-----Mensagem original----- De: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]Em nome de Chris Doss Enviada em: quinta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2001 04:05 Para: 'lbo-talk at lists.panix.com' Assunto: RE:Brazil thread
Brad De Long said: Andrei Shleifer would not be there, but if he were he would point out that the Soviet Union poured a huge amount into research and development and got very little out of it, largely because of bureaucratic meddling. He would say that the only area in which Soviet science lived up to its potential was higher math and mathematical physics--and that only because none of the bureaucrats could understand anything other than that doing it was internationally prestigious.
This statemelnt is utterly bizarre, because it leaves out military engineering, which had huge funds and energy funneled into it. The Skval torpedo is five times as fast as anything in NATO's arsenal; the SU-300 air-defense system is widely recognized as superb; the AK-47 is commonly considered the best assault rifle in the world; and one of the main reasons for the hush around the Kursk is that, outside of the fact that the sub is one of the most advanced on Earth, is that the Russian government doesn't want anyone getting anywhere near those homing torpedoes. Maybe not an admirable area of research from a moral point of view, but still.
When Americans talk about Russia (or the USSR), they just sound wierd.
Chris Doss The Russia Journal
-I?ve already read that USSR computer technology was at the same level -of USA up to 1968. When I studied pharmacology during my residency -in medical oncology we also realized that the USSR was able to develop - new anticancer drugs up to 1965. But after 1965 science in USSR seems -to have stagnated, at at least was not able to follow the western science. -I think we could have three alternatives to explain this.
1-As USSR had only 14% of global GNP in 1965, she simply couldn?t gather the necessary resources to develop science. 2-Increasing military spending drained the resources that would be needed to develop science 3-A closed political system prevented the information flow necessary for the third industrial revolution (that is the explanation of my compatriot, Angelo Segrillo, who wrote a very interesting book on the causes of Soviet decline).
Btw: 1965 seems to be a turning point in Soviet history, all started to worsen after this year (incluind infant mortality and life expectancy). How do you see this? Btw 2: Sometimes I feel myself inclined to believe that the Soviet failure is not related to socialism, but is essentially a failure of "late modernization" in fact, no underdeveloped countries became developed in this century, and South Korea, which almost achieved it, is starting to face serious troubles, (I don?t know if Portugal, Spain and Taiwan are exceptions to this)
Alexandre Fenelon