3...s_gun_long.jpg
US soldier...
http://rantburg.com/images/iragunny.jpg
IRA member...
which one would u rather be?
US soldier...
http://rantburg.com/images/iragunny.jpg
IRA member...
which one would u rather be?
#59
Re: nut bra!
afriad of what alex... they were rebelling against england.. oh yeah i remember america did that to.. but when a forign country does it.. it must be wrong.. funny how things are eh?