I got a bit of cognitive dissonance here. But I guess it connects, in a way. >> Under Stalin the USSR's economy was doing great. Khrushchev made a lot of chang

I got a bit of cognitive dissonance here. But I guess it connects, in a way. >> Under Stalin the USSR's economy was doing great. Khrushchev made a lot of changes, and problems began cropping up OK, this was in the middle of the great depression in USA/Europe -- while Soviet had tens of millions of dead/prisoners (hunger, political executions, camps, etc) in the 1930s. So I can believe there was a lack of workers and lots of jobs in Soviet... :-) And since many of the new immigrants (some from Sweden) were executed and put in camps, the lack of workers would continue... From a strict economic perspective, if not humanitarian, I guess that could be called "great"? In a similar way that the Nazi Germany had "great" revenues from stealing murdered/fleeing jews' belongings. (The discussion of markets and valuation I leave for economists, they've been discussing that a long time. I tend to think the capitalist method is less bad than the alternatives I've ever heard of, even despite the bubbles ever two decades.)