6 ms·

As a Russian I'm, of course, concerned about it. Almost every intelligent young person under 30s here believes that the system is really broken. However we don'

by snitko 16y ago

As a Russian I'm, of course, concerned about it. Almost every intelligent young person under 30s here believes that the system is really broken. However we don't see any changes and I've been puzzled why. Theoretically, even the most egoistic government who's only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve it's welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine. Russians are not desperate yet, so maybe the government has found the right balance. Obviously, many are involved in the scheme and many people have things to lose if the government initiates a real war on corruption. So the government must be afraid too and that fear is greater. However, I don't think you can keep that balance forever. Like the article suggests, the brightest flee the country and someone has to make the economy going. I realize I probably don't know many things guys up there are aware of, but it seems pretty obvious from down here that the only thing that should be done to help the country bloom is to eliminate corruption. For real. Then all those silicon valleys and scientists start reappearing on their own, healthcare starts recovering, investors begin coming back. Focus.

snitko 16y ago
That is to say, eliminating corruption is a dangerous and a difficult task. Someone really smart should be working on it. I can tell by the speeches they're not doing it at all right now.
- jeromec 16y ago
  I watched an interview with President Medvedev in which problems like corruption were brought up. It seemed like he is taking a long term view of improving conditions in Russia, which makes sense to me, because it's not possible to transition to the kind of democracy with limited corruption we see in the U.S. overnight. What do you think of the actions or non-actions of the current Russian leadership? Are they at least on a path toward improving the situation? Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwZLhqDEnSo&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwZLhqDEnSo&feature=playe...
  - snitko 16y ago
    If you listen carefully to this interview and others, you'll only hear he says he's going to fight corruption, but he doesn't say how. Politicians are usually all like this in any country, though. I listen a lot to Obama's speeches and interviews and he's pretty much the same. It's all blabbing. To give you an impression of how it probably should be, may I remind you of Mikhail Saakashvili, a Georgian president, who is so much hated in Russia. Personally, I don't know what happened at that war in 2008, but what many people in Russia realized recently is that he managed to eliminate corruption in Georgia in a matter of 3-4 years. How? One example: they fired all of the police force there overnight, hired and trained new people, raised their salaries and punished seriously for any bribes. What was the result? A great raise in respect for police in Georgia in less than 2 months.
    - adobriyan 16y ago
      > he says he's going to fight corruption, but he doesn't say how. That's because he doesn't have a clue. Last step is to rename "militia" to "police" with trivial changes to law enforcement and direct insult of all those who served in supposedly "ineffective" Soviet militia.
    - jeromec 16y ago
      Yes, I'm aware that politicians often speak "empty words". However, I would point out some politicians are indeed active and effective. President Obama has already signed over 200 bills into law, including one so large and complicated it took over 50 years of unsuccessful attempts: healthcare. I was just wondering if President Medvedev is more of the "empty words" type of politician, or does he genuinely feel compelled to do his best to improve conditions? As much as he safely can, that is.
      - snitko 16y ago
        Well, how am I supposed to know if he's genuine, I'm not his psychoanalyst. And I don't think it matters. I don't see how he can change anything - that's the problem.
mattchew 16y ago
Theoretically, even the most egoistic government who's only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve it's welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine. This is true if the government is secure in its power. If the rulership--or factions within the rulership--are worried about losing their privileges, they may just grab what they can when they can.
- snitko 16y ago
  That's a popular point here. Many think they're just grabbing as much as they can while they can. I don't know. Maybe it's true, but it seems to me it would be quite a task to run and hide later. It may be easier to stay and secure the environment (by eliminating corruption and making it safe). Maybe I'm wrong.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    Not to stereotype, but I have noticed all my friends who have a live-fast, die-hard sort of attitude- the type that is appropriate when you're not entirely sure if you'll see tomorrow- were born in Russia. So, I would hazard a guess the folks you speak of are simply not conditioned to be thinking about 'later'.
    - snitko 16y ago
      That is probably one of the most correct stereotypes about Russians. For example almost no one ever saves money here. Nor in the banks, neither under the pillow.
      - lfnik 16y ago
        I have married a Russian and I can also confirm this. Adrenaline junkies galore in Russia
- fgf 16y ago
  An interesting comparison I'm not really qualified to make is between the relatively secure (?) and cohesive (!) chinese communist party elite and the chaotic free for all (?) in russia. The countries elites both help themselves to quite a bit of wealth but the russians seem to experience an unsolved tragedy of the commons issue. If this is true, will united russia (or whatever it's called) solve the problem of maximising returns from their control of the country (it did take the PRC communist party a few decades)? How could they?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
pvg 16y ago
Theoretically, even the most egoistical government whose only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve its welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine. Sadly, this theory has eluded Russian and Soviet governments for many decades. However we don't see any changes and I've been puzzled why. I think, fundamentally, the transition to a society ruled by law is a very long and difficult one. It was long and difficult in the countries where the modern form of the notion originated. It's probably going to be longer and harder elsewhere.
radu_floricica 16y ago
Read some Hernando de Soto: http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016146 http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Ev... No time to go into depth, and probably won't do it justice, but a good summary would be "Institutions matter". Like it or not, the kind of negative entropy found in the west isn't easy to come by, and trying to build it from nothing most times will fail in strange ways.
learner4life 16y ago
"Theoretically, even the most egoistic government who's only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve it's welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine." The trouble is an egoistical government rarely possesses the ability to draw a line and stop interfering(rules and regulations) and collecting money(taxes,bribes) so that people can have enough to do fine. The people who run it are blinded by greed and always want a little bit more. Also, while the people at the top might realize that corruption should not exceed beyond a point, it is hard to enforce as your lowly clerk/officer does not possess the ability to see the bit picture. All he/she knows is everyone is corrupt(it is institutionalized) and tries to take the biggest pie he/she can.
smikhanov 16y ago
Do you know that career opportunities in Moscow, despite being less great than in 2005, are dramatically brighter than anywhere in Europe (can't tell for the US)? I left Moscow for Vienna 4 years ago. In Moscow some of my former classmates (in their late 20s) are managing departments in Big Four companies; in Vienna people spend 20 years working at the same desk. When oil prices are high, the opportunities are booming. Young middle-class career-builders sure consider Russia as a temporary location ("I'll leave as soon as I'll be able to") and their children will attend Western universities and will stay some other place forever, but certainly idea about overthrowing this government is a last thought in their heads now.

by snitko 16y ago

snitko 16y ago

That is to say, eliminating corruption is a dangerous and a difficult task. Someone really smart should be working on it. I can tell by the speeches they're not doing it at all right now.

jeromec 16y ago
I watched an interview with President Medvedev in which problems like corruption were brought up. It seemed like he is taking a long term view of improving conditions in Russia, which makes sense to me, because it's not possible to transition to the kind of democracy with limited corruption we see in the U.S. overnight. What do you think of the actions or non-actions of the current Russian leadership? Are they at least on a path toward improving the situation? Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwZLhqDEnSo&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwZLhqDEnSo&feature=playe...
- snitko 16y ago
  If you listen carefully to this interview and others, you'll only hear he says he's going to fight corruption, but he doesn't say how. Politicians are usually all like this in any country, though. I listen a lot to Obama's speeches and interviews and he's pretty much the same. It's all blabbing. To give you an impression of how it probably should be, may I remind you of Mikhail Saakashvili, a Georgian president, who is so much hated in Russia. Personally, I don't know what happened at that war in 2008, but what many people in Russia realized recently is that he managed to eliminate corruption in Georgia in a matter of 3-4 years. How? One example: they fired all of the police force there overnight, hired and trained new people, raised their salaries and punished seriously for any bribes. What was the result? A great raise in respect for police in Georgia in less than 2 months.
  - adobriyan 16y ago
    > he says he's going to fight corruption, but he doesn't say how. That's because he doesn't have a clue. Last step is to rename "militia" to "police" with trivial changes to law enforcement and direct insult of all those who served in supposedly "ineffective" Soviet militia.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    Yes, I'm aware that politicians often speak "empty words". However, I would point out some politicians are indeed active and effective. President Obama has already signed over 200 bills into law, including one so large and complicated it took over 50 years of unsuccessful attempts: healthcare. I was just wondering if President Medvedev is more of the "empty words" type of politician, or does he genuinely feel compelled to do his best to improve conditions? As much as he safely can, that is.
    - snitko 16y ago
      Well, how am I supposed to know if he's genuine, I'm not his psychoanalyst. And I don't think it matters. I don't see how he can change anything - that's the problem.

mattchew 16y ago

Theoretically, even the most egoistic government who's only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve it's welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine. This is true if the government is secure in its power. If the rulership--or factions within the rulership--are worried about losing their privileges, they may just grab what they can when they can.

snitko 16y ago
That's a popular point here. Many think they're just grabbing as much as they can while they can. I don't know. Maybe it's true, but it seems to me it would be quite a task to run and hide later. It may be easier to stay and secure the environment (by eliminating corruption and making it safe). Maybe I'm wrong.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  Not to stereotype, but I have noticed all my friends who have a live-fast, die-hard sort of attitude- the type that is appropriate when you're not entirely sure if you'll see tomorrow- were born in Russia. So, I would hazard a guess the folks you speak of are simply not conditioned to be thinking about 'later'.
  - snitko 16y ago
    That is probably one of the most correct stereotypes about Russians. For example almost no one ever saves money here. Nor in the banks, neither under the pillow.
    - lfnik 16y ago
      I have married a Russian and I can also confirm this. Adrenaline junkies galore in Russia
fgf 16y ago
An interesting comparison I'm not really qualified to make is between the relatively secure (?) and cohesive (!) chinese communist party elite and the chaotic free for all (?) in russia. The countries elites both help themselves to quite a bit of wealth but the russians seem to experience an unsolved tragedy of the commons issue. If this is true, will united russia (or whatever it's called) solve the problem of maximising returns from their control of the country (it did take the PRC communist party a few decades)? How could they?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

pvg 16y ago

Theoretically, even the most egoistical government whose only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve its welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine. Sadly, this theory has eluded Russian and Soviet governments for many decades. However we don't see any changes and I've been puzzled why. I think, fundamentally, the transition to a society ruled by law is a very long and difficult one. It was long and difficult in the countries where the modern form of the notion originated. It's probably going to be longer and harder elsewhere.

radu_floricica 16y ago

Read some Hernando de Soto: http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016146 http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Ev... No time to go into depth, and probably won't do it justice, but a good summary would be "Institutions matter". Like it or not, the kind of negative entropy found in the west isn't easy to come by, and trying to build it from nothing most times will fail in strange ways.

learner4life 16y ago

"Theoretically, even the most egoistic government who's only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve it's welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine." The trouble is an egoistical government rarely possesses the ability to draw a line and stop interfering(rules and regulations) and collecting money(taxes,bribes) so that people can have enough to do fine. The people who run it are blinded by greed and always want a little bit more. Also, while the people at the top might realize that corruption should not exceed beyond a point, it is hard to enforce as your lowly clerk/officer does not possess the ability to see the bit picture. All he/she knows is everyone is corrupt(it is institutionalized) and tries to take the biggest pie he/she can.

smikhanov 16y ago

Do you know that career opportunities in Moscow, despite being less great than in 2005, are dramatically brighter than anywhere in Europe (can't tell for the US)? I left Moscow for Vienna 4 years ago. In Moscow some of my former classmates (in their late 20s) are managing departments in Big Four companies; in Vienna people spend 20 years working at the same desk. When oil prices are high, the opportunities are booming. Young middle-class career-builders sure consider Russia as a temporary location ("I'll leave as soon as I'll be able to") and their children will attend Western universities and will stay some other place forever, but certainly idea about overthrowing this government is a last thought in their heads now.