6 ms·

Great article by a brilliant man. I like the fact that while he admits his mistakes and points out problems with Putin he does not shy away from pointing out so

by hristov 17y ago

Great article by a brilliant man. I like the fact that while he admits his mistakes and points out problems with Putin he does not shy away from pointing out some problems that are completely ignored in the western reporting on Russia -- that the so called "shock therapy" that was urged and urged by western economists and bankers was a total disaster and that the second election of Yeltsin and the first election of Putin were fraudulent.

idlewords 17y ago
Shock therapy was not bad economic advice. It worked extremely well in the Eastern Bloc satellites that tried it, and the general trend was that the more drastic the privatization, the faster the recovery and ultimate rise to European living standards. In the former Soviet Union, though, 'shock therapy' turned into simple looting. The country was too big and the political system too rotten to actually carry out any program of reform.
- ugh 17y ago
  “The country was too big …” So it was bad advice?
  - idlewords 17y ago
    The problem is we only get one shot at history. So it's hard to look back and assign the right reasons for the failure. It's conceivable that a different set of leaders could have made shock therapy work in the former USSR. It's also possible that no political system could have survived the trauma at that scale. My point is that it was not obviously bad advice. For the countries that managed to push it through politically, it worked extremely well.
- hristov 17y ago
  Wow, I wonder what those "eastern block satelites" where it "worked extremely well" are. I was born in an eastern block country and still follow the news there, and let me tell you it did not work very well there. In fact it was very similar to a miniature version of what happened in Russia (except for the oil and gas money). Your last sentence is the typical way the Chicago boys excuse themselves after their repeated failures -- just by using racism. "Our theories are sound but the locals are too rotten for our high minded theories" ...
  - idlewords 17y ago
    Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic.
    - Zev 17y ago
      Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence. Hell, in Czechoslovakia, the workers actually put in unpaid overtime to make up for the work that they missed while they were protesting to gain freedom. // edit: Don't include Romania, actually. ATB pointed out, rightfully, that the Romanian revolution was among the more violent of the revolutions in 1989. If you look at the Balkans (countries that used to make up Yugoslavia (sans Slovenia), Bulgaria, Albania, etc), the economic story is slightly different. In Bulgaria, for example, the economy only got back up to pre-1989 levels in mid-2004. The economies here were much more tied to the Soviet Union's and its collapse hit them much harder. Or, they just devolved into a series of ethnic battles, which doesn't go over well with the economy.
      - idlewords 17y ago
        And we both forgot the plucky Baltic states, which have done very well indeed!
        Zev 17y ago
        Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia? They weren't satellite states during the Cold War; they were part of the Soviet Union (or Russia, if you go back to before World War 1). They broke off afterwards. To me, it doesn't make much sense to examine these states the same way you would satellite states. They weren't in the same situation during the Cold War. Although, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia did simply vote themselves out of the Russian Federation, rather then joining it after the Soviet Union collapsed, so, there's a common thread for success, I suppose.
        idlewords 17y ago
- moo 17y ago
  "The country was too big and the political system too rotten to actually carry out any program of reform." In other words it was bad advise for the situation in Russia. If it is not one size fits all then it is not good advise. Also I don't think this Friedman economics worked out so well in Chile either. The industries that work in the U.S. are government subsidized ones like agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and military technology spending. The bank bailouts also do not lead me to believe the U.S. follows its own advise.
- adobriyan 17y ago
  > Shock therapy was not bad economic advice. If you don't count those who died of starvation because savings were burned in hyperinflation and pensions were (and still are) _tiny_, those who were killed during inevitable criminalization of society, Russians who were killed because of nationalizm in USSR republics, _millions_ of unborn children because of economical and political instabilities, then, yes, it wasn't bad advice.
adobriyan 17y ago
> brilliant man This clown made amazing decisions like taking Bush et al words_ that NATO won't spread to the East, sincerely thinking that West is here to help and so on. > that the second election of Yeltsin and the first election of Putin were fraudulent. It was fraudulent since 75% voted for preserving USSR at 1991.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Can't quote a source, unfortunately, but I read a long essay last month which used the original diplomatic notes to research this "NATO Promise" business. Long story short -- there was never a promise not to expand NATO. EDIT: Dug up a couple from Google, although they weren't the ones I was referring to. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_diplomatic_mystery http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_diplomati... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16289 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16...
m0th87 17y ago
I'm surprised no one has commented on this thread that The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (leaving her strong political leanings aside) provides an excellent overview of the shock therapy as it was applied to the USSR and other nations. It was by far the most disturbing book I've ever read.
- johnyzee 17y ago
  On the same topic, 'Baghdad year zero' is also fascinating: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197 http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

by hristov 17y ago

idlewords 17y ago

Shock therapy was not bad economic advice. It worked extremely well in the Eastern Bloc satellites that tried it, and the general trend was that the more drastic the privatization, the faster the recovery and ultimate rise to European living standards. In the former Soviet Union, though, 'shock therapy' turned into simple looting. The country was too big and the political system too rotten to actually carry out any program of reform.

ugh 17y ago
“The country was too big …” So it was bad advice?
- idlewords 17y ago
  The problem is we only get one shot at history. So it's hard to look back and assign the right reasons for the failure. It's conceivable that a different set of leaders could have made shock therapy work in the former USSR. It's also possible that no political system could have survived the trauma at that scale. My point is that it was not obviously bad advice. For the countries that managed to push it through politically, it worked extremely well.
hristov 17y ago
Wow, I wonder what those "eastern block satelites" where it "worked extremely well" are. I was born in an eastern block country and still follow the news there, and let me tell you it did not work very well there. In fact it was very similar to a miniature version of what happened in Russia (except for the oil and gas money). Your last sentence is the typical way the Chicago boys excuse themselves after their repeated failures -- just by using racism. "Our theories are sound but the locals are too rotten for our high minded theories" ...
- idlewords 17y ago
  Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic.
  - Zev 17y ago
    Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence. Hell, in Czechoslovakia, the workers actually put in unpaid overtime to make up for the work that they missed while they were protesting to gain freedom. // edit: Don't include Romania, actually. ATB pointed out, rightfully, that the Romanian revolution was among the more violent of the revolutions in 1989. If you look at the Balkans (countries that used to make up Yugoslavia (sans Slovenia), Bulgaria, Albania, etc), the economic story is slightly different. In Bulgaria, for example, the economy only got back up to pre-1989 levels in mid-2004. The economies here were much more tied to the Soviet Union's and its collapse hit them much harder. Or, they just devolved into a series of ethnic battles, which doesn't go over well with the economy.
    - idlewords 17y ago
      And we both forgot the plucky Baltic states, which have done very well indeed!
      - Zev 17y ago
        Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia? They weren't satellite states during the Cold War; they were part of the Soviet Union (or Russia, if you go back to before World War 1). They broke off afterwards. To me, it doesn't make much sense to examine these states the same way you would satellite states. They weren't in the same situation during the Cold War. Although, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia did simply vote themselves out of the Russian Federation, rather then joining it after the Soviet Union collapsed, so, there's a common thread for success, I suppose.
        idlewords 17y ago
moo 17y ago
"The country was too big and the political system too rotten to actually carry out any program of reform." In other words it was bad advise for the situation in Russia. If it is not one size fits all then it is not good advise. Also I don't think this Friedman economics worked out so well in Chile either. The industries that work in the U.S. are government subsidized ones like agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and military technology spending. The bank bailouts also do not lead me to believe the U.S. follows its own advise.
adobriyan 17y ago
> Shock therapy was not bad economic advice. If you don't count those who died of starvation because savings were burned in hyperinflation and pensions were (and still are) _tiny_, those who were killed during inevitable criminalization of society, Russians who were killed because of nationalizm in USSR republics, _millions_ of unborn children because of economical and political instabilities, then, yes, it wasn't bad advice.

adobriyan 17y ago

> brilliant man This clown made amazing decisions like taking Bush et al words_ that NATO won't spread to the East, sincerely thinking that West is here to help and so on. > that the second election of Yeltsin and the first election of Putin were fraudulent. It was fraudulent since 75% voted for preserving USSR at 1991.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Can't quote a source, unfortunately, but I read a long essay last month which used the original diplomatic notes to research this "NATO Promise" business. Long story short -- there was never a promise not to expand NATO. EDIT: Dug up a couple from Google, although they weren't the ones I was referring to. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_diplomatic_mystery http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_diplomati... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16289 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16...

m0th87 17y ago

I'm surprised no one has commented on this thread that The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (leaving her strong political leanings aside) provides an excellent overview of the shock therapy as it was applied to the USSR and other nations. It was by far the most disturbing book I've ever read.

johnyzee 17y ago
On the same topic, 'Baghdad year zero' is also fascinating: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197 http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197