Do you seriously expect Putin, of all people, to raise up neighboring countries in lieu of Russia? He is a strategist who puts his country above all else.
This is practically out of Machiavelli's The Prince: Putin "entertains" neighboring countries and keeps a strong grip over them. But he won't expend resources on them.
Also, Russia's backing of Assad in Syria propped up a dictator assaulting civilians with banned chemical weapons and lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and a refugee crisis that disrupted a continent.
Yeah, and by that logic it's sad that the US is still afloat because all the atrocities that it has committed.
I think comments like "Oh so depressing, think of the Syrian atrocities, etc." are at best simplistic nihilism. It's very easy to make comments like those; it's more fruitful to say something worthwhile.
You extrapolated a particular interpretation of my comment into a bizarre straw man (how in the world does the US being afloat justify the acts I named? Completely invalid argumentation), downvoted me, and put me down. I'm not sure there's much charitable behavior occuring here, but I upvoted you across the board. :) Troll away, good sir!
I honestly didn't downvote you. I'm not trying to argue that the US being afloat justifies the acts you named. I was just trying to point out that what you said can be said about almost any country. I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's ridiculous to wish harsh economic conditions on Russia simply because Putin's geopolitical strategies don't align with your own. :/
It's complete non-sequitor - noting that all countries do bad things doesn't have any relation to wanting countries who commit bad things to have less resources. I'm guessing you're attempting to claim that I'm saying that all countries should have less resources, thus making my point moot, but that would require me not believing all countries should have less resources, which requires you guessing about my state of mind to prop up a straw man. Bwah?
Anyways, the whole thing is obviated by the larger category of error: black and white thinking on your part. The context of the atrocities matters.
Careful there. Just because something was in Jeff Bezos Blog, is no indication of it's truth. In fact, it seems to be a good indication that it's not.
Are you referring to the Sarin gas that Assad used (not Russia) which is now suspected to have been rebels themselves? [1]
Or are you referring to the aid convoys that Russia destroyed? Woops, Russia claims (and has video supporting) that it was actually a ground attack, not an air attack. [2] Russia may be lying, but given the history of our administrations lies, you must remain skeptical to the U.S. claims.
Yeesh. And you're trying to claim that any misrepresentation of these atrocities happening validates the atrocities altogether. Hundreds of thousands of innocents died, the way it happened is irrelevant to the claim it was an atrocity.
> When the Soviet Union confronted this array of challenges in the mid-1980s, it promptly collapsed.
Bullshit. Soviet economy was just fine at the end of the Cold War. In fact Soviet GDP per capita was half that of the US, compared to now where it's like 10% of the US. Many historians agree that there was no economic need for the Soviet Union to be dismantled.
Article reads of conventional wisdom as advocated by Cold War propaganda about the Soviet Union.
Every time I read about the "lack of consumer goods" in the eastern block as proof of its justified demise I kringe. On the one hand, it sounds just mean to denounce the efforts of complete nations (unfree or not) by such a mundane metric as whether you can choose between a plethora of car brands and models or just choose between "No-Car" and "Car". Having "Car" is still good. But the difference between output in the west and the east tells so much about how this diversion must have come about: much, much force. In so many aspects of daily life.
Most easterners have them, their stories of this ridiculous economy. A friend of mine owns an ash-tray that is simultaneously a rubber duck (!). But my favourite story is still the one of once-staunch socialist Dr. Wolfgang Seiffert who was part of a COMECON conference somewhere in the southern GDR in the 1960s. There, top economists of the eastern bloc conferred about why there was an ongoing shortage of toothbrushes in Saxonia. After three weeks he broke with the idea of central planning (and the mindset that created it):
1) Not only did the system provide a shortage for such an inferior day-to-day product as toothbrushes
2) The system needed its elite economists to gather for three weeks to find a solution
3) which they didn't
The eastern bloc's economic prospects were dire from the get-go and some in the elite knew very early on. It's not a coincidence that Putin comes from one part of that elite that knew all too well: the KGB.
>Soviet economy was just fine at the end of the Cold War.
80 years of communism and everyone was lining up for their daily stipend of bread to eat and soap to wash themselves with.
The only reason the Russian economy even survived this long (since the cold war) is because western tech and know how unlocked oil and gas that was selling for $150 a barrel. Today the Russian economy is in severe decline with currency reserves running low. Much of what is left is spoken for. Interestingly enough Putin and his Kremlin buddies continue to steal billions from the Russian people. I'm sure if the USA wanted to it could release information regarding the 100-200 billion that has been moved out of the country since the fall of CCCP.
>The only reason the Russian economy even survived this long (since the cold war) is because western tech and know how unlocked oil and gas that was selling for $150 a barrel.
Actually, that's the whole reason why the Russian economy is doing so poorly as of late. When an economy is based largely on oil exports, and suddenly the price of oil cuts in half, the economy takes a huge hit.
Putin has spent much of his incumbency trying to diversify Russia's economy (at least so that it relies less on oil and exports). I'm not sure of a different strategy that would lead to a better economy in the long run.
> Putin has spent much of his incumbency trying to diversify Russia's economy
I'd say Putin was declaring efforts to diversify the economy. In practice necessary actions weren't taken in needed quantities.
There are good examples of saying one thing, doing completely the opposite with the modern Russian government. That difference is a part of why it's hard to deal with Russia.
That's curiously right to an extent, you know. Bread had been a symbolic thing for communists from very early days. It's price was heavily subsidised and it was one of the very few food items I actually never remember there being a shortage of. Might have been different in other parts, though. Quite in contrary: bought the cheap bread to feed their animals. One of the many curious perversions of the Soviet economy.
The only reason the Russian economy even survived this long (since the cold war) is because western tech and know how unlocked oil and gas that was selling for $150 a barrel.
I'll consider that major bulls#!#.
The sharp jump in crude prices - from about $35/barrel in early 2003 to about $150/barrel in mid-2008 - tracks very nicely with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Much later than that gap up, fracking, a "western tech and know how", which has been around longer than most people know, did actually help unlock oil and gas, but the effect om prices was the opposite.
So what's your point that the Russian economy didn't benefit from crude at $150 a barrel? Why don't you look at capacity and correlate that to the involvement of the west after the fall of CCCP? It doubled with western help and peaked in 2013 -2014 and is in decline again. Russia still can't drill deep water and they lack a lot of other drilling technical know how.
Where did Russia get it's reserves from? Manufacturing? What do they even make that they can export? So I stand by the fact that the Russian economy would have collapsed again (3rd time in 25 years) if it weren't for $150 a barrel crude.
But it is on its way for another collapse if crude stays below $80-100 a barrel. Unless of course Donald can help out his buddy Vlad.
It's not very clear how the GDP was calculated. Don't forget, the rouble was not freely convertible in USD.
But if anyone ever calculated the per capita GDP of the Soviet Union in the late 80's to be half of the US, then how come there were huge lines to buy the basic necessities, most people were driving Ladas [1] (the people who were driving anything, that is), you couldn't travel outside the communist bloc, there was a huge black market in western products (audio and video equipment, western music and movies, blue jeans, cigarettes)?
Money was diverted to their war machine fighting the Americans. Their economy was 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the US but they were spending 2/3 of America's military budget so up to 20% of their GDP was going to the war machine.
> The cold war. Given the failing economy, what limited resources were available went to the military and the related science fields. The Soviet Union had lots and lots of tanks, a huge army and countless nuclear missiles. Somehow I have a feeling that the Soviet education was also quite good, it's just that the money was going elsewhere. Most other areas were quite neglected.
Apparently in the 80s they had problems producing consumer goods in general due to a declining economy and bad quality control and manufacturing processes.
According to your source (Wikipedia), the Soviet economy was in crisis.
"It was only when Andropov's protege Gorbachev assumed power that a determined, but ultimately unsuccessful, assault on __the economic crisis__ was undertaken."
The Soviet Union became increasingly dependent on grain imports into the 70s and 80s. They had paid for this grain with oil. In the eighties, the price of oil collapsed, and they were forced to take loans to pay for the grain. As the amount of the loans got larger, banks became unwilling to make them. The Soviet Union was just months from mass starvation when it collapsed.
Having lived in that country, no, it was not fine. Queues for basic foodstuff, severely limited access to services, blatant lack of any manfucatured goods, horrendous public infrastructure etc. are not the signs of a "fine" economy. When a world superpower has to carry out a "food programme" to feed the population in the 80s, it kinda speaks for itself.
A significant part of the leftist worldview depends on the idea that communism/socialism only ever failed because the west sabotaged it. In fairness, of course the west sabotaged it (see the other thread here), but of course, they sabotaged the west as well, and as Nash pointed out, stability under adversarial conditions is not an optional part of an economic system.
Now of course this isn't true, as anyone who's seen those times will tell you. There's plenty of people who emigrated who aren't exactly shy about that matter, so this is well known.
But because half of the left thinks this reflects on the very core of their favored ideology, that the state should decide everything and make it just, fair and ... (they think that somehow includes them, despite the constant reminders to the opposite). And you can see why. On a deep level there's the fear it means that UN can never work, as it depends on state power overriding local power. That global warming is unsolvable. That capitalists will always win, that ...
So you'll never convince a decent percentage on this site. The others ? They don't need convincing. The big secret of course is that a pretty decent majority of this site is extremely capitalist (I believe the current American term is liberalist), but simply know better than to go against leftist viewpoints online, because the reactions are immediate and downvoting, insults and bans will follow soon.
Click the "web" link under the submission title and follow the link to the article on the subsequent page. Some people find it necessary to use an incognito window.
42 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 79.3 ms ] threadThis is practically out of Machiavelli's The Prince: Putin "entertains" neighboring countries and keeps a strong grip over them. But he won't expend resources on them.
Also, Russia's backing of Assad in Syria propped up a dictator assaulting civilians with banned chemical weapons and lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and a refugee crisis that disrupted a continent.
I think comments like "Oh so depressing, think of the Syrian atrocities, etc." are at best simplistic nihilism. It's very easy to make comments like those; it's more fruitful to say something worthwhile.
Anyways, the whole thing is obviated by the larger category of error: black and white thinking on your part. The context of the atrocities matters.
Are you referring to the Sarin gas that Assad used (not Russia) which is now suspected to have been rebels themselves? [1]
Or are you referring to the aid convoys that Russia destroyed? Woops, Russia claims (and has video supporting) that it was actually a ground attack, not an air attack. [2] Russia may be lying, but given the history of our administrations lies, you must remain skeptical to the U.S. claims.
[1] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
[2] http://en.alalam.ir/news/1871790
Seriously mistakes happen the US bombs a hospital and its oops we're sorry, Russia may or may not hit a convoy and it's drag the to the Hague?
Bullshit. Soviet economy was just fine at the end of the Cold War. In fact Soviet GDP per capita was half that of the US, compared to now where it's like 10% of the US. Many historians agree that there was no economic need for the Soviet Union to be dismantled.
Article reads of conventional wisdom as advocated by Cold War propaganda about the Soviet Union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
Compared to western countries there was a palpable lack of consumer goods.
Sorry, but I spent a few minutes trying to make sense of that :)
Most easterners have them, their stories of this ridiculous economy. A friend of mine owns an ash-tray that is simultaneously a rubber duck (!). But my favourite story is still the one of once-staunch socialist Dr. Wolfgang Seiffert who was part of a COMECON conference somewhere in the southern GDR in the 1960s. There, top economists of the eastern bloc conferred about why there was an ongoing shortage of toothbrushes in Saxonia. After three weeks he broke with the idea of central planning (and the mindset that created it):
1) Not only did the system provide a shortage for such an inferior day-to-day product as toothbrushes
2) The system needed its elite economists to gather for three weeks to find a solution
3) which they didn't
The eastern bloc's economic prospects were dire from the get-go and some in the elite knew very early on. It's not a coincidence that Putin comes from one part of that elite that knew all too well: the KGB.
80 years of communism and everyone was lining up for their daily stipend of bread to eat and soap to wash themselves with.
The only reason the Russian economy even survived this long (since the cold war) is because western tech and know how unlocked oil and gas that was selling for $150 a barrel. Today the Russian economy is in severe decline with currency reserves running low. Much of what is left is spoken for. Interestingly enough Putin and his Kremlin buddies continue to steal billions from the Russian people. I'm sure if the USA wanted to it could release information regarding the 100-200 billion that has been moved out of the country since the fall of CCCP.
Actually, that's the whole reason why the Russian economy is doing so poorly as of late. When an economy is based largely on oil exports, and suddenly the price of oil cuts in half, the economy takes a huge hit.
Putin has spent much of his incumbency trying to diversify Russia's economy (at least so that it relies less on oil and exports). I'm not sure of a different strategy that would lead to a better economy in the long run.
I'd say Putin was declaring efforts to diversify the economy. In practice necessary actions weren't taken in needed quantities.
There are good examples of saying one thing, doing completely the opposite with the modern Russian government. That difference is a part of why it's hard to deal with Russia.
You're probably right about that. But even then, oil has largely contributed to the recent downsides of Russia's economy, has it not?
Bread was plentiful and cheap even in 1989. I don't remember lines longer than 3-5 persons in a bread store. Meat was problematic.
Dude, I lived there, and at the time described it was my responsibility to buy bread and other food staples for our family.
I'll consider that major bulls#!#.
The sharp jump in crude prices - from about $35/barrel in early 2003 to about $150/barrel in mid-2008 - tracks very nicely with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Much later than that gap up, fracking, a "western tech and know how", which has been around longer than most people know, did actually help unlock oil and gas, but the effect om prices was the opposite.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-char...
Where did Russia get it's reserves from? Manufacturing? What do they even make that they can export? So I stand by the fact that the Russian economy would have collapsed again (3rd time in 25 years) if it weren't for $150 a barrel crude.
But it is on its way for another collapse if crude stays below $80-100 a barrel. Unless of course Donald can help out his buddy Vlad.
But if anyone ever calculated the per capita GDP of the Soviet Union in the late 80's to be half of the US, then how come there were huge lines to buy the basic necessities, most people were driving Ladas [1] (the people who were driving anything, that is), you couldn't travel outside the communist bloc, there was a huge black market in western products (audio and video equipment, western music and movies, blue jeans, cigarettes)?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_Riva
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/31/world/soviet-military-budg...
https://www.quora.com/What-was-it-like-to-live-in-the-Soviet...
> The cold war. Given the failing economy, what limited resources were available went to the military and the related science fields. The Soviet Union had lots and lots of tanks, a huge army and countless nuclear missiles. Somehow I have a feeling that the Soviet education was also quite good, it's just that the money was going elsewhere. Most other areas were quite neglected.
Apparently in the 80s they had problems producing consumer goods in general due to a declining economy and bad quality control and manufacturing processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_goods_in_the_Soviet_U...
"It was only when Andropov's protege Gorbachev assumed power that a determined, but ultimately unsuccessful, assault on __the economic crisis__ was undertaken."
The Soviet Union became increasingly dependent on grain imports into the 70s and 80s. They had paid for this grain with oil. In the eighties, the price of oil collapsed, and they were forced to take loans to pay for the grain. As the amount of the loans got larger, banks became unwilling to make them. The Soviet Union was just months from mass starvation when it collapsed.
Now of course this isn't true, as anyone who's seen those times will tell you. There's plenty of people who emigrated who aren't exactly shy about that matter, so this is well known.
But because half of the left thinks this reflects on the very core of their favored ideology, that the state should decide everything and make it just, fair and ... (they think that somehow includes them, despite the constant reminders to the opposite). And you can see why. On a deep level there's the fear it means that UN can never work, as it depends on state power overriding local power. That global warming is unsolvable. That capitalists will always win, that ...
So you'll never convince a decent percentage on this site. The others ? They don't need convincing. The big secret of course is that a pretty decent majority of this site is extremely capitalist (I believe the current American term is liberalist), but simply know better than to go against leftist viewpoints online, because the reactions are immediate and downvoting, insults and bans will follow soon.
It won't. Big government and economy stability are incompatible.