The Political Economy of the Cold War

Speaker: Professor Niall Ferguson
Chair: Professor Arne Westad
This event was recorded on 18 October 2010 in Old Theatre, Old Building
At its heart the Cold War was a competition between two economic systems. Despite having in common a "military-industrial complex", they were profoundly different in the degree of freedom they offered their citizens, the living standards they were able to achieve and the pace of technological innovation they could sustain. In this first lecture, Niall Ferguson compares and contrasts the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War and asks how far the outcome of the Cold War was economically determined from the outset. In particular, what role did commercial and financial globalisation play in enhancing U.S. power in the world? And how serious a threat did inflation pose to the United States in the 1970s? Professor Niall Ferguson is the Philippe Roman Chair in History and International Affairs for the 2010-2011 academic year.

[@d.mavridopoulos66]

In this series of lectures, Niall Ferguson to a large extent adheres to the arguments put forth by Lewis Gaddis, who was a speechwriter of George Bush junior. In one of his books Gaddis says "I felt very fortunate, because I never as a student felt the obligation to condemn the American establishment and all its works". Perry Anderson has said of Gaddis, that for over four decades, he has tirelessly upheld patriotic truths about his country, and the dangers it faced. So the U.S's foreign policy is here presented in the most favourable light by Ferguson. Other historians believe that requirements of profitability, not of security, formed the guideline of US foreign policy, thus viewing the Cold War as merely a subplot, within the larger history of American global domination. Examples are McCormick, Kolko and Lloyd Gardner.

[@RonJohn63]

Lecture starts at 3:45.

[@SertoriusMagnus]

Very interesting, with the exception that Spain wasn't included in the Marshall Plan and it was only in conditions to be accepted as a relevant actor for the US in the 60s, after they had afforded the reconstruction of the country on their own. It wasn't a communist regime though, but a weird mix of productivism, ultra-catholic values and social state without civil liberties, that fully entered into the world capitalist market after Eisenhower's visit to Spain, I give him that. But it wasn't the Marshall Plan the magic potion that saved Spain, actually reaching the highest rate of growth of the entire OECD, that was known as the Spanish miracle in the 60s.

[@TebTengri]

He didn't say why there was no lack of investment, just that there was.

[@johnhupperts]

Of course there'd be no investment in infrastructure. Infrastructure is capital/property and there were no strong rights to capital.

[@maxheadrom3088]

That happened in the US during Khrushchev's visit to the country.

[@PalleRasmussen]

But not richer than those of a comparable geographical location; Germany, Austria or my own little Denmerk were they? Just as we up here in the north are still richer today than those three countries and just as Poland- Czechoslovakia is richer than Bulgaria-Romania. Geographical location/infrastructure, resources, culture seems to play a role as well, eh?

[@BabelRedeemed]

It's funny how historians can't help putting themselves into the story; all the way from this guy's introduction... Still, I like Ferguson's delivery - he doesn't ramble, he's organized, and his criticism of his past view was refreshing. It's also telling how more and more of these guys are talking about Asia's importance through history; had they not recognized that before, say, the Beijing Olympics? I'm fairly young, so I can't remember.

[@aliasjon8320]

Recognition is a tricky thing. Often what people working in academic fields in academic terms would not be recognised amongst the general public at the same time, or in the same way. Everytime an event like the Olympics takes place in a country it's a message sent to the world in general, a demonstration of soft power. Asia has been debated amongst scholars for the longest time now more than ever. It collectively houses China India, south Korea,Japan all rather subject to their unique economic phenomena, interacting economically, pollitically, socially, even millitarily, and the result of these often end up being critical to the entire world.

[@cartosianocayboquy3841]

Okokokokokkoklmokkmmmkkok

[@cartosianocayboquy3841]

Omokokokokkkomokomokokokok ok okok ok okokokomo

[@th8257]

Ferguson was something of a budding actor in his youth. There's still something slightly theatrical in the way he presents.

[@MXOtaku]

He says that U.S. Military intervention was successful. Is that true in the Dominican Republic? In Chile? In El Salvador? Supporting brutal dictators is not my idea of "success"

[@jaredsandoy5616]

When the alternative is brutal communist dictators i would say, yes, it is.

[@latzobear]

except it wasn't

[@MaisieDaisyUpsadaisy]

Carlos Jimenez That's because your an idealist, while Ferguson is a realist.

[@MisakaMikotoDesu]

"Success" in those cases was replacing communism with anything else, even if it was a brutal dictator. So yes.

[@DrCruel]

Ferguson is critical of the planned economy over free markets. The combination of large capitalist enpterprises or monopolies and central state planning is fascism, something that Milton Friedman specifically warns against. I'll replay the clip so I can find the reference to corruption. If you have the time index for it, please post.

[@giovannidassa1368]

His views seem to have changed recently.

[@TheVoltman1]

what do u mean?

[@aliasjon8320]

Like?

[@DrCruel]

I wasn't aware your attitude to Ferguson's ideas on historical economics had any sort of sexual dynamic, either pro or con. In any event he's recently remarried. And yes, one can be nostalgic for a society that a certain set of ideas was responsible for. Naill Ferguson is not a didactic capitalist, although he is a fan of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School. The problem with planned economies is how poorly they respond to consumer demand, but then go look up his ideas on the PRC today.

[@bonitajanssen745]

ONE OF THE COLDEST PLACES ON EARTH IS ABOUT TO BECOME THE HOTTEST. COLD WAR US BACK!

[@DrCruel]

Naill Ferguson does not address either US or USSR corruption, only the economic strategies used by these two countries and others which followed their respective economic models, and speculated on the reasons for the results. Ferguson is actually very critical of how the US economy is being managed today. And negative growth may be normal for planned economies, but is not an indicator of economic success. I'm a college graduate, with a mathematics and computer science background.

[@cicik57]

he should analyze who is capable to make jeans and especially real old jeans today

[@DrCruel]

Too bad, You had such a promising start.

[@DrCruel]

No doubt the extensive post-war looting of the East German industrial infrastructure was meant to create an anti-war memorial in Moscow. Maybe it was like the Tokugawa sword hunt to make a big Buddha statue.

[@clydecessna737]

While the failure in S. Vietnam was partly in Washington; there is no evidence that US military strategy or tactics were working. You cannot kill your way through a Counter Insurgency campaign. You are killing the very people you are trying to protect. This lesson was lost in Afghanistan and in Iraq also. The US Army establishment (Generals not Privates) MUST take their share of responsibility for these national failures. This bodes badly for the many interventions of the future. Prof. Ferguson was very gentle on the moral, cultural and economic collapse of the UK during the Cold War, leading to its withdrawal from the world after BREXIT.

[@MaisieDaisyUpsadaisy]

Clyde Cessna You can actually kill you way through counter insurgency. During the days of imperialism the European powers had a tendency - including Britain - to defeat insurgencies with brute force.

[@rw7254]

China is Saudi in 70s?

[@mengutimur]

Damn. Ferguson sucks so hard.

[@TheVoltman1]

what do u mean?

[@DrCruel]

@@TheVoltman1 I think he's trying to virtue signal, but he's not very smart.

[@cicik57]

@@DrCruel yeah it is completely superficial however he is right that asian success is due to constructive planned steps.

[@DrCruel]

@@cicik57 And then collapses because of copying a badly flawed and corrupt model. The Japanese copied the US and did great for awhile, then had a banking crisis just like the US. So the communist Chinese decided the solution was to do exactly the same thing, only with far more corruption and on a much larger scale. Thus "ghost cities," "tofu dreg" and "boneless chicken" construction and the like, leading to "tang ping" and "bai lan" work ethics. And so on. Socialism in action.

[@TheMarcarca]

this guy is so full of himself

[@TheVoltman1]

what do u mean?

[@aliasjon8320]

How are you even coming up with that?

[@th8257]

He was an aspiring actor in his youth. Something slightly theatrical still there in his style.

[@DrCruel]

@@aliasjon8320 Perhaps it's a self reference. It would make sense then.

[@DrCruel]

I already anticipated the nostalgia for Marxist ideas. You clearly don't like the man on grouds related to this nostalgia. But again, what did Naill Ferguson say that is clearly erroneous about the Eastern Bloc countries?

[@DrCruel]

Can you give me some examples of Ferguson's blatant errors? If he's as poor at his job as you say, it shouldn't be very hard for you to come up with several.

[@th8257]

Ferguson is always interesting and stimulating, but he's also often quite spectacularly wrong and seemingly driven more by his political prejudices than anything else. His pronouncements on Brexit for example have proven to be disastrously wrong.

[@DrCruel]

It is hard for me to believe, but Ferguson is beiing described as a "low quality economist, mediocre historian, and poor philosopher" because he's claimed that Eastern Europe had a bad economy under Marxism. He's clearly not popular in this forum, perhaps because he is said to champion those that are dissatisfied with the "Western intelligensia." The implication is that this is a bad thing to be. Might this have something to do with a residual nostalgia for Marxist-style economic management?