So we're back to the same point. Did any economists predict the sudden collapse of the USSR in 1989? No, because you just can't predict when and how individuals (like Gorbachev) will catalyse major changes in history.

And so we're back to the point about Cunningham and whether the CCP will outlive him.

IMHO, with a shitty economy and the absence of a technological revolution that would continue growth (like the IT revolution did the U.S.)or a successful external invasion that would rally the populace the USSR would collapse regardless of the leadership in power. I derive the first precondition from Friedman and Becker and the second from Kennan's "X Paper".

BULLSHIT! Your economists did NOT predict that the Soviet Communist Party would DIE! Your economists did NOT predict the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the total DEATH of Communism in all of Europe! You economists did NOT predict how the Soviet Communist Party would peacefully destroy itself!

t-co. you're alright. And in many ways you're a good analyst. But I want you to go back and read your last comment more carefully. You said that some economists predicted that the USSR's economy would implode. Well, big deal. The inevitable implosion of the USSR economy should have been self-evident ever since 1917. But did any economists predict how the Soviet Communist Party would commit suicide? No.

Hardly any economists predicted it either. Economists have a shitty record of predicting any of the major changes in world history, because the big changes are always caused by the essential unpredictability of Human Nature, often through the instrumentality of just a few individuals.

I do hesitate to do this, but Ivan, I have to call you out there. Economists, studying the economy of the USSR under Brezhnev were the first to point out (my two father figures Gary Becker and Milton Friedman did this in the 1970s) that if and when world oil prices tanked, like they did in the late 1980's, the USSR's economy would implode.

Remember, shortages, and the related mass protests and anger, didn't really start occuring in the USSR until William Casey (I think that was the 1980-87 CIA head) persuaded the Saudis to flood the world oil market in 1981.

In fact, my Becker and Friedman (whom I had the honor of studying under at the Univ of Chicago, so pardon my harping) said that "it was very likely the USSR will suffer grave political distress if economic problems continue." That was in 1983.

Hardly any economists predicted it either. Economists have a shitty record of predicting any of the major changes in world history, because the big changes are always caused by the essential unpredictability of Human Nature, often through the instrumentality of just a few individuals.

They might be around until the time he dies.

I doubt it - unless he dies prematurely. Or the CCP does what the KMT has done in Taiwan.

These days, in Berlin, you won't find many people admitting their close ties to the East German Stasi.

Just wondering.

I think I'd like to get on Newsnight (BBC "hard news" interview programme) with him. Haha, he'd be sweating like John Prescott after being caught with his pants down! :D

Whoring for Stalin as Duranty did, at least carries a hint of greatness, regardless of the moral corruption of it all. But whoring for Yang Rui doesn't.

At least Duranty came to know Stalin personally, came to know one of the major leaders of the century. Not so for Cunningham.

Duranty's whoring for Stalin was analagous to that of a highly paid call girl, a courtesan of the truly powerful. Cunningham's whoring for Yang Rui is more like a streetwalker who meets the same cheap Joe near the bus station every week.

The best book on Duranty (NY Times correspondent in Moscow in the 1930s) is "Stalin's Apologist", by S.J. Taylor. Here's part of the book description, from Amazon:

"...He believed himself the leading expert on the Soviet Union, and his faith in his own insight drew him into a downward spiral of distortions and untruths, typified by his memorable excuse for Stalin's crimes, 'You can't make an omlet without breaking eggs.' ...It is the bitter, ironic story of a man who had the rare opportunity to bring to light the suffering of millions of Stalin's victims, but remained a prisoner of vanity, self-indulgence, and success."

But there is a considerable difference between Duranty and Cunningham, in their talents and their stature. Duranty was the greater man, and Cunningham is the more pathetic one.

Thanks for the excellent summary.