Soviet union collapses in 1981 page 2 alternate history discussion electricity vs gasoline


High oil prices encouraged the Soviets to invest more in their oil extraction industries, when the most efficient thing would have been to do as the West ortega y gasset revolt of the masses did, and import oil. The Siberian oil was difficult to get to, requiring expensive investments in infrastructure and extensive imports of Western technology (like the large diameter oil pipes, imported if memory serves from the UK, in any case, the Soviets simply didn’t have any factories capable of producing pipes electricity and magnetism online games in that diameter). Of course, at the time oil was starting to flow through the expensive investments in the mid-80s, the oil price was starting to collapse.

High oil prices in the West encouraged the Soviets to limit their own oil consumption and the oil consumption of their allies and preferentially export to the West. Coal is a less efficient fuel than oil and gas, so keeping the Eastern block running on less efficient coal for the overwhelming majority of its energy was keeping overall efficiency down and therefore 8 gases repressing economic productivity. The Soviets were also under-pricing coal (for political reasons) so lower oil prices in the West doesn’t push the Soviets to use oil as much as optimally, but it does help. As such, lower oil prices in the West might mean that the Soviets and their allies manage to enjoy greater productivity gains during the 70s, meaning growth slows relative to their performance in the 60s gas bubble in chest and back, but not the humiliatingly poor performance of OTL’s 70s.

Sudden economic collapses are much more dangerous than slow declines. Especially when one is in debt. The subsidy of high oil prices in the West allowed electricity in salt water the Soviets to put off reforms in more fundamental sectors of their economy like the steel industry (which was being clobbered by the exhaustion of coal and iron ore mines in the west of the USSR) while importing and borrowing heavily from the West (or at least, heavily compared to previous levels of trade and borrowing – contrary to popular quadcopter gas motor mythology, the Soviets were never an autarky), then suddenly the oil price goes down and the Soviets had to confront all the accumulated problems at once. With lower prices, the Soviets have to address their more fundamental problems over the gsa 2016 pay scale course of the 70s (something that theoretically at least they can do – the Soviets had been tackling fundamental issues as serious in the 60s as well and they didn’t collapse in that decade) and they don’t have the ability to quickly ramp up their imports and borrowing, since without oil they need to develop their industrial exports, which means improved quality, which takes time.

Now, interestingly, had the Soviets still collapsed with low oil prices, (a) they’d have electricity transmission invested less in oil production and (b) 1981 is before Siberia’s oil and gas developments were on-stream even with OTL’s rush to develop them and a collapse in the middle of building such a major infrastructure project would basically mean it would never be completed – or at least it would be put off for a generation. As such, the post Soviet regime (regimes?) wouldn’t be able to use oil and gas as political weapons the way Putin’s regime has.

Well, Stalin completely botching his post WW2 electricity definition diplomacy was probably worse. The Cold War was a disaster for the development of the USSR in my view. While it’s hard to avoid a rivalry between the extremely assertive post-WW2 US and the very incompatible economy of the USSR, a much more friendly rivalry is, in my view, possible. Freer trade, less military spending and less ideology warping economic gas dryer vs electric dryer cost savings decisions on both sides of the iron curtain would have been good, and it would have been especially good for the Soviets.

Click to expand…Basically. You’ve, for one, presumably shifted Reagan’s plans to ratchet up defense spending, thus possibly leaving the country in better fiscal shape. This gas leak los angeles california means the idea that tax cuts can spur economic growth is more popular, as the American economy grows with access to new markets. Secondly, you have a president whose brad was optimistic and possessed an actor’s charm who could now shape the Pax Americana for decades to come. Conversely, an earlier demise to the U.S.S.R. probably also diminishes the near-divinity Reagan holds in some quarters of the American right, as it would be harder gasoline p to argue that his presidency played a role in the defeat of Communism. Then again, he was of the minority view in the early eighties that the USSR world j gastrointestinal oncol impact factor could be defeated and/or dissolved short of nuclear war, and this prescience would probably work in his favor. I think we see his denuclearization efforts being more substantive and far-reaching. Likewise, the possibility of a spacewank here could also be a boon for the Elon Musk-like figures of the ATL.