This thread is about Russia and any events, political or otherwise, that are or might be worth discussing.
Any news, links or posts pertaining to the situation involving Russia, Crimea and Ukraine must be put in the 'Crisis in Ukraine' thread.
Group of deputies wants Gorbachev investigated over Soviet break-up.
Above in the Guardian version
.
Putin's war against Russia's last independent TV channel
.
No discussion regarding nuclear war. As nuclear weapons are not being used by either side, nuclear war is off-topic.
Edited by MacronNotes on Feb 27th 2022 at 11:26:10 AM
To an extent it depends on what you think drives economic growth. How important is entreprenurial creativity? The fall of the Soviet Union/Communist Chinese model seemed to demonstrate that a planned economy cant compete with a decentralized one. Russia still seems overcentralized.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Funniest thing, I'm pretty sure he has no desire to actually take Donbass. But there doesn't seem to be any way out of this conflict that does not involve losing face.
Not to mention that, according to Russian media, Donbass is not Russian doing at all. And that part is usually believed.
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commonHow exactly one is going to explain from a random guy in industrial city - and can one guarantee it, too - that the factory he works at won't change hands, be closed down or converted into a shopping mall as it is more "profitable"? Or that mass firings won't follow?
edited 24th Apr '14 7:25:27 PM by Beholderess
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common@demarquis - Planned economies are not efficient, but they aren't always a bad thing either. India had a planned economy. Yes, that meant the economy was shit for decades, but it gave India much needed autarky and laid the groundwork for the current middle class enterpreneurs. Planned economies, when done right, can create stable and viable foundations where none existed.
As for Russia and centralization, Beholderess has it right. I also think Putin is starting to move away from the centralization, which seemed more of a temporary measure to begin with.
"How exactly one is going to explain from a random guy in industrial city - and can one guarantee it, too - that the factory he works at won't change hands, be closed down or converted into a shopping mall as it is more "profitable"? Or that mass firings won't follow?"
These are extremely important and difficult questions, we deal with them over here constantly. And the thing is, you cant convince him, because he's right. Capitalism means that the factory he works at is private property, and the people he works for can sell it off or shut it down anytime they want to. He (or she) has good reason to be concerned.
That said, a couple of things. In a moment, I will devote some space to responding the Shinra's questions, but for the moment I will just say that the best form of job security is plenty of jobs, that way if you get fired or laid off you can find another one, and the opportunity to leave your employer gives the employee leverage they can use to improve their working conditions or demand more pay. Having one predominant provider of jobs makes life simpler and easier, but also gives you less control over your own life and career. Entrepreneurs have only their own interests in mind when they start a new business, but nevertheless they create opportunities that other, ordinary people can take advantage of. And government owned businesses are inherently less productive than privately owned ones, meaning that overall, they generate fewer jobs, and pay less well than private ones.
That said, the government has an important role to play in helping ensure job security. It can and should provide generous unemployment insurance, laws against arbitrarily firing people, tax incentives to help locally owned businesses, using government contracts to create employment, other things. And during economic down times, it can indeed hire more people.
My point is that if the West does all these things, and Russia does not, then in the eyes of Westerners, there is very little reason to put a lot of faith in Russia's long term stability, vs. someone like Poland.
@Shinra: What you are illustrating is the state-owned sector as a transition to a more privately dominated economy. If I thought Russia was pursuing a similar model to India, I would feel a lot better about it. I cant agree that this is what's happening, all the information I have seen so far implies that the importance of the government within the private sector is growing, not diminishing. State capture of industries, subsidies in exchange for setting prices, the dependence of the budget on oil exports. What private sector activity is going on seems to revolve around contracts awarded to cronies of Putin. These are not good indicators of long-term economic stability. Then there's the whole political situation, which is even more worrisome. That said, I am still in the process of doing research on this topic, so any additional references you can share would be appreciated.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.John Kerry Calls Out ‘Propaganda Bullhorn’ RT.
![]()
True enough, but again, what is the benefit for that guy right here and now? If all he wants is to get on with his life in peace? That someone somewhere might have more job options is quite irrelevant. Especially as he or his family have likely gone through this once already during 90s.
edited 24th Apr '14 8:45:43 PM by Beholderess
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common![]()
![]()
Had to happen. India was going from foreign to domestic owned production over a decade or so. Russia went from total state to no state control in a matter of weeks and months. State control had to go back in in order to stabilize everything again. Now that it has, it's slowly letting go. Beholderess can speak to that more than I.
@Beholderess: The idea is to provide him with more opportunities for career advancement than he can get today. Although you are right in that this is a long-term project, dependent upon the entire economy developing, which wont happen overnight, and doesnt come with guarantees. And things can get worse before they get better. But if he does nothing, and everything goes along as it currently is, conditions are going to gradually get worse, and eventually he loses his job, or maybe his pension, anyway. And his kids end up living in worse conditions than he is.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Of course, but in short term things getting worse are almost guaranteed, while getting better in long term is not.
So how exactly do you persuade people to make such a gamble?
Especially as 90s set up a very bad precedent. The idiotic way the dissolution of Soviet Union was handled pretty much made everyone think that gang fights, mafia state, economic collapse and massive loss of jobs are exactly what deregulated economy and political liberalism are about, at least when applied to this country.
Of course it had little to do with decentralisation and liberalism themselves and everything to do with how it was handled. But, say, if a child enters the water for the first time ever, disobeying his parents to do so too, and during this first time ever very nearly drowns, it is quite likely and understandable that he might be afraid of water for the rest of his life, no?
And as far as countries are concerned, There Are No Therapists
edited 25th Apr '14 9:30:06 AM by Beholderess
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commonI find it darkly amusing that Putin has managed to convince Russia that the very crony capitalist free-for-all that made him rich is the fault of capitalists and liberals. It's a bit like convincing an old woman to leave her fortune to you after murdering her son. He really is one of the most accomplished thieves in history.
Schild und Schwert der ParteiIt made him rich alright, but he did not cause it in the first place. It was the fault of capitalists - I mean, what capitalist won't be happy about a capitalist free for all - and liberals, though the latter for over-enthusiasm and ineptness rather than for malice.
edited 25th Apr '14 9:39:44 AM by Beholderess
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commonIf you knew what I know about the behavior of the ratings agencies during the leadup to the 2008 financial crisis, you wouldnt trust them either.
@Behoderhess: No, there are no therapists for nations, sadly. It's doubly ironic, because the statistics indicate that the economic recovery had already begun the year before Putin was elected. So, to some extent, he took credit for something he didnt do. And the capitalist free-for-all, painful as it was, actually worked.
Nevertheless, no one wants a repeat of that era. Part of the problem is semantic- it isnt liberalization per se that Russia needs right now, it's economic diversification. In other words, the economy is too centered on exports, esp. oil, and not enough on internal consumption, and that's a function of a lack of Russian owned local businesses. I'm talking mostly small retail chains, the kind that center on a single city. Hardware stores, restaurants, that sort of thing. For the young, maybe tech start-ups. And largely that's a result of a lack of spending money, and that's because it's all going you know where.
So, how you start this conversation depends on where your listener is located on the socio-economic ladder. For a factory worker or something along those lines, it's "Do you have an independent labor union where you work? Oh, why not? What do you suppose would happen if we changed the labor code?" For an middle-aged person in the middle class, it would be "Have you ever wanted to own your own business? What's stopping you? What if the banks gave out better loans?" And for a university trained member of the intelligentsia it would be "Sure, we export a lot of oil, but we import everything otherwise. How could we reverse that? What should the government do?" The answers you get to these questions provide the opening to discussions about issues that otherwise people might never question. You can trust them to come to the solutions themselves, provided someone educates them with regard to the facts. Obviously I am assuming a motivated organizer is asking these questions.
edited 25th Apr '14 11:56:37 AM by demarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.edited 25th Apr '14 2:06:01 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
... Talk about a ridiculous flight path.
Why go that far just to annoy the Dutch? Why not sabre-rattle with neighbouring Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, or Sweden?
edited 25th Apr '14 2:08:06 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Overestimating them is not much better then underestimating them.
edited 24th Apr '14 12:45:33 PM by Mio