I'm not sure what you understand under a "good leader" but R. W. Reagan built his name and made all his riches in "communications" (first, as a PR communicator for big corporations; He had it all - important look (a.k.a presidential), skills to read a Teleprompter/memorize lines on the glories of free enterprise while GE was busy fixing prices and selling to government ashtrays for bomber crews for $500 a pop). No wonder he and his communication skills were noticed by certain political forces and he was launched into governor' & presidential chairs to do exactly the same thing he did as a PR guy for GE - look important, read teleprompter, extol virtues of free enterprise + little bit of a tough talk. People loved it. Never mind progressing Alzheimer. But did people loved it because Reagan lead them to love it? Or Reagan did "communicate" things people are trained by "biology&culture" to love & respect - expression of dominant importance, tough talk, virile selfishness (a.k.a dominance)? Nature doesn't train to revere "free enterprise" and hierarchy of wealth but a good communicator can dissolve these things in the swill people do like (on biological level). Reagan era results were/are beyond expectations (for the shareholders of USA LLC).
"They" are no more 20 years. No toys are found even though post Soviet Mother Russia is selling itself inside out. Russia continue to sell cosmetically modernized 1970s era Soviet weapons to the eager developing nations. Both Chechen wars were fought using old Soviet made 1970s (and even 1950s) weapons. They hide it too thoroughly to believe there is something there.
Thats a problem even today, I mean do you really think the entire USA Military budget is going where it should go? And as for the 500 dollar ashtrays, yeah welcome to capitalism. another example I had My teeth cleaned this year paid it my self cost 75 dollars.. Last year I put it through my insurance, They charged them 325 for the same job. One of the other reasons why there has to be changes to modern capitalim.
I don't see your point here. The dissolution of the Russian-China alliance created as you pointed out another security risk for Russia necessitatiing further defense expenditures for an already strapped economy thus accelerating the Soviet Union's demise which is the point. The demise of the Soviet Union was not the result of a single act but the cummulation of many seperate acts over a prolonged period of time. Agreed... I don't see how this is relevant to the issue at hand. The Nixon grain deal was a tempest in a tea pot. There was no signficant price issue that adversely affected the US population as a result of the Nixon-Soviet grain deal as evidenced by the fact Nixon was relected. http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...LczAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YTIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=7263,1966441 As for New Deal Price controls, I have no idea as to what you are talking about. There were price subsidies for agricultural products, but that is not price control. Agricultural price subsidies were designed to keep certian agricultural products selling above a legally set floor. Large agribusiness was simply a matter of economics...nothing tied to government. It had more to do with the evolution of agricultural technology. As technology improved, only the most efficient producers could survive and capital required to succeed in the agricultural business became substancial. It is simply evolution of the business that has been at work for a couple of centuries...few farmers are required due to better technology and the resulting efficiencies. I don't share your opinion, but I guess neither of us will really know the answer to the issue. The Soviets by the way did try to develop a deep water fleet, but the could not afford it and were not successful. The bottom line is that the primary reason the Soviet Union failed was because it could not and did not have a good way to allocate state resources. And anything that created additional demand or stress on the system of resource allocation hastened the fall of the Soviet empire. I think that is a matter for speculation. We could just as easily say that without WWI there would have been no Soviet Union. But is it relevan? No. Did the US support Soviet industry and government durring WWII, certianly. And did the FDR and Truman conceed too much to the post WWII Soviets? In my opinion, definately. But ultimately, the Soviets could not hold on to the possesions they gained durring WWII. Their system of resourse allocation was so flawed, these additional responsiblities/possessions stressed their flawed economic system even further.
That's why I quoted Emmitt Brown in 1955- "no wonder why they'll elect Reagan- he's a Hollywood star! He is perfect for TV!"
Good speech and he sure was a good looking feller, but I see the limits too. Reagan would be totally unprepared for American terrorism- the speech is about him wrapping up Communism... the speech does not hold up over time. Let's not forget that with all this victory and freedom over the Communists, the Jihad movement's roots were formed...
I was never impressed with his handling of the Lebanon bombing of the Marine detachment. I would have preferred more of a John Wayne response rather than the pick up our bags and leave approach. But perhaps that was the better solution. But as an ex-Navy veteran, we hate to give up ground...period!
I'm just saying he couldn't be an effective President today- he'd have to be something completely different. For years I have credited Bush for being the idiot who puts a face to the shithole we're in- Obama takes over and is a new face- props to Bush for being the bad guy. In 50 years in some experiment they'll flash a picture of Bush and the response will be WAR. I believe we're playing a grand game of Republicans and Democrats- one expanding government and cutting back on military and the other consolidating power and somehow, over the decades we advance. In this regard we look back to Reagan and think "the 80's". But I am glad we have Obama in office today.
