Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe it just couldn't have been avoided ...
Maybe for Russian's good current economy that intermediate problematic step
was just necessary.
It was a necessary step, but government had to ensure government control. But control been absent. It was an ordinary banditry and fraud. Billions of dollars state factories were sold for a pittance. Taxes are not paid, government did not have money, all the money stayed with private individuals, who have quickly become billionaires. Most of the population lived below poverty line.
but was it because of Yeltsin's policy ? And if yes, what exactly.
It was because of Yeltsin's inadequacy in understanding the basics of market economy, his total ineptitude in this matter. That's what has been shrewdly used by American "advisers," who were sitting in Kremlin and using his hand for signing decrees that they were dictating to him.
Quote:
The transition from communism to free market was difficult in other converting
countries (who had no Yeltsin) too for some years, Poland ,GDR. Or maybe it was just the time general recession in these countries.
No, they were not as bad as it was in Russia for a number of reasons, but the most important of them - the old European countries were willing to purchase their new acquisitions (or new members of the EU - call it as you wish,) and once they've decided to purchase them, the adequate measures have been taken in order to make the purchase a relative success. Russia however ( the way the reforms were approached there) was deliberately set on a path of destruction, that as the result of these reforms it would turn into the typical third world country and never would be able to compete with the US in geopolitical matters.
Quote:
Maybe it just couldn't have been avoided ...
Maybe for Russian's good current economy that intermediate problematic step
was just necessary.
It all could have been easily avoided, but as I've said the destructive measures have been taken deliberately, with specific purpose in mind.
I can't find now my earlier posts on a subject, but here is one of the links - this is a good place to start if you are interested; it gives a good overview.
Would that currently good economy also have happened without the transition to capitalism ?
I don't believe that current economy is all that good for Russia as a nation. It's rather destructive for Russia ( and the rest of the world I believe.)
But it keeps Russia afloat and make her a dangerous weapon for everyone benefiting from the current world order.
The approach was imposed by the IMF as is usually the case (Yugoslavia, Greece, Ukraine, etc.)
A rational approach would be to try to get the best price for industry's productive assets. Privatization and shock therapy guarantees rock-bottom prices that benefit a few since budget cuts, devaluation, and mass layoffs all occur simultaneously.
The approach was imposed by the IMF as is usually the case (Yugoslavia, Greece, Ukraine, etc.)
A rational approach would be to try to get the best price for industry's productive assets. Privatization and shock therapy guarantees rock-bottom prices that benefit a few since budget cuts, devaluation, and mass layoffs all occur simultaneously.
A "rational approach" would have been first of all the establishment of democratic institutions and creation of middle class, that was notably absent in Russia both in Soviet and Tzarists times alike.
A "rational approach" would have been first of all the establishment of democratic institutions and creation of middle class, that was notably absent in Russia both in Soviet and Tzarists times alike.
After shock therapy, there is no middle class. They have no jobs. Many younger workers leave the country. There is the kleptocracy in Russia and Ukraine that's thrived under each system.
That's why the BRICs created their own bank to rival the IMF --- to stave off predation by Western bankers.
After shock therapy, there is no middle class. They have no jobs. Many younger workers leave the country. There is the kleptocracy in Russia and Ukraine that's thrived under each system.
That's why the BRICs created their own bank to rival the IMF --- to stave off predation by Western bankers.
That's the whole point.
The reforms deliberately ( as I've underlined it before) were set in a way to avoid the creation of middle class, democratic institutions and protection of property rights for average citizen. American "economic advisers" couldn't have done it by mistake - they were not all that stupid. They knew very well what they were doing and why.
The rest is history.
Same as American "economic advisers" that came to Russia in the nineties.
So when Russians have to make a choice between two evils, guess what evil they would choose and for what reasons?
that is a false choice. Russians can and could have chosen any path they wished, they picked the thug. It matters not if the Yanks were there or not.
Russia boys are dying because of the hubris of Putin and his followers.
(please don't infer that I believe the USA is doing that much better, they are screwing up the Middle east)
that is a false choice. Russians can and could have chosen any path they wished,
...Provided that general population was aware of all those available "paths" out there. Provided, the general population was informed of the negotiations that were held behind the closed doors in Kremlin AND parliament.
Quote:
they picked the thug.
No they did not. They've picked one politician over the other ( Yeltsin over Gorbachev, from what was available to them at that point in time,) for a very justifiable reason. When the elected politician proved to be corrupt with time, in *democratic* countries there are mechanisms set in place to remove such politician, thus controlling the corruption. But in post-Soviet Russia, these mechanisms were deliberately not set in place, since this particular corrupt politician was promoting American interests in Russia and was backed up by Clinton's administration.
Quote:
It matters not if the Yanks were there or not.
What matters here, is that you are obviously clueless on a subject.
Quote:
Russia boys are dying because of the hubris of Putin and his followers.
Not quite so. They are really dying for the reasons mentioned above.
Quote:
(please don't infer that I believe the USA is doing that much better, they are screwing up the Middle east)
Now what's wrong with the Middle East?
I'm sure they could have chosen any path they wished...
That's the whole point.
The reforms deliberately ( as I've underlined it before) were set in a way to avoid the creation of middle class, democratic institutions and protection of property rights for average citizen. American "economic advisers" couldn't have done it by mistake - they were not all that stupid. They knew very well what they were doing and why.
The rest is history.
just your opinion or is there someone else who says it
politician,organisation,professor,expert , give a source
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
