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.
I know. I used the example of stock investment as an illustration of what could go wrong. But for people to be co-owners of a private business, still, it's a risky thing. Unless there were people who could afford to be the sole owner of a business. But I thought the article said the idea was that people would buy into a business with other individual investors, buying stores, land, laundries/dry-cleaners, and other assets, as a group. That's still a complicated thing. The co-op idea as I experienced it: people creating a small cottage-industry of crafts or toys or fashion, definitely would have had the potential for success, though, if changes to the tax structure had been made.
And the idea that factory workers would become co-owners is a good one, and that's been done successfully in some countries, but it still would require the workers to discuss and agree on it, and take initiative (which we should bear in mind was something the Soviet system tended to quash), and learn about pricing under the new system, marketing, and all that. It's a big leap. With the collapse of the Soviet system, the factories could no longer take for granted government orders. The workers would have to research markets, figure out how to improve efficiency, figure out how to modernize and where to get the funds to modernize, if they decided modernization was necessary at all, keep up with inflation concerning pricing and also wages, etc. It's a lot to ask of people used to following orders, fulfilling quotas (and goofing off once the quote was filled), having a level of orders and production guaranteed, stable prices and wages, a completely different system. It's still a huge leap into the unknown, and into a rapidly shifting (if not downright chaotic) economic environment.
I don't know, it just seems like everyone may have underestimated the difficulties involved in a massive change from one economic system to another, and underestimated the need for support via advising or educating people about things like marketing, capitalist economic concepts, and so on. Or maybe there were plans to provide logistical support and training, but we just haven't heard about that part of the plan.
Of course there was the "other part" of Yavlinsky's plan I'm sure - he simply had few minutes to address this issue among many other questions he has been asked before elections, so obviously he couldn't go into details about his "500 days."
But from everything what I read about him lately - I mean some facts from his biography are quite amazing. He definitely made it from the bottom to the very top, knowing all the ins and outs of the Soviet economy. And indeed during one of his tasks ( when he was working on detailed description of the Soviet mining industry, defining the exact priorities/responsibilities of everyone in the chain, starting from miners, foremen and up to the higher chain of command - he almost parted with his life, when the mine collapsed. He had to stand in the icy water up to his waist for a day or so; two of his party didn't survive, the other three including him survived. Yet by the end of the eighties apparently he was already a head of the Department of the Economy in the Council of Ministers - he definitely learned a great deal about economy inside out and always had good ideas. ( Needles to say he got in trouble for them on couple of occasions during Soviet times as well - for his independent thinking.)
Another interesting thing I've learned about him that his father was one of those homeless children in post-war times and he ended up in a colony with none other but great Makarenko in charge.
And that was Yavlinsky's father choice for a career later in life - to work with children at-risk; his son ( G. Yavlinsky that is) has been often brought to mingle with them in the colonies where his father now worked. (Initially he was thinking about choosing the same career path as his father, until he heard his true call.)
I mean those were interesting facts - I would have never guessed these things about Yavlinsky - he comes across as such soft-spoken academic type...
No, PBS.
( Just keep in mind that this particular interview was apparently conducted in English, without an interpreter, and his conversational English is somewhat limited (from what I saw lately in that Skolkovo video.) When Yavlinsky speaks Russian, his language is very eloquent - something you don't hear very often lately...
No, PBS.
( Just keep in mind that this particular interview was apparently conducted in English, without an interpreter, and his conversational English is somewhat limited (from what I saw lately in that Skolkovo video.) When Yavlinsky speaks Russian, his language is very eloquent - something you don't hear very often lately...
There's enough on that link to keep this discussion going for years! What a gold mine of information! I'm almost tempted to organize a study group around it, so we can discuss is together...
There's enough on that link to keep this discussion going for years! What a gold mine of information! I'm almost tempted to organize a study group around it, so we can discuss is together...
Yeah, I was stunned myself when I've discovered this interview in English; I've never seen it in Russian - I think no one ever did.
This is the reason I take Sachs's words with a grain of salt. Quite honestly I wouldn't trust anyone who'd willingly team up with such scum of the Earth as Gaidar.
I remember now, that Sachs said that it was the hyper-inflation resulting from the shock therapy that created a strong incentive for the people in charge to take their money out of the country. If a more gradual transition had occurred, that incentive wouldn't have been there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Quite honestly I wouldn't trust anyone who'd willingly team up with such scum of the Earth as Gaidar.
OK, for an exciting change of pace, let's discuss why Gaidar is a scum of the earth, exactly.
I remember now, that Sachs said that it was the hyper-inflation resulting from the shock therapy that created a strong incentive for the people in charge to take their money out of the country. If a more gradual transition had occurred, that incentive wouldn't have been there.
The way I see it, "people in charge" took their money ( which were not "their" at the first place) out of the country for a different reason. See, they didn't trust each other, knowing that there was no law in Russia and these money could be stolen in a day, while in Western banks they were protected by law. So while they were ripping off their hapless compatriots with no mercy, their own rights were protected by Western laws.
Pretty simple.
Quote:
OK, for an exciting change of pace, let's discuss why Gaidar is a scum of the earth, exactly.
I wanted to find an old article "One more word about Gaidar written soon after his death by none other but infamous Mr. Luzhkov - a former mayor of Moscow sucked by Medvedev. ( To be more precise the article was written by him and another former mayor of Moscow - G. Popov.) The article raised brows and brought a lot of indignation in certain circles, but it does reflect Gaidar's moral qualities - the kind of leader he was. I'll post the excerpt from this article at the end of this post, but that's purely moral angle and what they wrote in this article corresponds with my own perception of this man.
However while I was looking for this article, I came across something else, with much more insinuating material and to my surprise this damnation was coming from yet another Russian economist of international caliber, Andrey Illarionov.
I've heard his name before, but I never knew that he was briefly working with Gaidar himself. He is laying out facts about his criminal activities in details that I've never knew before, during his interview to one of the Russian news-papers. Judging by what Illarionov is saying, Gaidar played far more vital role in the government of the nineties - not just economic reforms alone, and his deeds were even more ominous.
(This rather long and detailed interview with Illarionov from 02/13/12 is in Russian of course, so I can give you a link.)
When I look at this picture - I see hoofs and tail, literally, and as I've said - when you shake hands with the devil...
It won't end well.
PS. Here is the excerpt from Luzhkov article "One more word about Gaidar."
"...May be because of old Russian tradition, that you can say only good words about the deceased or to not say anything at all, the majority of obituaries to Gaidar sounded like panegyrics and notes of praise. We would have accepted such approach, if not for one essential detail. It's true that you can say only good words about the deceased or remain silent, yet the one thing you can't do is to lie about the deceased.
One of the autors of this article remembers one particular episode, that was not of particular importance from historic point of view. But it stays with him, as if it happened just yesterday. It was February 1992. During the community meeting, there was a discussion of emergency measures for financing of social programs. Gaidar was presiding over the meeting. A lot of people gathered in the hall, where not so long ago Yegor Ligachev used to preside. Yegor Ligachev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now another Yegor was sitting at the same table, only this time around - Yegor Gaidar.
There was discussion of social issues, about the schools construction, about pensions, that came almost to zero, about people's savings that were turned into dust. Yet one of the authors of this article had to inform Gaidar that in the city of Zelenograd our doctors recorded 35 cases of death from starvation. To which Gaidar answered in very simple terms; this is the time of radical changes, there is shortage of money and death of people who are not able to withstand these changes is nothing but a natural thing. Someone asked him then "what if your parents are among these people?" Gaidar sneered and said that he was not going to answer stupid questions.
The next question was about the construction of schools and day cares. Gaidar's answer - there is no money, stop the construction. The state will not give any money. Back then it sounded so unexpected and even cruel. However looking back eighteen years down the road, it becomes clear that these answers were not spontaneous; they followed the appalling logic that Russian government was pursuing during Gaidar's period and later on, up to the beginning of the 2000ies.
against reason...
We've heard dozens of times these days how Gaidar saved Russia. The least he did - he saved her from the civil war. Everyone was a coward, everyone run away. No one dared to take charge. And only Gaidar, as a brave messiah stood at the helm of a state, that everyone else abandoned. These verses are so far away from reality, that people who promote them could be a suspect of crooked gambling in politics.
First of all, there were still conservative CPSU leaders of nomenclature. They didn't run anywhere; quite the opposite - they were forcefully removed from the steering wheel and sent - even if temporarily - in jail.
Secondly, there were other people representing different concept of reforms, who were ready to lead the government. There was Grigori Yavlinsky. There was Arkadiy Volskiy. There was Ruslan Khasbulatov. There was Yuri Skokov, then there was Victor Chernomyrdin.
But we have to say the truth; it was Yeltsin who was pushing Gaidar forward, brushing aside all other contenders."
We've heard dozens of times these days how Gaidar saved Russia. The least he did - he saved her from the civil war. Everyone was a coward, everyone run away. No one dared to take charge. And only Gaidar, as a brave messiah stood at the helm of a state, that everyone else abandoned. These verses are so far away from reality, that people who promote them could be a suspect of crooked gambling in politics.
First of all, there were still conservative CPSU leaders of nomenclature. They didn't run anywhere; quite the opposite - they were forcefully removed from the steering wheel and sent - even if temporarily - in jail.
Secondly, there were other people representing different concept of reforms, who were ready to lead the government. There was Grigori Yavlinsky. There was Arkadiy Volskiy. There was Ruslan Khasbulatov. There was Yuri Skokov, then there was Victor Chernomyrdin.
But we have to say the truth; it was Yeltsin who was pushing Gaidar forward, brushing aside all other contenders."
There is one good reason why we don't speak of the deceased in any other but positive way: they don't have an opportunity to defend themselves.
Everybody in 2012 can claim they knew of a better way to transform the obsolete and dysfunctional soviet economy into a lean and mean market economy, yet in every country this process took place it was a painful and politically disastrous experience. There was no communist or "centrally controlled economy" in the world that was thriving or successful. Instead all of them were simply dying.
Soviet Union did not collapse because of its military failure but simply because its economy could not support the population. The Communist economic model is unsustainable and inevitably leads to economic devastation and hunger. Even the Chinese understand this
There is one good reason why we don't speak of the deceased in any other but positive way: they don't have an opportunity to defend themselves.
Gaidar died only couple of years ago, so he had plenty of time to defend himself before that.
His crimes were simply indefensible.
Quote:
Everybody in 2012 can claim they knew of a better way to transform the obsolete and dysfunctional soviet economy into a lean and mean market economy, yet in every country this process took place it was a painful and politically disastrous experience.
Not "everybody" and not "in 2012."
There were obviously people who had sound ideas how to do it back then. But Harvard definitely preferred to team up with the scum. Why exactly - it's already a different story.
Quote:
There was no communist or "centrally controlled economy" in the world that was thriving or successful.
There is only one Russia in the world as well - not too many countries of this particular history and cultural background.
Quote:
Instead all of them were simply dying.
Yavlinsky very clearly stated that central-planned economy was damaging for Eastern-European countries, but never for Russia.
Quote:
Soviet Union did not collapse because of its military failure but simply because its economy could not support the population. The Communist economic model is unsustainable and inevitably leads to economic devastation and hunger. Even the Chinese understand this
You can say pretty much the same about American economic model, based and propelled by consumerism.
The self-destructing element is built in the system as well, and it's only a matter of time when the buttons are pushed and it starts operating in this self-destructive mode.
Both systems had their strong and weak points, both could be managed successfully, while combining both capitalist and socialist elements. When out of balance - both have tendency to go crushing down.
Russians missed the point when their system was due for economic/political reformation twenty years already before Gorbachev came to power. They've missed the call, so they had to pay the price.
Erasure, you really should reconsider supporting the neoliberal scum, called Yavlinsky.
A month ago NTV has shown a video, where Udalcov discussed with some Georgians financing of demonstrations and terrorist attacks. Yabloko jumped to his defense:
Watch the whole program. They (and in case of Yabloko that means Yavlinsky) basically claim that Udalcov & Co shouldn't be prosecuted... just because.
That's terrorists they defend - terrorists, who wanted to blow up trains! Plus overthrow the democratically elected government.
Yavlinsky also defends P.ssy Riot. A band, together with their twin Voina, presumably financed from abroad to do some really ugly things. Some of their actions:
Warning: the first google link contains detailed photos!
Description from Wikipedia:
On 20 July 2010, Voina staged one of their more notorious actions in the “Nakhodka” supermarket in St. Petersburg. A female Voina activist removed a frozen chicken from the refrigerated section of the supermarket, then laboriously stuffed the entire chicken into her own vagina, while being filmed by other Voina members. She then shoplifted the chicken by leaving the supermarket without paying, with the chicken still inserted, and rejoined protesters outside the store.[23] The activists held signs spelling out the word "bezblyadno", which translates roughly as "without whoring", a reference to the group's rejection of paid employment and preference for stealing food, and a pun on the word bezplatno, "free (of charge)".
To put it shortly: Yavlinsky goes out of his way to defend terrorists. Do you support him?
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.
What a gold mine of information! I'm almost tempted to organize a study group around it, so we can discuss is together...
