Chávez: America Bad, Russia Good.

[JihadJane]

He is extrapolating from your posting history and giving it a slight twist from a political rightwingers viewpoint.

No, he's not extrapolating. He's inventing viewpoints for me that I do not hold, presumably from his old stock of stereotypes or possibly just for fun!

That does not stop him from being right now and then.

Maybe so, but none of his claims about me in the post above is right.

 

[Toke]

Does agarian society involve a larger proportion of the population working in the fields and not producing other things?

It is not medieval, but I don´t see the advantage.
That is, it might someday become neccecary but is not something to strive for.

 

[JihadJane]

Does agarian society involve a larger proportion of the population working in the fields and not producing other things?

Yes, working on the land (not necessarily in fields!).

It is not medieval, but I don´t see the advantage.
That is, it might someday become neccecary but is not something to strive for.

When it is necessary it will be advantageous!

It is advantageous because it uses less energy and is less polluting than the current, energy-intensive system. Using less energy also reduces the need to divert resources into waging energy-intensive energy resource wars.

There is no ultimate advantage to producing the amount of things that we have grown dependent on producing to make our economies grow.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn

Originally Posted by JihadJane
Your belief that I am glorifying Russia and that this therefore means I think "Putin is the salvation of the world" is your interpretation, not what I think.

Then please explain how he has taken the mantle of "responsible world leader" from the United States.

By addressing the economic crisis at Davos in a responsible way. He hasn't actually taken the mantle from the US. It was waiting to be picked up. The US lost it because of its disastrous economic failure (not to mention foreign policy failures).

All it takes for you to believe in Putin is a speech at Davos?

What about the pure facts?

You know as well as we do that Putin rode the coattails of the 1990s "economic miracle" in Russia into the 21st Century. Since then, he's shed the economic reformers and relied almost purely on cronies from his KGB days.

I don't know what your take on the Yukos/Khodorkovsky affair is but I'd sure like to know. If that were an isolated incident we might be able to forgive him. Yet this rampant renationalization (some might say outright theft) of private enterprise in Russia has accelerated since then. So has the stamp of authoritarianism. Try reading up on the ghastly state of affairs at Gazprom, for one example.

Although Russia continues to maintain a healthier GDP/capita since the fall of the Soviet Union, that probably won't continue as Putin's kleptocracy loots corporations and creates an atmosphere of fear of financial success in its entrepreneurs.

I had originally thought you were talking about political rivalry, where the "mantle" might be a little tattered and hanging, but you clarified this to mean economics. This is your real opinion, I hope, this time.

--- ---

ETA: All I can say to someone who wants to change the global monetary system or the method for establishing reserves is this: "You go first." It's easy to say all these things but why doesn't he just go ahead and do it and see how it works out?

 

[Childlike Empress]

You know as well as we do that Putin rode the coattails of the 1990s "economic miracle" in Russia into the 21st Century. Since then, he's shed the economic reformers and relied almost purely on cronies from his KGB days.

Who is we? 1990s "economic miracle" means you are ok with oligarchs fantastically enriching themselves while the majority has to sell their family jewels and starve anyway? The "economic reformers", the Rubin gang, are in power today in Yankistan, not shed at all. Putin was never head of the KGB.

Enough facts.

 

[Toke]

When it is necessary it will be advantageous!

That statement is emty as it applies to anything.

There is no ultimate advantage to producing the amount of things that we have grown dependent on producing to make our economies grow.

Guess there is no "ultimate advantage" to buying a new laptop to play the newes games.
Or to much else for that matter.

You would be more convincing by claiming that cutback on consumption will at some point be neccecary due to shortage of recources.

Neccecary and decierable are two very different things.
You come across as romantisicing the simple life.

 

[stilicho]

Who is we? 1990s "economic miracle" means you are ok with oligarchs fantastically enriching themselves while the majority has to sell their family jewels and starve anyway? The "economic reformers", the Rubin gang, are in power today in Yankistan, not shed at all. Putin was never head of the KGB.

Enough facts.

Who said Putin was the head of the KGB?

All you're arguing here is that there was absolutely no Russian economic miracle at all. At least I've given Russia the benefit of the doubt that there's been some improvement in the standard of living since the elimination of the Soviet regime.

But have it your way. If they're still losing the struggle and always have been it puts even less credence to whatever Putin wants to say at Davos.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, their idea is beutifull.
A shame it has only been tried by violent revolutionaries and turned into dictatorships.

Impossible, because Marx and Engels idea is basically unworkable. People who have ability will get tired of pulling all the dead weight.

I'm on record stating that I'm skeptical of communism. I think it's fatally flawed. Communism lacks the motivative power to spur innovation and productivity.

But there is no concept that I'm absolutely certain in my belief that it can't work. Prove me wrong. Just don't do it in America.

Toke,

I think the reasons for violence is in part due to the fact that people with money and status don't want to give it up. How do you get them to walk away? Now matter how you look at those with the wealth most of them aren't simply going to give it up and many believe that the supposed solution of communism is worse than any problem. Why shouldn't they fight to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

 

[Toke]

I'm on record stating that I'm skeptical of communism. I think it's fatally flawed. Communism lacks the motivative power to spur innovation and productivity.

But there is no concept that I'm absolutely certain in my belief that it can't work. Prove me wrong. Just don't do it in America.

I agree on the flaw with communism, and belive it could be solved with a mixed economy. My mix would not allow private companies big enough to controll the state, and would have a large public sector.

It would be Denmark after a few decades of red majority.

Toke,

I think the reasons for violence is in part due to the fact that people with money and status don't want to give it up. How do you get them to walk away? Now matter how you look at those with the wealth most of them aren't simply going to give it up and many believe that the supposed solution of communism is worse than any problem. Why shouldn't they fight to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

When looking at zarist Russia or Batistas Cuba I see dictatorships with an extreme concentration of wealth.

I am sure they would have (and did) resisted any changes no matter what the suggested alternative was.

Pinochet were rather violent to political opponents, even softcore democratic types. Are union organicers still getting shot in south america?

The problem for cuba and russia was that the communists were not the only ones that needed to be violent to succed, but that they were the best ones at mounting a succesfull revolution.

The russian revolution were carried out by several different groups, the bolcheviks were not the majority, but the best organised and they won the aftermath.

Guess extremists are better at revolutions since they are not distracted by doubt or discutions.

 

[JihadJane]

All it takes for you to believe in Putin is a speech at Davos?

What about the pure facts?

You know as well as we do that Putin rode the coattails of the 1990s "economic miracle" in Russia into the 21st Century. Since then, he's shed the economic reformers and relied almost purely on cronies from his KGB days.

I don't know what your take on the Yukos/Khodorkovsky affair is but I'd sure like to know. If that were an isolated incident we might be able to forgive him. Yet this rampant renationalization (some might say outright theft) of private enterprise in Russia has accelerated since then. So has the stamp of authoritarianism. Try reading up on the ghastly state of affairs at Gazprom, for one example.

Although Russia continues to maintain a healthier GDP/capita since the fall of the Soviet Union, that probably won't continue as Putin's kleptocracy loots corporations and creates an atmosphere of fear of financial success in its entrepreneurs.

I had originally thought you were talking about political rivalry, where the "mantle" might be a little tattered and hanging, but you clarified this to mean economics. This is your real opinion, I hope, this time.

--- ---

ETA: All I can say to someone who wants to change the global monetary system or the method for establishing reserves is this: "You go first." It's easy to say all these things but why doesn't he just go ahead and do it and see how it works out?

None of your moral qualms matter nor is it a matter of me believing in Putin. Putin has power because the US blew it!

 

[dudalb]

When it is necessary it will be advantageous!

It is advantageous because it uses less energy and is less polluting than the current, energy-intensive system. Using less energy also reduces the need to divert resources into waging energy-intensive energy resource wars.

There is no ultimate advantage to producing the amount of things that we have grown dependent on producing to make our economies grow.

It's great when you opponent does your work for you.
Sorry, but I have no ambition whatsoever to be a farmer working for a subsistence level of survival, and looking at starvation if the weather turns nasty and wipes out your crop.

 

[stilicho]

None of your moral qualms matter nor is it a matter of me believing in Putin. Putin has power because the US blew it!

I will believe that when he changes his own nation's monetary and reserve policy. Which will be when, JihadJane? Show me anything other than a gorgeous speech in front of the $2,000-a-plate crowd at a posh retreat in Switzerland.

I thought you were unimpressed with 'global elites', JihadJane. Yet when Putin brays wildly about untenable theories that he wouldn't dare implement in his own country, you're all ga-ga over the impression he's said to have made.

How's that sorghum plantation in your back alley coming along by the way?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I'll let Putin know. How many of you are there?

I'll have them do a show of hands after this comment.

Whatever you think about Putin's or Russia's desirability, power comes from owning natural resources and having financial credibility. Morality and political power travel in different compartments. It has simply fallen on Putin to say sensible things about the world economic crisis. It's not a matter of Russia or Putin being right or wrong.

Russia may have natural resources but I'm willing to bet the United States is more readily able to exploit said natural resources in their own country, and had quite a large amount of natural resources in their own rights. We're apparently sitting on massive oil deposits that congress won't allow us to touch.

Yes, sensible things. Things so sensible JihadJane dare not speak them in public less I drop dead at the sheer sensibility of his sensible statements.

What actually happened was that some old regulations, that were there for a good reason, were got rid of.

Hmm, I recall saying that.

The US didn't have the amount of money it has spent on its bailout.

The point was that Russia would essentially be taking out a loan equal to or greater than their own GDP.

In his speech Putin is taking up the mantle of responsible world leadership. If you haven't read the speech there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Assume for arguments sake that I have. Why exactly are you so hesitant to point out what you agree with or what makes you think he has taken up the mantle of responsible world leadership? I'm starting to think it's because you haven't read it.

It very much is a meltdown!

A meltdown can lead to depression. It's not the depression itself.

And what the odds of this becoming a full blown Great Depression 2.0? Very few economists seem convinced that this will lead to such a disaster.

Please quote exactly where I have "deflected criticism of Russia, as if it hasn't happened, by pointing to problems in the US."

Quote exactly where I have shown "willingness to play the red herring for Russia"

It'd be simpler to point out where you haven't. But very well, when I get a few moments I'll go about making a list where you have deflected criticism of Russia by pointing out flaws in the US.

You have misunderstood my posts if you think I am defending Russia's political system past and present.

Then why, pray tell, do you think that Russia is a responsible world leader?

If you want to discuss the implications of Putin's speech without reading it, don't discuss it with me.

Of course you have no idea if I've read it. But you're trying damn hard to avoid answering any questions about it.

Please quote exactly where I have shown an "unwillingness to accept that Russia has done wrong ... ."

Namely by singing the praises of Putin.

Where have I said anything about whether or not Russia has done wrong?

I'm sure you recognize Russia has done wrong, you just don't like to openly talk about it. Lest it ruin your dreams of their responsible world leadership.

What Putin does with his power domestically is irrelevant to the power that has fallen into his lap on the world stage.

Quite so. And you don't think other nations are going to look at how he is spent his domestic power and think "well, I'm a reporter and I certainly don't wanna be thrown out of a window for saying something bad about him".

You, apparently, have no idea of the size of the catastrophe that has befallen the US economy.

Size matters but giants fall.

'When Giants Fall: An Economic Roadmap for the End of the American Era'

Michael J. Panzner

(Twenty-five year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets and a faculty member at the New York Institute of Finance)

http://www.amazon.com/When-Giants-Fall-Economic-American/dp/047031043X

Now I haven't read this book, and this goes back to our discussion about linking to vague statements. So I'll ask if this man is predicting an unavoidable collapse leading into the US into a third world cesspool or if he is stating the US will not be the economic powerhouse it once was? Or are you just reading the title and assuming he is agreeing with you?

 

[stilicho]

And what the odds of this becoming a full blown Great Depression 2.0? Very few economists seem convinced that this will lead to such a disaster.

Maybe JihadJane is thinking of this: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,745015,00.html

The Great Depression was indeed the worst of a series of crippling cyclical economic downturns dating back to the 1820s in the US. After more than 100 years of trying to figure out how money, banking, and corporations worked--no less the government's role in the new industrial economy--some critics were offering exactly the same solution offered eight decades too late by JihadJane.

The biggest difference between now and then is that, at the outset, nobody knew that it was going to be the Great Depression. Nobody knew what a Great Depression looked like. All they had to go by was various cyclical downturns and credit crises that were eventually resolved by private bankers such as JP Morgan.

JihadJane's on the wrong board here. There are plenty of folks at goldismoney and the Liberty Forum that are all over the "gold standard" and even the evils of rural electrification. (Yes, even now, there are people who argue that using electricity causes moral decay in society).

As I've said before, there is not a small amount of Eustace Mullins in JihadJane.

 

[JihadJane]

That statement is emty as it applies to anything.

See below.

Guess there is no "ultimate advantage" to buying a new laptop to play the newes games.
Or to much else for that matter.

There is an ultimate advantage to an inhabitable Earth.

You would be more convincing by claiming that cutback on consumption will at some point be neccecary due to shortage of recources.

I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am not an idiot. However in my previous post I metioned the word "energy" five times in two sentences prededed by the sentence:

When it is necessary it will be advantageous!

Neccecary and decierable are two very different things.
You come across as romantisicing the simple life.

There is no evidence that ever-increasing consumption produces happier and happier humans.

How do you get the impression that I am "romantisicing the simple life"?

 

[JihadJane]

Russia may have natural resources but I'm willing to bet the United States is more readily able to exploit said natural resources in their own country, and had quite a large amount of natural resources in their own rights. We're apparently sitting on massive oil deposits that congress won't allow us to touch.

Where, how much and what sort of deposits?

Yes, sensible things. Things so sensible JihadJane dare not speak them in public less I drop dead at the sheer sensibility of his sensible statements.

Read his speech and tell me what's not sensible and why.

JJ: What actually happened was that some old regulations, that were there for a good reason, were got rid of.

Hmm, I recall saying that.

No, you said the opposite. You said "That's what happens when you have outdated regulations...". The regulations weren't outdated.

Assume for arguments sake that I have. Why exactly are you so hesitant to point out what you agree with or what makes you think he has taken up the mantle of responsible world leadership? I'm starting to think it's because you haven't read it.

Read it yourself.

And what the odds of this becoming a full blown Great Depression 2.0? Very few economists seem convinced that this will lead to such a disaster.

Here are some indicators:

http://thecomingdepression.blogspot.com/2009/04/indicators-of-deepening-depression-in.html

It'd be simpler to point out where you haven't. But very well, when I get a few moments I'll go about making a list where you have deflected criticism of Russia by pointing out flaws in the US.

I look forward to seeing it.

Then why, pray tell, do you think that Russia is a responsible world leader?

I was talking about Putin, not Russia. There is no one else available.

Of course you have no idea if I've read it. But you're trying damn hard to avoid answering any questions about it.

Read it yourself, if you haven't already.

Namely by singing the praises of Putin.

Where?

I'm sure you recognize Russia has done wrong, you just don't like to openly talk about it. Lest it ruin your dreams of their responsible world leadership.

In other words, you're just making it up as you go along, imagining my thoughts and motivations.

Quite so. And you don't think other nations are going to look at how he is spent his domestic power and think "well, I'm a reporter and I certainly don't wanna be thrown out of a window for saying something bad about him".

Let me know when one does. World power is , unfortunately, about brute force and controlling resources. Haven't you noticed?

Now I haven't read this book, and this goes back to our discussion about linking to vague statements. So I'll ask if this man is predicting an unavoidable collapse leading into the US into a third world cesspool or if he is stating the US will not be the economic powerhouse it once was? Or are you just reading the title and assuming he is agreeing with you?

He doesn't say anything about a third world cesspool. He sees an end to US dominance and very rough times ahead for the its people. He is optimistic that it is possible for individuals to thrive, nevertheless, if they face reality ("nothing short of a modern Dark Ages").

 

[stilicho]

Here are some indicators:

http://thecomingdepression.blogspot.com/2009/04/indicators-of-deepening-depression-in.html

You're being insincere again, JihadJane. That's some whacked-out blog that supports itself by selling suckers preparedness kits and tells them to invest in gold. How's that strategy working for you?

Oh? It isn't? You're not doing any of that. You haven't moved to the fields. You haven't stopped consuming.

Your complacency in the face of such obvious economic disaster is comforting.

Now where's that Russian economic policy you were going to show us that establishes Putin as both sincere and triumphant? Remember, it's got to follow his speech to the global elites gathered over sumptuous platters of beef and gravy and not something you snatched off a Google search and posted here without reading.

 

[RandFan]

I agree on the flaw with communism, and belive it could be solved with a mixed economy. My mix would not allow private companies big enough to controll the state, and would have a large public sector.

It would be Denmark after a few decades of red majority.

When looking at zarist Russia or Batistas Cuba I see dictatorships with an extreme concentration of wealth.

I am sure they would have (and did) resisted any changes no matter what the suggested alternative was.

Pinochet were rather violent to political opponents, even softcore democratic types. Are union organicers still getting shot in south america?

The problem for cuba and russia was that the communists were not the only ones that needed to be violent to succed, but that they were the best ones at mounting a succesfull revolution.

The russian revolution were carried out by several different groups, the bolcheviks were not the majority, but the best organised and they won the aftermath.

Guess extremists are better at revolutions since they are not distracted by doubt or discutions.

Fair points. I don't necassarily disagree with anything you said.

I think it's easy to point to what we think are the cause and effect relationships of actions and results when in fact results are often the results of very complex dynamics.

While I'm skeptical as to the chance of success for communism I certainly think things would have been very different had Lenin lived longer, Stalin not come to power, not discredited Trotsky and not became a ruthless tyrant.

 

[moon1969]

So does this mean Chavez will sell Citgo to Lukoil?

 

[Travis]

Calling the wars in Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan "crimes" is absurd in-and-of-itself. Calling them "crimes in the name of Capitalism" is even more ludicrous.