Rather than taking off on a tangent on mongus “with it leaders” thread, Id like to ask: Is Putin really clever as people make him out to be? And more generally, is Russia sorting out its problems and building a stable economy. Its easy to say Putin is doing well since Rusia fell into total chaos after the fall of USSR and any little thing could be judged a big step forward. But are companys being run now to produce competive goods rather than just be a a money source for the “oligarcy”. Are russian products like say electonics and apliances comparable to western standards? Is the government able to collect taxes both from private and bussinesses and reign in on beurocracy? (I have heard Putin speak on beurocratic reform that sounded convincing). Can the russian people buy basic nessecitys with their average income and how bad is unemployment and the disparity of income
between rich, middle class and poor?
By: keltic - 23rd May 2003 at 19:15
Originally posted by mongu
. By contrast, Yeltsin was about the worst leader the Russians could have elected!
Oppps no. I think there were worser leaders in that time. Remeber the pathetic Yirinovski……Fortunately, stability in Russia, with corruption or not, brings the decay of this “interesting” leaders, right now completely phased out. I wouldn´t enjoy the comunist back again. So despite the problems, they are not doing it in a bad way. They have suffered a really long a tyranical regime for too long.
By: mixtec - 19th May 2003 at 19:40
Originally posted by Arthur
A market economy requires free and easy movement of goods more than anything else. Anyone else who ever travelled in Russia?????
The rail network has played a crucial role in russian history. In the russian revolution rail workers were able to play a large role in preventing the bushovics (I think) from gaining an upper hand. In WW2 when the germans invaded, the russians loaded all the equipment of entire factorys on trains and shipped them beyond the Urals which basically saved russia in that war. I dont know how their rail or trucking system is now, but Ill bet its not that bad.
By: WACHENR0DER - 19th May 2003 at 19:39
No the Soviet economy was simply different. Alot of areas were simply focused on developing one particular thing and not allowing much for autonomous operations. For example things in Sakhalin would be built purely for the development of gas while say somewhere in the middle of Russia such as Tyumen or something, it would be built exclusively to refine it. the problem is in the global economy, demands and prices change, and when they do, areas that focus on just one thing will get hard hit. Alot of those new independant USSR countries found themselves with alot of resources but the lack of means to develop them, everything was centralized. Under the soviet model it would work as things were running in that style.
Also i agree with Arthur, many areas are really difficult to reach and often there’s only one road route/train route into the region, and Russia is very very vast. Lately I’ve been doing alot of research on the Russian Far East and found that transport between Moscow to the Russian far east is rather difficult and mostly relies on one main rail line and alot of aircraft.. although the latter is becoming less so as many can’t afford aviation fuel
By: Arthur - 19th May 2003 at 19:05
A market economy requires free and easy movement of goods more than anything else. Anyone else who ever travelled in Russia?????
By: mongu - 19th May 2003 at 19:01
Russia was always a Mafia country, even in the Communist era. Information was suppressed then, thats all!
The USSR was a terrible country and the Soviet grip on the economy was non existent, so to move from that to a free market overnight simply will not work. That is why they need a strong leader to move things in the right direction. I think Russia will slowly become more regulated, but the power of the “oligarchs” is still pervasive and runs counter to any reform or regulatory instinct.
It is a valid argument which Mixtec made, that the only reason the black market is so dominant is because it is more efficient than the official market. As market efficiency increases the role of the black market will decline, but this will only be achieved by a politically strong leader….Putin. By contrast, Yeltsin was about the worst leader the Russians could have elected!
By: mixtec - 19th May 2003 at 05:49
Originally posted by mongu
Agreed he is slowly moving Russia in the right direction, but it will take 20-30 years before his country is doing really well.Problems such as low reputation, corruption, crime and the mafia are issues which will take generations to solve. I am not convinced the ball is even moving a little on these issues, though Putin has done well in other areas – diplomacy, national debt and moderate currency stability.
The one other snag is his powers – he is a very powerful man, more like a King than a President. He more or less rules by decree, and this will need to change. But that’s a Catch 22 – unless someone like him can take command and imprint some desire for momentum on the country, Russia will go nowhere.
In my opinion, the blackmarket is a cheap, quick version of capitalism that makes up for what isnt being done legally. Because the blackmarket is illegal, it is being run by a criminal element (mafia). I hope it doesnt take 20 or 30 years to learn how to manage capitalism. It took the US alot longer than that. The US had to go through many years of labor strife and go through a depression that was caused by totally unrestricted capitalism. Russia would do well to study american corporate law as many of the laws regulating corperations were learned by hard experience of the bad that unrestrained capitalism can do. I think theres potencial for imediate economic increase just by corporate regulation.
By: Sherlock - 19th May 2003 at 00:08
Here is interesting information about Russia building new pipelines to sell oil to China and Japan.
By: WACHENR0DER - 18th May 2003 at 21:58
seems like none of the leaders in any of countries that came out of the USSR wans to give up any power. i agree with ya there that although Putin has too much power, he is definitely putting it to good use, unlike certain other fUSSR countries.. primarily Belarus and Turkmenistan.
By: mongu - 18th May 2003 at 21:49
Agreed he is slowly moving Russia in the right direction, but it will take 20-30 years before his country is doing really well.
Problems such as low reputation, corruption, crime and the mafia are issues which will take generations to solve. I am not convinced the ball is even moving a little on these issues, though Putin has done well in other areas – diplomacy, national debt and moderate currency stability.
The one other snag is his powers – he is a very powerful man, more like a King than a President. He more or less rules by decree, and this will need to change. But that’s a Catch 22 – unless someone like him can take command and imprint some desire for momentum on the country, Russia will go nowhere.
By: WACHENR0DER - 18th May 2003 at 21:27
I think Putin has done a much better job than Yeltsin, and he seems to be popular. As for Russia’s development and economy.. it seems to be going thru the same thing as China.. which is very uneven development (during Soviet times it was a bit more equal in comparison).. The highest standard of living in Russia is The Republic of Tatarstan, The Republic of Sakha, and Tyumen (which has the highest per capita income in Russia). I don’t have my references with me at the moment but Tyumen is enjoying prosperity due to it’s gas/oil industry. Sakha, which is an ethnic autonomous republic in Siberia has the lowest unemployment rate and the highest income in the Russian Far East, and although it’s suffering some hardship, it’s vast reserves of diamonds is keeping it afloat. Tatarstan benefits from it’s strong industrial base, not to mention the Kazan Mil plant is there 🙂 , the Turks seem to like investing into that region which they are ethnically related to.
In contrast, the Jewish autonomous oblast is doing very poorly as well as Chukota, Kamchatka, and Sakhalin somewhat (although Sakhalin has alot of potential). And areas such as Tyva and Karelia are still rather undeveloped and rely heavily on federal funds to keep things running there.
By: alex - 18th May 2003 at 11:52
Got to agree with Keltic, there are signs that Russia is slowly getting back on its feet. As the Tortoise said “I may be slow but I get there in the end”:D .
We have to remember Russia has always been a poor nation even in the hands of the Soviets, comparing it to economies such as the US is like comparing a 747 to Concorde, the 747 is less elegant and is for the more moderate spender but is rugged and can be fixed more easily providing the time and effort is put in.
By: keltic - 18th May 2003 at 10:10
I am not well aware of economy but although the state is still a bit caotic, the economy is stable, and with a significate rate of growth. The external debt is being paid, the ruble is stable and the production of petrol is helping the economy. Of course it can´t be matched to the western countries in any aspects, specially in goods, but they are doing it well. Lots of problems like the one you mention, but expected in any country with so many years of ditatoral regime.
Sign In
May 18, 2003 at 6:40 am