Economy & random Russia posts.

[russkiivoin]

mosnews.com/money/2006/05/25/capitalflows.shtml

Net Private Capital Flows in Russia Equal Zero First Time in History

For the first time in history of modern Russia private capital inflows and outflows are equal and the net private capital flow is equal to zero, the country’s Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said on Thursday, May 25.

Speaking at the state borrowers’ forum in St. Petersburg, the minister said that at present time the balance of capital outflows in the private sector equals to zero. He added that over the last five years there were periods when net private capital outflow reached as much as $23-25 billion a year.

According to Kudrin, at present time favorable conditions for investment in the Russian economy have been created by the government. This, he said, allowed reduction in capital outflows. Alexei Kudrin added however that there are still a number of issues that have to be resolved in the near future.

He noted that beginning on July 1, 2006 currency regulation in Russia will be fully liberalized. “We will have a free movement of capitals,” the Finance Minister said, quoted by RIA Novosti. He added that at present time Russia has a sufficiently stable state financial system, which allows transition to full liberalization of capital movements.

[Lonevolk]

Good news.

There's been some encouraging economic news coming out of Russia in the last couple of years.
Is it too early to say that the crisis of the 1990's is definately over?

P.S.
I can only imagine how many Billions of $$ were simphoned out of the country in the last 15 years.

[Danik]

Thanks Putin and the rest of the RF team.

[Яромip]

There's been some encouraging economic news coming out of Russia in the last couple of years.
Is it too early to say that the crisis of the 1990's is definately over?

Putin seems to think so. Jel'tzin renamed 7th of October selebration (of the Great Socialist Revolution) to something like "Getting along day". Last year Putin moved the celebration to the same day as when Moskva was liberated from Polaks in 1612.
The time between death of Boris Godunov and election of Mihail Romanov to Tzardom is called "Smutnoje Vremja" - Uncertain Time. Traditionally, kicking Polaks out of Moskva is considered the official end of Smutnoje Vremja. So, essentially by changing communist holiday to that date he is sending a message that Smuta is over, everybody back to work.

Other indicators are abound.
Putin proclaimed that new Oil-exchange will be opened denominated in Rubles. This will further undermine US$ hegemony.

[russkiivoin]

lonevolk said:

Good news.

There's been some encouraging economic news coming out of Russia in the last couple of years.
Is it too early to say that the crisis of the 1990's is definately over?

P.S.
I can only imagine how many Billions of $$ were simphoned out of the country in the last 15 years.

I wouldn't say so, here is a table of GDP change since 1989:

1989: : 100

1990: -3.0% : 97
1991: -5.0% : 92.1
1992: -14.5% : 78.7
1993: -8.7% : 71.9
1994: -12.6% : 62.8
1995: -4.0% : 60.3
1996: -3.5% : 58.2
1997: 0.8% : 58.7
1998: -5.3% : 55.5

1999: 6.3% : 59.0
2000: 10.0% : 65.0
2001: 5.1% : 68.3
2002: 4.7% : 71.5
2003: 7.3% : 76.7
2004: 7.1% : 82.2
2005: 6.4% : 87.4

So, the GDP is not even back to its 89 level...

[Яромip]

Are they for RSFSR or USSR?

Don't forget about a huge shadow economy that developed also.

[russkiivoin]

yaromir said:

Are they for RSFSR or USSR?

Don't forget about a huge shadow economy that developed also.

The USSR was dissolved in 1991, so 1990 and 1991 % change figures are for RSFSR and the rest are for the Russian Federation. I started with the GDP level for 1989 being 100% just to see how the GDP today compares to 1989. All the figues are from reputable sources.

Another interesting fact that most don't know is that the GDP of USSR (and therefore of RSFSR) in 1989 was the higest it has ever been during communist times. In fact the SU collapsed at the absolute peak of it's economic development.

What do you mean about the black market? The black market is very bad for the economy acctually.

[Яромip]

What do you mean about the black market? The black market is very bad for the economy acctually.

Drugs and Prostitution isn't all there is to black market. It refers to all under-handed deals that companies cut due to excessive regulation. Putin has done a lot to remove idiotic regulations and even introduced a flat tax.

For example, if government regulates vodka production too much, the "official" production will drop off, but the actual production will remain the same...it just will be made in unregistered factories and sold off the books.

And whether it is bad or not, it is economic activity which employs people and creates "wealth".

Another interesting fact that most don't know is that the GDP of USSR (and therefore of RSFSR) in 1989 was the higest it has ever been during communist times. In fact the SU collapsed at the absolute peak of it's economic development.

That's the normal trend. I can see pretty clearly now though, that Perestroika was merely a scam to shatter our economy.

The net flow of capital being zero is actually very good news, it means businesses have more faith now and keep capital at home. Until recently the first thought on people's mind's was: "How can I get my money to safety?"

Soon, Russia may be on of very few "safe havens".

[russkiivoin]

yaromir said:

What do you mean about the black market? The black market is very bad for the economy acctually.

For example, if government regulates vodka production too much, the "official" production will drop off, but the actual production will remain the same...it just will be made in unregistered factories and sold off the books.

That's a commonly held myth, it has been disproved time and time again. Often people just use that as an excuse for complacency. No matter what the government does, there will be no effect. In reality if the government banned or restricted alcohol production, it would lower actual production by some amount. Perhaps not by the amount that was intended by it would be a significant percentage.

yaromir said:

And whether it is bad or not, it is economic activity which employs people and creates "wealth".

Usually most black market economies only hurt the overall economy, mess up society and entrench corruption. I always see it as a determent in every way.

yaromir said:

That's the normal trend. I can see pretty clearly now though, that Perestroika was merely a scam to shatter our economy.

There was defiantly a genuine need for reform. The intentions of the people who initiated it however are harder to judge. What is clear is that it was a total failure.

[Яромip]

Usually most black market economies only hurt the overall economy, mess up society and entrench corruption. I always see it as a determent in every way.

No matter what the government does, there will be no effect.

Oh, there is affect, just not what you hope for. Suhoi Zakon (no alchohol law) only drove the production-consumption underground. Made it very profitable and created a fertile breeding ground for organized mafia which could now easily finance its operations by selling alchohol. Since business was so lucrative, various mafias started fighting over it...and that was a big disruption to society.

We had similar ban in USSR for a while, and I heard stories from my older relatives. Men simply started drinking alchohol-containing products like perfumes...and producing their own. Distilling cubes are easy to make and sugar+yeast is cheap.

It is the same age-old dearly held belief that societal problems can be legislated away. They cannot be. It is very sad that for every person digging at the root there are thousands hacking at the branches.

[russkiivoin]

yaromir said:

Usually most black market economies only hurt the overall economy, mess up society and entrench corruption. I always see it as a determent in every way.

No matter what the government does, there will be no effect.

Oh, there is affect, just not what you hope for. Suhoi Zakon (no alchohol law) only drove the production-consumption underground. Made it very profitable and created a fertile breeding ground for organized mafia which could now easily finance its operations by selling alchohol. Since business was so lucrative, various mafias started fighting over it...and that was a big disruption to society.

We had similar ban in USSR for a while, and I heard stories from my older relatives. Men simply started drinking alchohol-containing products like perfumes...and producing their own. Distilling cubes are easy to make and sugar+yeast is cheap.

Although what you say, especially about creation of organized crime, is somewhat true, overall that's not how things work at all. The prohibition in the US is actually the perfect example. What you never hear about the prohibition is that despite all the problems, it was a glowing success. Compare alcohol consumption rates per-capita in the US before and after the prohibition, they dropped off by a huge amount and NEVER came back up. Even to this very day, almost a 100 years later, the alcohol consumption in the US is actually significantly lower then it was before the prohibition. There are fridge elements indeed who start to drink perfume and the like, but obviously this is a a very small amount of hardcore alcoholics, who are completely physically addicted to alcohol. That doesn't represent society at all and scientific data tells us otherwise. Even in the Gorbachyov era, when there was some attempt made at prohibition, the life expectancy for men went up 3-5 years.

yaromir said:

It is the same age-old dearly held belief that societal problems can be legislated away. They cannot be. It is very sad that for every person digging at the root there are thousands hacking at the branches.

To me that's total BS, that has been disproved time and time again. The only argument that people usually site is something like look at this one person I know who disregards the law or what have you, therefore it must not be effective. That's proof by example, doesn't quite work. In reality society can be change and regulated quite effectively. Sure no one can eliminate drinking or smoking by 100% just with a decree, but it can be greatly limited with proper legislature. The basic principle involved in human society is the harder you make something the less people will do it. Right now when you can walk about 5 min. in any direction and buy cheap alcohol anywhere, lots of people will drink, when you have to make or brew it yourself or pay a huge sum of money for it, or face the possibility of getting arrested and/or paying a large fine, less people will just drink on a whim. The less alcohol you consume, the longer you live. The same can be done with smoking, in the US or Western Europe, in the 80s in the 18-21 demographic, the majority smoked, today it's under 20%. How do you think that was done? Simply by ostracizing cigarettes and smoking and making it more difficult.

[Яромip]

Perhaps you are right.

[Alek]

-



Both technocracy and sociotechnic for a long term are playing with fire also are dangerous toys in a feedback.

Alcohol is a part of our culture, drugs are not. Drinking is a know-how, not for everybody and not for minds in a weak condition. In Europe today youth don't smoke a lot and drink much indeed
just because they are done with drugs of many kinds, it is a problem.

And which is worse, they mostly believe some kinds of drugs are not treacherous to them and their personalities.

russkiivoin said:

yaromir said:

(..)In reality society can be change and regulated quite effectively. (..)

And what would be next?

That is why wary people stand in awe - this attitude is dangerous and not beneficial to PR - knowing national abilities it would effect with an extensive corruption.

But, in Germany it is literally - impossible - you could bribe a Policeman, and really not likely one could gratify or corrupt any officials. Not because they are so strong, people just really
now what services are designed for and any government has to tell them.

Germans really can revel and like to commonly celebrate like for ex. during October Beer Fest.

And they can booze, but they know when to stop. You know - MERA. When one visiting a Turkish Rivera can everywhere see them gulping down tons of beer there.

In Italy it is the same but all there do it with wine. One can really relax there. I personally was. And if I had not this strange feeling of (even today I actually don't know how to call it) I wouldn't come back.

Then I am wondering how much time will flow before people in other places would be thinking this way.

It brings to mind some unpleasant associations, the thoughts on hyper legislations.

Before something like this one should find a ground for an acceptance of such plans in a majority of society, and the Pr. of RF knows it, that is why he is truly popular.

Someone here miss 'good old 80'ties' I guess, all this abstinence and work obligation there on Gorbie times.

I have noticed that you comrades here are of strong principles, but it is a part of a recipe alas.

One introduce a prohibition - capital outflows to China - simple as this.

Or one build a space for 50 turbo-capitalists exclusive - and you got a revolution soon.

So in this view solution is inherent not in restrictions, but in constant rising a level of culture, building a nation and unmerciful elimination of criminality, especially human trades.

Leave Al'Caponism and Sopranism to US, I also wonder how long they can walk along with it.

Just because of communism, even so called mafia was quite popular in the eye of statistical medial spectator around the world . Not hard to see that their soc. prestige was purposely raised because of working class movements. And they didn't get rid of it, they use it today even more - just to build a buffer between them and the rest of voters. And of course all know the upper classes rules there in the America.


Look, they are so human these Corleoni.


For a long run it is an another delusion US is under, all because of greed, they lost their compass.

It is stupendous degeneration,

www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/04/sopranos.ap/index.html

and the situation is most profitable to older brothers in faith - I'm afraid. It is a strategy.

As Yaromir has citied : « Reply #3 on May 8, 2006, 4:19pm »

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye (..)"

and - to paraphrase - do not even will to maintain your own regular pigsty.


Why it is like that? Because an Ene. knows how to grid a throat, and Yankee is being slaked slowly not seeing it.

Dushko said : « Reply #18 on Jan 29, 2006, 1:38am »

"When I was a child, the USA was a great place with many leaders who had honorable intentions. Now it is ruled solely by the greed mongers who will sell their own mother to the devil for money and power. For this I am very disgusted with my country, but I hope I can make a difference to change it.


PS Today is 6-6-6, pray brothers, cause I got a felling WE ARE ON THE WAY.

[Lonevolk]

Interesting discussion.

R.Voin,

I understand your point of view, but I tend to agree more with Jaromir.

I think the term used for the kind of state you advocate is "the Nanny State", where the bureaucracy gets to decide what's "best" for the individual and treats it's citisens as children in need of guidance.....Personally I'd be happier if the role of the "do-gooders" is limited.

The consumption of alcohol or smoking is to a large degree a cultural trait combined with aggressive marketing by the producers of those products. If you want to counter it, the best way is to promote health & fitness at a early age and reinforce that message to teenagers.

---------------------

"the less alcohol you drink -- the longer you live".......I'm willing to bet any money that a person drinking a moderate amount of alcohol will be healthier than someone drinking Coke or any other soft drink.

Why stop at alcohol and tobacco, when is the "nanny state" going to tackle the root causes of most modern disseases:

** hydrogenated vegetable oils
** refined sugar
** white bread.....and so on

[Яромip]

aggressive marketing by the producers of those products.

Often with an implicit nod from the "Nanny State" who gets kick-backs from those industries. For example in Japan there is an obvious connection between the Government and Tobacco industry...and government implicitly encourages people to smoke so they die sooner so they don't have to pay pensions.

I think in USSR we had state monopoly on Alchohol too. When I was a little boy I asked my father: Why doesn't the government forbid alchohol?
He replied: Потому что только на пьянке оно и держится
Because alchohol(addicting masses to alchohol) is the only thing that keeps the government from collapsing)

And it was the same "Nanny State" that addicted us to it in late 1960's.

So while yes, maybe 'good' draconian policies can have net positive effect, I still hold that Regional Autonomy+Veche Republic is the best solution.