4 ms·

In his first term he delivered a number of useful economic reforms with a team of liberal economists. Taxes, land ownership, banking, bankruptcy etc. The econom

In his first term he delivered a number of useful economic reforms with a team of liberal economists. Taxes, land ownership, banking, bankruptcy etc. The economic block in the government remains very professional and impartial even now. The only thing Russia really needed to become a normal state was to reform judicial branch, police and security services.

watwut 5y ago
That would be 20 years ago? And then he created up own Oligarchs groups. > Taxes, land ownership, banking, bankruptcy etc. The economic block in the government remains very professional and impartial even now. Russia has one of highest inequalities and quite poor population. It is also heavily corrupt. The macroeconomics works, but lower levels don't. > The only thing Russia really needed to become a normal state was to reform judicial branch, police and security services. That is kind of problem, given that Putin is former KGB agent, surrounded himself by alike people, became president duet to former KBG agents cooperating on gaining power ... Also, used both judicial branch and police against political opponents including journalists from day 1. They are corrupt basically as a matter of policy. Putin did reformed judicial branch, police and security services. Just not the way we would like.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  While all that you said is true regarding the current situation, 2000s were a different story regarding economics. Putin's pocket oligarchs did not have the same amount of influence and in that period of time plenty of new independent businesses were created, some of which became large companies. Yes, some of those are now being taken over by state, but again, that's not what was happening in 2000s. In 2000s Russia observed significant reduction in poverty and median income has actually increased. Unemployment rate was very low. That decade is called "plentiful 2000s" (сытые нулевые) for that reason. If Putin was not obsessed by Ukrainian Maidan events in 2004 - a turning point for him, we could see very different Russia today.
  - obscurette 5y ago
    Plentiful 2000s have nothing to do with Putin. These were plentiful regardless of Putin not because of him. It is normal for every society to take a time to adapt with completely new situation. The fact that it was the beginning of 2000s where things started to become much better after the mess of 1990s is true for almost every ex-USSR and Eastern Europe country. But Putin has always been the man he is now – the war in Chechnya began in 1999.
    - ivan_gammel 5y ago
      >It is normal for every society to take a time to adapt with completely new situation. This is a very generic and abstract statement. If you think that the growth could happen without economic reforms that took place in early 2000s, please explain how exactly could that happen in the aftermath of second Chechen War and economic crisis of 1998.
      - obscurette 5y ago
        With collapse of eastern block life became objectively worse in all countries of it – old structures were destroyed, but new ones weren't in place yet. It took the whole decade to reform and to build these new structures. And most of these countries have some crisis in the end of 1990s, had to learn a little bit from it, but it was already fine tuning. What you saw in early 2000s in Russia was mostly caused by reforms in 1990s, but times were already turning to worse.
        ivan_gammel 5y ago
        You are wrong. If you are truly interested in what's happened there, Internet has plenty of information about that period - just go and read it. During his first term Putin's government implemented a number of successful economic reforms that boosted growth and helped to reallocate profits from oil and gas to support the economy. Those reforms continued what has started in 1990s, but they had to happen to enable real growth (esp. tax reform). 1. Tax reform: flat income tax of 13%, reduction in total number of taxes by 70%, reduction in social security tax, introduction of severance tax (captured 84% of profits from oil and gas in state budget) 2. Zero budget deficit and significant reduction of foreign debt 3. Reform of land ownership: created free market of the land 4. New Labor code and pension reform 5. Reform of banking sector and new bankruptcy law
petre 5y ago
It went from a post Soviet klepto capiltalist society to crony feudalism. Those are Putin's reforms. Every big business is controlled by Putin's mafia: Rosneft, Gazprom, Sberbank, VK, Yandex, etc. It mirrors Russia during Ivan the Terrible's rule quite well. Feudalism has no place in the 21st centrury.
- the-lazy-guy 5y ago
  I can't speak for other companies mentioned (for most of them Russian government is the biggest shareholder, so I think you are right), but Yandex is not and has never been controlled by people close to Putin. I would like to see examples of this control, if you have any. Though Yandex has to follow government regulations (especially in its media department), a lot of which are obviously biased.
  - nogenhat 5y ago
    heh, ok lets see: 1. Golden stock which one gave veto on all decision was hold by Sberbank. 2. 2019 year, Russian gov takeover Yandex corporate structure: https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/18/11/2019/5dd263f59a7947697c84233e https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/18/11/2019/5dd263f59... basically Volozh gave up Yandex to government. 3. Current position where Yandex is choose to silently agree with war - best proof that the company controlled by small people from fsb :) And yes, be silent and don't state your position - the same as supporting the war. And I don't talk about small things like: 1. Yandex news where you can read only pro-government news :) 2. Tigran meeting with Putin and don't make a statement.
    - the-lazy-guy 5y ago
      1. Do you have examples when the "golden share" rights were excercised? Or which company decisions were actually impacted by it? "veto right" != "control". Othrwise we could say that Russia controls UN security council. All that golden share can veto is the consolidation of ownership in one hands. 2. I read it differently. The screws are tightened and company will be under control of board if Volozh dies, 2 of 12 board members are government-appointed. So I agree that government is trying to control Yandex tightly. It hasn't happened yet. 3. As far as I can see - Yandex does not support the war. And no russian commercial company can be openly against the war without effectively stopping the opperations immediately. Living under insane dictator is hard, but I don't think it is reponsible behaviour to turn shareholders investments into nil, leaving 20k people without job and millions of people without services (the last part is the least important because there are other local substitutes for most Yandex services). Genuine western companies can be openly against the war, because neither sufficient part of their income comes from Russia, nor most of their production/workforce is in Russia. About your small things: 1. What kind of news can be aggregated from other sources is regulated by law. I mentioned that in my firs comment. There are _no_ non-pro-government news sources left in Russia. The ones that were still operating a short while ago regularly recieved strikes from regulators. You could make a point that it would have been better if Yandex just closed its news service entirely; and I would agree with you. I bet Yandex is thinking the same right now, but it is hard to make this decision when things were slowly regressing for 10 years and the tipping point was reached and news became toxic. 2. Right, because making statements to Putin makes such a great difference? P.S. It is quite clear that in the recent years Yandex was trying to migrate from Russia as soon as possible to be less dependent on the whims of the regime. They did find the niches where they could be successful outside of Russia (at the very least - delivery, taxi and ride-heiling, cloud) but didn't have time to execute the plan.
markvdb 5y ago
> The economic block in the government remains very professional and impartial even now. Professional, yes. Impartial, no. Complicit is the word.

watwut 5y ago

That would be 20 years ago? And then he created up own Oligarchs groups. > Taxes, land ownership, banking, bankruptcy etc. The economic block in the government remains very professional and impartial even now. Russia has one of highest inequalities and quite poor population. It is also heavily corrupt. The macroeconomics works, but lower levels don't. > The only thing Russia really needed to become a normal state was to reform judicial branch, police and security services. That is kind of problem, given that Putin is former KGB agent, surrounded himself by alike people, became president duet to former KBG agents cooperating on gaining power ... Also, used both judicial branch and police against political opponents including journalists from day 1. They are corrupt basically as a matter of policy. Putin did reformed judicial branch, police and security services. Just not the way we would like.

ivan_gammel 5y ago
While all that you said is true regarding the current situation, 2000s were a different story regarding economics. Putin's pocket oligarchs did not have the same amount of influence and in that period of time plenty of new independent businesses were created, some of which became large companies. Yes, some of those are now being taken over by state, but again, that's not what was happening in 2000s. In 2000s Russia observed significant reduction in poverty and median income has actually increased. Unemployment rate was very low. That decade is called "plentiful 2000s" (сытые нулевые) for that reason. If Putin was not obsessed by Ukrainian Maidan events in 2004 - a turning point for him, we could see very different Russia today.
- obscurette 5y ago
  Plentiful 2000s have nothing to do with Putin. These were plentiful regardless of Putin not because of him. It is normal for every society to take a time to adapt with completely new situation. The fact that it was the beginning of 2000s where things started to become much better after the mess of 1990s is true for almost every ex-USSR and Eastern Europe country. But Putin has always been the man he is now – the war in Chechnya began in 1999.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    >It is normal for every society to take a time to adapt with completely new situation. This is a very generic and abstract statement. If you think that the growth could happen without economic reforms that took place in early 2000s, please explain how exactly could that happen in the aftermath of second Chechen War and economic crisis of 1998.
    - obscurette 5y ago
      With collapse of eastern block life became objectively worse in all countries of it – old structures were destroyed, but new ones weren't in place yet. It took the whole decade to reform and to build these new structures. And most of these countries have some crisis in the end of 1990s, had to learn a little bit from it, but it was already fine tuning. What you saw in early 2000s in Russia was mostly caused by reforms in 1990s, but times were already turning to worse.
      - ivan_gammel 5y ago
        You are wrong. If you are truly interested in what's happened there, Internet has plenty of information about that period - just go and read it. During his first term Putin's government implemented a number of successful economic reforms that boosted growth and helped to reallocate profits from oil and gas to support the economy. Those reforms continued what has started in 1990s, but they had to happen to enable real growth (esp. tax reform). 1. Tax reform: flat income tax of 13%, reduction in total number of taxes by 70%, reduction in social security tax, introduction of severance tax (captured 84% of profits from oil and gas in state budget) 2. Zero budget deficit and significant reduction of foreign debt 3. Reform of land ownership: created free market of the land 4. New Labor code and pension reform 5. Reform of banking sector and new bankruptcy law

petre 5y ago

It went from a post Soviet klepto capiltalist society to crony feudalism. Those are Putin's reforms. Every big business is controlled by Putin's mafia: Rosneft, Gazprom, Sberbank, VK, Yandex, etc. It mirrors Russia during Ivan the Terrible's rule quite well. Feudalism has no place in the 21st centrury.

the-lazy-guy 5y ago
I can't speak for other companies mentioned (for most of them Russian government is the biggest shareholder, so I think you are right), but Yandex is not and has never been controlled by people close to Putin. I would like to see examples of this control, if you have any. Though Yandex has to follow government regulations (especially in its media department), a lot of which are obviously biased.
- nogenhat 5y ago
  heh, ok lets see: 1. Golden stock which one gave veto on all decision was hold by Sberbank. 2. 2019 year, Russian gov takeover Yandex corporate structure: https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/18/11/2019/5dd263f59a7947697c84233e https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/18/11/2019/5dd263f59... basically Volozh gave up Yandex to government. 3. Current position where Yandex is choose to silently agree with war - best proof that the company controlled by small people from fsb :) And yes, be silent and don't state your position - the same as supporting the war. And I don't talk about small things like: 1. Yandex news where you can read only pro-government news :) 2. Tigran meeting with Putin and don't make a statement.
  - the-lazy-guy 5y ago
    1. Do you have examples when the "golden share" rights were excercised? Or which company decisions were actually impacted by it? "veto right" != "control". Othrwise we could say that Russia controls UN security council. All that golden share can veto is the consolidation of ownership in one hands. 2. I read it differently. The screws are tightened and company will be under control of board if Volozh dies, 2 of 12 board members are government-appointed. So I agree that government is trying to control Yandex tightly. It hasn't happened yet. 3. As far as I can see - Yandex does not support the war. And no russian commercial company can be openly against the war without effectively stopping the opperations immediately. Living under insane dictator is hard, but I don't think it is reponsible behaviour to turn shareholders investments into nil, leaving 20k people without job and millions of people without services (the last part is the least important because there are other local substitutes for most Yandex services). Genuine western companies can be openly against the war, because neither sufficient part of their income comes from Russia, nor most of their production/workforce is in Russia. About your small things: 1. What kind of news can be aggregated from other sources is regulated by law. I mentioned that in my firs comment. There are _no_ non-pro-government news sources left in Russia. The ones that were still operating a short while ago regularly recieved strikes from regulators. You could make a point that it would have been better if Yandex just closed its news service entirely; and I would agree with you. I bet Yandex is thinking the same right now, but it is hard to make this decision when things were slowly regressing for 10 years and the tipping point was reached and news became toxic. 2. Right, because making statements to Putin makes such a great difference? P.S. It is quite clear that in the recent years Yandex was trying to migrate from Russia as soon as possible to be less dependent on the whims of the regime. They did find the niches where they could be successful outside of Russia (at the very least - delivery, taxi and ride-heiling, cloud) but didn't have time to execute the plan.

markvdb 5y ago

> The economic block in the government remains very professional and impartial even now. Professional, yes. Impartial, no. Complicit is the word.