Rice scolds Russia. Will anyone care?
By Sean at 18 September, 2008, 1:15 pm
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been on a whirlwind press junket scold Russia. Here is a clip of her rhetorical spanking at the German Marshall Fund:
Unfortunately, the clip cuts off right when she was going to enlighten us on how Russia of the 1990s became Russia of today. Too bad. Surprisingly what she said was somewhat sound. Rice explained,
After all, the 1990s were, in many ways, a period of real hope and promise for Russia. The totalitarian state was dismantled. The scope of liberty for most Russians expanded significantly in what they could read, in what they could say, in what they could buy and sell, and what associations they could form.
New leaders emerged who sought to steer Russia toward political and economic reform at home, toward integration into the global economy, and toward a responsible international role. All of this is true.But many Russians remember things differently about the 1990s. They remember that decade as a time of license and lawlessness, economic uncertainty and social chaos, a time when criminals and gangsters and robber barons plundered the Russian state and preyed on the weakest in Russian society, a time when many Russians, not just elites and former apparatchiks, but ordinary men and women experienced a sense of dishonor and dislocation that we in the West did not fully appreciate.
I remember that Russia, because I saw it firsthand. I remember old women selling their life’s belongings along the Old Arbat, plates and broken teacups, anything to get by.I remember that Russian soldiers returned home from Eastern Europe and lived in tents because the Russian state was just too weak and too poor to house them properly.
I remember talking to my Russian friends, tolerant, open, progressive people, who felt an acute sense of shame during that decade, not at the loss of the Soviet Union, but at the feeling of not recognizing their own country anymore, the Bolshoi Theater falling apart, pensioners unable to pay their bills, the Russian Olympic team in 1992 parading into the games under a flag that no one had ever seen and receiving gold medals to an anthem that no one had ever heard.
There was a humiliating sense that nothing Russian was good enough anymore.
This does not excuse Russian behavior, but it helps to set a context for it. It helps to explain why many ordinary Russians felt relieved and proud when new leaders emerged at the end of the last decade who sought to reconstitute the Russian state and re-assert its power abroad. An imperfect authority was seen as better than no authority at all.
However, this sober telling was somewhat muted by one of her most key scoldings. Namely, “And our strategic goal now is to make it clear to Russia’s leaders that their choices are putting Russia on a one-way path to self-imposed isolation and international irrelevance.” Isolated? Okay I don’t agree but I can see an argument for it. But irrelevant? If Russia was really irrelevant then all the bad things she lists certainly wouldn’t matter. Clearly, the fact that Madame Secretary is getting her panties in a bunch suggests the opposite. No?
I also can’t help but note that according to her narrative of the 1990s, irrelevancy at home and abroad was part of the reason why Russians embraced the idea that an imperfect authority was better than no authority at all. After all what is more symbolic of irrelevancy than the feeling that “nothing Russian was good enough anymore”?
Condi was not done there. She rushed off for an emergency NATO meeting in Brussels, where she sat down with CBS News for an interview where she harped more on Russia’s “isolation.” You can read a full transcript or watch what CBS has made available on their site:
My only question is if anyone will take her and the Bush Administration’s rhetorical blustering seriously. The US leadership has very little right to wag fingers. Its economy is dragging down the rest of the world, (so much so that the IMF might review the US financial system and one former IMF chief is saying the US needs a $1000 billion to $2000 billion bailout), it has a lame duck President who ducks questions about the economic meltdown for three days, and when he finally speaks up, he provides no specific plan of action, and then scurries back into the Oval Office without answering a single question. The American government might better be served by putting its own house in order first.
Man, January 20, 2009 just can’t come fast enough.
Popularity: 13% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Indeed Mr. Sean, indeed.
These are dangerous times. I hope the pols don’t turn to the old tricks, i.e. when the sh*t hits the fan at home, create a crisis abroad…
“Russia’s invasion of Georgia has achieved — and will achieve — no strategic objective,” Rice said. “Russia’s leaders will not accomplish their primary war aim of removing Georgia’s government.”
product of the Free press and The Democracy?
No difference between Kolchak and Secretary of State…
Please rename this blog to Sean’s Russian Lunacy. Condi Rice doesn’t matter in your cozy dorm on UCLA campus. I bet you got that emergency call button right outside your door. You can bluster all you want and know you will be protected. Really, dude, get out and see the world. Then you’ll realize how good we’ve got it here. But you are probably too myopic to see anything but hatred for Bush and that pimple on your nose.
Did somebody hear that? I swear it was the faint sound of a fart signifying nothing. Eeeew! And it smells really bad.
Her ‘context’ for understanding Russia is nothing more than the standard CNN/NYT/Newsweek paragraph that comes in the middle of every article about ‘resurgent Russia’ and talks about how ‘Kolya’ had to sell anti-freeze to alcoholics in the 90s. There is nothing new or illuminating about her comments.
@ Kolchak – are you just always anonymously waiting in the wings to hurl personal insults at people with whom you disagree? you talk about the comfort of a dorm room – where are you? you won’t even use your real name coward. Your hostility towards Sean’s choice to voice his opinion suggests you don’t value our ‘freedom’ as much as you proclaim.
Admiral!
idi na tri bukvi!
RIP, plizzze!
I don’t know anymore – whether to laugh or be fearful of the current state of USA. Yes, fearful, because such rhetoric is compatible with a profound weakness. Obviously, Ms. Condolezza is overcompensating out of fear for the US to be exposed as a very weak country. US now reminds me more and more the USSR circa early 80’s. I’m very fearful that the US could start another war somewhere out of weakness and insecurity. Peace.
P.S.: Weakness begets aggressiveness.
Sock puppet or suck puppet? The latter cannot be torn away short of death…
Where is La Russoprobe when we need her???? (cue gates of hell opening silently on surprisingly well oiled hinges and the B from house number 666 stomping forth). In the real world, Eccentrica Gallumbits (aka the triple breasted whore from Eroticon Six) is far more scary (though I have to admit that I have only read about her).
Got to go now, got the munchies.
“‘Kolya’ had to sell anti-freeze to alcoholics in the 90s.”
How untrue and unfair! I never HAD to sell anti-freeze to alcoholics in the 90s. It was a matter of free choice.
But irrelevant? If Russia was really irrelevant then all the bad things she lists certainly wouldn’t matter. Clearly, the fact that Madame Secretary is getting her panties in a bunch suggests the opposite. No?
There are several sides to being irrelevant, Sean. Nothing is ever black and white. One of the reasons Rice is saying this is because it almost happened already. If there is nothing to bargain with Russia about. If It would not deliver, then it is irrelevant in a sense that there is no point talking to it.
By the way, why did your blog become so vulgar recently?
@Kolya – sorry…i amend my comment and make it ‘Seryozha’
Cyrill, you are true DC patriot!
But you know what? Condy was talking about world vs. Russia. Could you please remind me when she was appointed The Talking Head of the World?
Well you don’t have to answer as Condy’s opinion is irrelevant indeed. She is just SOVIETTOLOG after all.
By the way, why did your blog become so vulgar recently?
?!? In fairness, Sean has always had a vulgar side that sneaks out on occasion. You think he wrote/writes for Exile/Exiled by accident?! Sean is Mr. Anti-Establishment! Anarchy in L.A.! Remember the looting and burning after the Rodney King verdict? Even though Sean was a pre-teen in 1992, he was out in force, with the Bloods and Crips, showing ‘The Man’ that he wasn’t going to take that pig violence against his brothers when their only crime was DWB!
Ok, I might be exaggerating a little.
Besides, you can’t possibly be considering “panties in a bunch” or fart jokes to be that vulgar. There have been some fairly epic flaming sock puppet wars on this blog in the past.
In fact, people were recently reminiscing about Mike Averko …
Cyrill, you are true DC patriot!
What’s a DC patriot? A new missile?
But you know what? Condy was talking about world vs. Russia. Could you please remind me when she was appointed The Talking Head of the World?
You need to move over from the predictable “who appointed you” line of thinking. It might come as a surprise to someone with visceral attitudes towards democracy, but in a free society one does not need to be appointed in order to speak. She is expressing her opinion and that might or might not fully correspond to policy of the government she serves. That too might come as a surprise to you but disagreements and different opinions are not bad while unanimity (real or staged) is.
Besides, you can’t possibly be considering “panties in a bunch” or fart jokes to be that vulgar.
Actually I do. I never understood why so many Americans are so in love with flatulence jokes. Most of American humour seems to reside below the waist. I saw George Carlin once in Reno and it was an excruciatingly boring flatulence evening.
As for the left being vulgar, I concede your point. You are absolutely right, It always has been.
Ненавижу грядущего хама!
Actually I do. I never understood why so many Americans are so in love with flatulence jokes.
They are childish, but not vulgar. Of course, you might be using vulgar in the sense of “lacking good manners and breeding” rather than “obscene and lewd”. I think most Americans tend to first think of the “obscene and lewd” meaning rather than the “unrefined” definition of the word.
So, in that sense, yes … fart jokes are vulgar. I’m also aware that such humor doesn’t register with Russians. I get the feeling that baked beans aren’t popular in Russia either.
Hey, pull my finger! Better out than in!
George Carlin is absolutely brilliant compared to guys like Zadorknob. Not sure why you would think his act was entirely flatulence based. As far as I remember, he only has one monologue about farts “Why Kids Love Farts.”
If I had to guess what is behind Condi’s little outburst I would say it is to do with what is happening within the European Union. The majority of states want to get on with negotiating a new deal with Russia on all sorts of subjects. It is in Europe’s interest to have a good relationship with Moscow.
There seems to be a deliberate attempt by the pro US members within the EU, the Batics Poland and Britain, to sabotage the latest agreement negotiated between Russia and Georgia and claim that Russia is not honouring it. They are trying to use this as a reason not to talk to the Russians. An EU-Russia Summit is due shortly.
It would seem to be a strategic aim of the US to keep Europe and Russia apart. Was this one of the reasons for the “mad” attack by Saakashvili?
She may also be trying to recover the ground lost by the recent Cheney visit when he was largely ignored and actually deliberately humiliated in Azerbaidjan.
Defence Secretary Gates is talking a different language completely and saying that it is the US that risks isolation by over reaction. Judging by recent Turkish reactions to the crisis, he may well be right.
She is definitely hysterical. It’s understandable as Russia didn’t meet her “expectations”. Her – the greatest expert in Soviet Union affairs! Poor girl (she must also be upset by Semenovich and her smart bra)
The US leadership has very little right to wag fingers. Its economy is dragging down the rest of the world…
So the US cannot wag its finger over non-economic matters because its economy is in the shit? Presumably when its economy is doing fine, they can wag their fingers to their hearts’ content.
As for the US economy dragging down the rest of the world…I’m reminded of this post.
I’m also aware that such humor doesn’t register with Russians. I get the feeling that baked beans aren’t popular in Russia either.
The Russian equivalent of baked beans is pea soup.
Does anyone care that Condi said all this about Russia? Well, yes, in fact Medvedev has responded in rather direct dialogue with her today, commenting with only minimal hubris (and this means restraint to me) that Russia doesn’t want to be thrown behind an Iron Curtain.
I’d say that Condi’s speech has been very effective in producing the outcome they were looking for.
I’m also not buying this “blame the US” for Russia’s economic crisis… Like one of those Renaissance Capital guys told the FT, everybody is so leveraged into each other in Russia, it’s like a national pyramid scheme.
Did somebody hear that? I swear it was the faint sound of a fart signifying nothing. Eeeew! And it smells really bad.
Can you really take this guy seriously? A child.
Kolchak – are you just always anonymously waiting in the wings to hurl personal insults at people with whom you disagree? you talk about the comfort of a dorm room – where are you? you won’t even use your real name coward. Your hostility towards Sean’s choice to voice his opinion suggests you don’t value our ‘freedom’ as much as you proclaim.
I don’t have the freedom to disagree. Thanks comrade. Sean should be alittle bit more intelligent in his analysis instead of sputtering off insane leftwing propaganda that he heard from some former Hippie Professor a few hours before.
Then he should read some history books and I advise everyone on this site as well.
Start with
Solzhenitsyn Gulag
Anne Applebaum Gulag
Tim Tzouliadas The Forsaken
You will see what a dirty, rotten, disgusting history the KGB (NKVD, CHEKA) have had in Russia. Because of this past, which is instilled into Putin, is one of the main reasons we should not trust this guy.
THe other sad fact is that Russians like Dmitri Medvedev and Ivanov and others on this site and for the country as a whole have never come to terms with their brutal history of Gulags, Zeks, and periods of Terror. To see what I mean you need to go to Germany and learn from Germans about how to face your history. Go to any concentration camp museum like Dachau in Germany and ask a German his opinion. Then you will understand about how you must come to terms with your past. The KGB killed 26 million of your people, and yet you let them still run your country. You are NUTS. You are only asking for more of the same. When will you learn? When? How much blood must be shed? How many innocent Russians have to be killed by the government before there will be real change. Yeltsin tried but failed. Will others really try?
Can you really take this guy seriously? A child.
You seem to keep coming back, my dear Admiral. If you want to read serious, I have a recommendation for you: http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/
Oh, that is unless you aren’t already affiliated with that site.
“Where is La Russoprobe when we need her????”
Judging by the overuse of the word ‘dude’ to seem hip and down with the youth of today, I would guess that she is alive and with us and writing under the name Kolchak.
I didn’t know that patients of medical facilities for “alternative-minded” persons are allowed to use Internet.
ivanov on September 18, 2008 4:06 pm
Cyrill, you are true DC patriot!
But you know what? Condy was talking about world vs. Russia. Could you please remind me when she was appointed The Talking Head of the World?
============================
Комментарий МИД Российской Федерации в связи с выступлением Госсекретаря США К.Райс в вашингтонском обкоме.
Но и не хотели бы, чтобы в своих сентенциях американская сторона говорила от имени всего мира. Такого права, насколько нам известно, Вашингтону никто не давал. У нас все нормально в отношениях с подавляющим большинством государств.
19 сентября 2008 года
Как говорится “Вашему обкому – от нашего обкома”
PS. Sean. They are watching you!
OK well this is a little off topic but…I am curious.
Any thoughts on the idea that the whole Russian Stock Market crash could possibly been engineered by intel types in WA?
In other words, the sub-prime market crash in the US was actually engineered as a way to leverage Russia’s Stock Market crash AND country instability.
Sean, I would be interested to hear further thoughts on this. Is this remotely plausible?
Sean Thomas
Hi Sean. My short answer: No. As this Financial Times timeline shows the Russian stock market has been dropping since May. Dmitri Travin gives four reasons all of which I think are sound:
1) The Mechal affair. Putin’s harsh rebuke of Mechal caused panic among Russian investors out of fear of another Yukos raid.
2) The steep drop in oil prices. The Russian economy and its stock market goes as oil goes.
3) The Georgian War. This caused rapid capital flight some say in the amount of $20-$25 billion.
4) The stability of russian banks. With the memory of 1998 firmly in Russian’s heads, any economic shock is going to bring back bad memories and panic.
That’s what Travin says in a nutshell. I would also add the general global economic slump, particularly in the US financial and mortgage system, which are so interconnected, created a slowing of economic dynamism. I think it is important to note that the economy is bad in most places. I think the domestic reasons for why Russia dropped over 50% of stock markets value have to do with these. The Russian economic situation is own their own making which unfortunately happened in an already bad atmosphere.
So to say that this was engineered by the US is simply ridiculous. We shouldn’t give America’s leaders more power and brains than they actually have. They don’t deserve the credit.
C’mon guys!
What Russian stock market? You mean socks market?
BTW. Socks are up today by 25% and VneshTorgBank’s socks – by 59% just in one day!
“So the US cannot wag its finger over non-economic matters because its economy is in the shit? ”
————————————————
Tim,
…is it really? The next American President seems to disagree with you:
“Our economy I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times,” Senator McCain said.”
Sean-
KK-
I really would rather NOT give credit to anyone who does not earn it. That is not to say America is devoid of any power or brains as you say…as a former member of the US intel community (long since left) I can assure you that not all of us are blundering fools who only care about the almighty dollar or how much of a ass-hole we can be within the global community.
You stated-
“As this Financial Times timeline shows the Russian stock market has been dropping since May.” As with all good tactics, conditions implemented now can bring about a gradual cascading effect over a general period of time. What is interesting to me is the idea that some very smart analyst counseled someone s in D.C. that if we do this now, we would still be able to survive all the economic crashes of multiple lending/insurance firms (ie.Freddie/Fannie/AIG) but it might just glut the Russian economy. Sorta like the whole Reagan Admin being able to break Russia economically by leaking the idea of “Star Wars” etc.
I don’t know, Sean. Do you have any evidence? This smells like a conspiracy theory to me . . .
A falling stock market just isn’t going to break the Russian economy. The stock market there is too small and too few Russians have anything to do with it. The real losers are a bunch of minigarchs who like to play the odds. What I wonder about is how much the Russian stock market’s dive has actually had an impact on Russian’s everyday lives. My first guess would be very little. As for the oligarchs who run that place, well I think you have to appreciate how much wealth they have.
Now the Russian stock market’s dive is serious to be sure, but I would ask: Serious for who? The small Russian elite? Oh well . . . excuse me while I wipe my crocodile tears.
But before anyone takes me at my word, let me peruse the Russian press to see if anyone has done any reporting on how the stock market has impacted Ivan the chernorabotchik.
I’ve never seen any credible evidence that Star Wars did anything to harm the Soviet economy. This is an myth dreamed up by Cold Warriors who want to take credit for killing a power that essentially killed itself.
Sean-
Nope. No evidence…and really…there doesn’t need to be any. I am not claiming everyone should hold to this theory.
As to who would be affected? Well, those who of course wield any power/money which admittedly as you say is a small few… however…those are the ones that it would need to effect. Yeah I can tell you from experience (I was in Russia last year for the year) that the avg Joe would only be affected if…his rent went up etc. Well, I do know some “middle-class” Russians who ARE complaining that financial strain is getting to be to much…
As to Star Wars, well…I’m there with you but who can you really believe? Honestly I can’t say as I have never really made an effort to really study it. I ought too.
Well, I do know some “middle-class” Russians who ARE complaining that financial strain is getting to be to much…
About the stock market? That would be interesting. I would imagine they would complain about inflation, which is certainly connected, but someone with more knowledge in Russian economics would have to explain it to me.
I think the real economic story in russia is inflation. For example, I just read this interesting set of figures:
“The level of productivity in 1991 was surpassed only in 2005 and only by 4.7%. Real wages in 2005 remained lower than in 1991 by 18.2%. In 2007 productivity exceeded by 19.8%, and wages only by 17.2%.”
I wonder how this squares when inflation is calculated in.
this is off-top, Sean, this is off-top.
But I tell you the secret.
I very much doubt that there was any solid data to estimate “productivity level” in 2005. And I can assure you – there was NO WAY to estimate ANYTHING in 1991. Except! Except level of productivity in bullshit reporting. It’s on the rise for sure…
Funny
The US Secretary of State can talk any BS she wants … on behalf of the USA. But on behalf of “Europe”? Is he part-time “european” talking ass? Or just freelancer?
Sphere of influence – really archaic term. It has been replaced by “democracy and freedom EVERYwhere we pleased” concept.
But this is really a piece!
Condolezza Rice will go down in history as the woman buying thousands of dollars worth of shoes at Ferragamo’s on 5th avenue as New Orleans went underwater. A well-heeled shopper saw Condi and yelled “How can you buy shoes as children are drowning?” Condi’s response, call security and have the woman physically removed from the store. Bush hides in the White House for 3 days as the economy crashes and Condi buys red high heels. Such a team, they are.
By now some of you know that I like parodies. What follows below is NOT a parody, though. It’s funny as hell precisely because it is not a parody. The downside is that there are probably millions of Americans who believe this stuff. It’s a letter from Pat Robertson, McCain’s new buddy. An excerpt and then a link for the full letter:
“Dear Friend,
I am writing to you with a sense of grave urgency and a special call to prayer. Here is the situation:
Russia’s vicious dismemberment of the tiny nation of Georgia is the beginning of an unfolding sequence of Russian aggression. …
About 2600 years ago, God gave the Prophet Ezekiel a description of an invasion of Israel after the Jews had been regathered to the Promised Land from all over the world in the “latter days.” Ezekiel wrote of an invasion force led by Russia that would include Iran and “Cush,” which is Sudan. The other parties described by Ezekiel that constituted the invading force could include some of the Muslim nations in the former Soviet Caucasus region and possibly Turkey. According to Ezekiel 38:12, they would come seeking “plunder and loot.” What greater plunder than the oil riches of the Persian Gulf? … ”
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/religion_and_politics_/2008/09/pat_robertson_lunatic.php
The young Lions of Tarshish, out of Davenport, Iowa? I think Pat is smoking some of that Afhgan opium! Pass the collection plate.
A falling stock market just isn’t going to break the Russian economy. The stock market there is too small and too few Russians have anything to do with it. The real losers are a bunch of minigarchs who like to play the odds. What I wonder about is how much the Russian stock market’s dive has actually had an impact on Russian’s everyday lives. My first guess would be very little….
This is just proves how stupid you are and how your opinions are uneducated and appeal only to a bunch of Russian Fascists.
The stock market fall or collapse has a rippling effect across the whole economy. It is not just the stock market, but the bond market as well. If both of these institutions cease to function, companies run out of ways to raise capital. You might have a Russian Clerk at Rostic’s, who, all of a sudden, is thrown out of work because the headquarters is strapped for cash and can no longer pay his salary. Or the Gaz plant has no more access to capital and has to layoff workers. This is what happens when investors lose faith in the market. Companies are no longer able to raise capital. As a result, these companies can not grow. Without growth, you have stagnation and decline. You could say that these companies could go to the bank and get a loan. Yes and no. Banks have only a limited number of rubles to lend as well. The interest rate can be too steep as opposed to issuing bonds or stock.
A falling stock market just isn’t going to break the Russian economy. The stock market there is too small and too few Russians have anything to do with it. The real losers are a bunch of minigarchs who like to play the odds. What I wonder about is how much the Russian stock market’s dive has actually had an impact on Russian’s everyday lives. My first guess would be very little….
———————————————–
Your “victory message” is a little too late. The Russian market surged yesterday to new high! Unprecedented growth in history.
Dmitri Medvedev,
Russian Market surged do to speculations. Won’t last. The reason countries have stock markets for their companies to access capital. No stock market = no capital. No capital = no business. No business = no jobs. No jobs = angry people. Angry people = revolution.
Your “victory message” is a little too late. The Russian market surged yesterday to new high!
A new high? Are you sure?
This is just proves how stupid you are and how your opinions are uneducated and appeal only to a bunch of Russian Fascists.
You are really a child. Sean, maybe you should put up a click-through page requiring people to certify that they are over 18 years so that our discussions aren’t dragged down to the level of a gradeschooler. Kolchak, if you are so comfortable and certain in your views, just reveal who you are. I would really really like to meet you.
A new high? Are you sure?
No kidding. I don’t think anyone in Russia (or the US for that matter) should be celebrating yet. If this crisis is indeed structural, then pumping liquidity into the market isn’t going to completely fix things. I see the move as more giving investors confidence that the government isn’t going sit idle and watch them go down the crapper. The liquidity is just as much a psychological move as it is economic.
Oh, and I wasn’t giving a victory message in the least. And hell maybe I’m wrong and the Russian stock market is more fundamental to its economy than I assume.
Sean, maybe you should put up a click-through page requiring people to certify that they are over 18 years so that our discussions aren’t dragged down to the level of a gradeschooler.
Unfortunately, Jesse, I think that would exclude most of us too! The good Admiral can say what he/she wants. I find it all quite amusing. Plus I doubt many here will ever engage him/her seriously. After while the Admiral will stop haunting us and return to his grave.
I must say that I love it when fervent anti-communists adopt Marxist narratives. “No stock market = no capital. No capital = no business. No business = no jobs. No jobs = angry people. Angry people = revolution.” What’s next, “There is a specter haunting Russia . . .”?
Oh, and I wasn’t giving a victory message in the least. And hell maybe I’m wrong and the Russian stock market is more fundamental to its economy than I assume.
I don’t think anyone, economists or otherwise, are calling this one. I don’t think anyone knows. Quite how and where Russians’ money is invested is a bit opaque*, and I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Time will tell. It can be said with relative confidence that a collapsing oil price would cause the Russian government to rethink its spending plans, but a collapsing stock market? Who knows? I think the government will be as interested as the rest of us, only probably a lot more concerned.
*My mother in law keeps her money stashed in books around the house.
Kolchak, if you are so comfortable and certain in your views, just reveal who you are. I would really really like to meet you.
=================
Are you a doctor, Jesse?
I doubt he/she has money to pay for treatment (and it’s too late anyway)…
PS. I checked all books at home when I was a kid
Your “victory message” is a little too late. The Russian market surged yesterday to new high!
A new high? Are you sure?
——————————————
Tim,
I was trying to sound positive. What happened to the Russian stock market last week, mirrows what was going on in the rest of the world, notable – in the USA. Our government (so Vladimir Vladimirovich tells me) reacted accordingly: they infused large sums of money into the banking system in order to keep it solvent for some time. So did the American government – pledged close to $1 trillion dollars to the ailing banking system. The question remains: Where will the Americans get the money? Borrow AGAIN? We used our currency RESERVES (according to Putin), accumulated when the oil prices were high.
<i>Where will the Americans get the money?</i>
Taxpayers.
You really have no idea how American accumulates debt, do you? Have you ever heard of securities? Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds?
75% of the US national debt our government owes to private citizens and corporations that have purchased these kinds of securities. 25% is to central banks in foreign countries, with lenders in Japan and China being roughly half of that.
You seem to imagine that the US has no wealth and must borrow for everything. That is a very ignorant vision. The US is ranked 26th in the world for debt as a percent of GDP. You repeatedly get caught up in the numbers without considering just how much wealth is produced here.
Russia has large cash reserves, but you seem to imagine these reserves exist in some pile of money somewhere, ready to be spent at a moments notice. In fact, most of the Russian reserves are invested in foreign securities of one form or another. It isn’t cash that the Russian government can spend on anything it wishes – to prevent or slow inflation, this money is almost exclusively invested abroad.
<i>We used our currency RESERVES (according to Putin), accumulated when the oil prices were high.</i>
Russia has been shifting investments of the Stabilization Fund from foreign securities to various domestic stocks on a limited basis for over a year now. Shifting these funds to domestic markets is only going to accelerate inflation, which is why the Stabilization Fund was expressly forbidden from investing domestically until now.
In simplest terms, that Stabilization Fund is required to keep the Russian economy stable and lower economic risk associated with a petroleum-based economy. However, it has to be invested in foreign securities or else inflation in Russia would be many times more ridiculous than it already is.
So using these funds to prop up the stock market is hardly something to be proud of. It can have other consequences (inflation) that will not be very pleasant for most Russians.
Has Putin revived Smersh? Litvinenko comes to mind. There is safety in anonymity.
So using these funds to prop up the stock market is hardly something to be proud of. It can have other consequences (inflation) that will not be very pleasant for most Russians.
I thought they were just giving the cash to banks in order to increase liquidity and prevent bank failures – not to prop up the stock market.
There’s always time for a victory massage!
I think Tim’s comment is spot on. Wait and see. This baby still has some way to go on it shake out. I, though, remain optimistic…
Litvinenko comes to mind.
———————————-
Admiral. How often does he come? Have you try to increase number of pills to get rid of him?
This topic is about rice! Not potato, not beens but about rice!
Litvinenko? How naive – who believes in that made-up story with no proofs????!!!!
Anyone wishes to talk about Zhana (Jane) Friske?
http://www.sawtbeirut.com/pictures/200px-Jane32.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p227/BULLIT_07/honeys/Zhanna_Friske_623200534053PM406.jpg
She is also ex-Blestyaschie (like her colleague Anna Semenovich).
Dima, how could you forget? What about her role in the дозор films?
http://www.dozorfilm.ru/
I’m gonna have to sleep on my back tonite.
Meanwhile on a more serious note:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/weekending/weekending%3a-market-turmoil-20070818354/
Dima, how could you forget? What about her role in the дозор films?
http://www.dozorfilm.ru/
I’m gonna have to sleep on my back tonite.
Meanwhile on a more serious note:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/weekending/weekending%3a-market-turmoil-20070818354/-
——————————————————
Oh, Aleks – how could I forget Dozory???!!!! I’m just turned 43 cannot really say “getting old”
What in the Daily Mash?
“As the markets continue their rollercoaster ride, we can all rest easy knowing our jobs, our money and our future happiness are in the hands of fuc*ers like this“.
It says it all. The West is the best!
I’m sure western economic expertize will continue to be in demand amongst which the chinese, indians, malaysians etc. etc. (up to country number 192(?) on the UN list of states)….
Coming to think of it, if the West was as devastated by the Nazis as the Soviet Union was (inc. the 26 million odd casualties), I wonder if they would have got back on their feet, by themselves as quickly…. Maybe I should leave that to the historians.
I wonder about something similar: Those metro-Russians nearing retirement age at the time of the economic shocks of 91/96 were described as ’stoic’ as they coped with the devaluation of their savings. Those that could, put a lot of their energies into raising cucumbers and berries on their dacha plots to get them through the winters. Children during the Great War/Seige of Peters had experience at being survivalists. As American boomers contemplate the very real possibility of hyperinflation, I just wonder if we have the ’stuff’ to weather it. Hard to grow many vegetables on your property when you’ve filled 90 percent of it with a McMansion.
Litvinenko? How naive – who believes in that made-up story with no proofs????!!!!
Skazka. Go follow the yellow brick road. Moron.
Litvinenko knew better than most that the FSB, the old KGB, played rough. In 1997 he himself was recruited to work as an assassin.
ALEXANDER LITVINENKO, (Translation): Our unit received orders from the top officials of our country to liquidate people found disagreeable.
At first Litvinenko thought the targets were crime bosses, but when he was ordered to kill billionaire Boris Berezovsky, who later became his friend and patron, he rebelled. Along with five of his colleagues, he went public.
ALEXANDER LITVINENKO, (Translation): The FSB structure has been used by some not in the interests of the state according to the constitution but in their own interests.
Shortly after, Litvinenko was fired and then imprisoned.
ALEXANDER LITVINENKO, (Translation): I was sacked on 10 January 1999. It was his personal signature. Personal. My order of dismissal was signed personally by Putin.
Litvinenko had actually met Putin the year before. He told Dateline in 2003 that he’d drawn this flow-chart for the then-FSB director showing links between the security service and organised crime.
ALEXANDER LITVINENKO, (Translation): I told him everything honestly. A few days later I got a ribbing from a pal in Internal Security. “You chose the right person to give those papers to. Putin. They are laughing at you, you. You gave him your number.” I asked my friend “How do you know?” “He ordered us to monitor it.” That means a tap.
After being granted political asylum in Britain, Litvinenko continued to speak out. He accused the FSB of orchestrating a series of bombings in 1999 that killed almost 300 people, and were blamed by the Kremlin on Chechen separatists. Litvinenko always knew he could pay a high price for betraying the secrets of the FSB.
ALEXANDER LITVINENKO, (Translation): To be left alone, I had to recant, to take my statements back. Recant and say, “I’m sorry. I won’t do it again, meaning, I won’t ever challenge the system again, I won’t speak the truth”. And…and that’s the best case. In the worst case they’d just murder me on my own doorstep, somewhere.
It was the worst-case scenario that came to pass late last year. Walter Litvinenko watched his son die.
WALTER LITVINENKO, FATHER (Translation): All his organs were shot. He bit his lip through. That’s how painful it was. He bit his lip through. He gnawed at his lips to deal with it. Just before his death I walked to his bed. “Dad, my coccyx hurts so much,” he complained to me. I put my hand under – the bed can be raised but it’s slow – I got my hand under to support him and then it all flowed out and his eyes froze.
Within hours of his death a family friend, Alex Goldfarb, read out an extraordinary letter that Litvinenko had written to President Putin from his death bed.
ALEX GOLDFARB, STATEMENT: “You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed. You may succeed in silencing one man, but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.”
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT, (Translation): The people who did this are not God, while Mr Litvinenko is not Lazarus. It’s extremely regrettable that such a tragic event as death is being used for political provocations.
Until a few hours before he died, the doctors at London’s University College Hospital had no idea what was killing Litvinenko. But when his urine was tested at Britain’s Atomic Weapons Establishment, they found polonium.
PROFESSOR NICK PRIEST, RADIOBIOLOGIST: This material is 64,000 times more radioactive than plutonium but produces the same type of radiation. So you wouldn’t taste it, you couldn’t see it, you couldn’t smell it. There’s no way you could detect the fact that there was polonium in your food or in your drink.
Professor Nick Priest helped British detectives investigating Litvinenko’s killing. He once worked with Britain’s Atomic Energy Authority and he’s an expert on nuclear laboratories in the former Soviet Union. He says that once polonium has been detected, it leaves a clear trail for investigators to follow.
PROFESSOR NICK PRIEST: So it’s not really like a paper trail, it’s more like footprints in the snow because you can see which direction you’re travelling in as well. So you can follow back from low levels of contamination to high levels of contamination.
And that’s what happened. Retracing Litvinenko’s movements, investigators picked up a trail of polonium across London, in restaurants, offices and taxis – but that was just the beginning. The trail led Scotland Yard to Heathrow Airport and straight back to Moscow. Those who’d carried the polonium to Britain and met with Litvinenko left their own radioactive fingerprints. There are three suspects. Russian security consultant Andrei Lugovoi, his business partner Dmitri Kovtun. And a mystery man using the alias of Vladislav, who arrived in Britain on a false passport. The aircraft these men flew on, the taxis they caught and the hotel rooms they slept in all revealed traces of polonium.
OLEG GORDIEVSKY, (Translation): It is a major operation, the preparation, 10-month.
Oleg Gordievsky is the most important KGB agent to ever defect to Great Britain. He believes that Andrei Lugovoi, a former FSB officer who knew Litvinenko before he defected, was used as bait.
OLEG GORDIEVSKY: About the beginning of the last year, Lugovoi started to come regularly to London. He was obviously cultivating Alexander and he was cultivating using money, promising money.
The highest concentration of polonium was found in room 441 at London’s Mayfair Millennium Hotel. Lugovoi and Kovtun checked in to the hotel on October 31 and Litvinenko went up to their room that afternoon. They’re joined by a man introduced as Vladislav, another security consultant. At some point, Litvinenko is offered a cup of tea. Detectives believe that this was the delivery point for the fatal dose of polonium. It’s thought the mysterious third man was a trained assassin. A few hours later, Litvinenko felt ill.
Coming to think of it, if the West was as devastated by the Nazis as the Soviet Union was (inc. the 26 million odd casualties), I wonder if they would have got back on their feet, by themselves as quickly…. Maybe I should leave that to the historians.
Russia was devasted by Stalin and NKVD, who killed 26 million Russians. 60 years later, the Russians put a KGB agent in charge. Brilliant. Just Brilliant.
Coming to think of it, if the West was as devastated by the Nazis as the Soviet Union was (inc. the 26 million odd casualties), I wonder if they would have got back on their feet, by themselves as quickly…. Maybe I should leave that to the historians.
The USSR was offered inclusion in the Marshall Plan, and Stalin refused. It was not numbers of casualties which delayed Russia getting back on its feet after WWII, it was idiotic economic policies and a continued habit of exporting anyone with independent thought to an icy labour camp.
As American boomers contemplate the very real possibility of hyperinflation, I just wonder if we have the ’stuff’ to weather it.
One thing a study of the brief history of America would tell you is that Americans are pretty good at “weathering” stuff. You don’t go from being a gaggle of scruffy, barefoot refugees and minimalist religious pilgrims to being the most powerful nation in the world in under 200 years by being soft.
Hard to grow many vegetables on your property when you’ve filled 90 percent of it with a McMansion.
And Russian apartments are superb for growing vegetables in. Besides, I don’t think lack of agricultural produce is going to be a problem in the US any time soon. The US figured out how to grow food some time ago, hence Khruschev was rather surprised when he came to the US and found Iowan farmers harvesting more corn on their own than his 20-man collectives could manage.
I do wonder whether the offer was genuine or more a political sign knowing that it would not be taken up. After all, even before Yalta, the SU was already being seen as a major problem, least of all a strategic competitor.
Then again, Stalin did have his own ‘Marshall Plan’ which involved taking anything that wasn’t nailed down in central and eastern europe occupied by the Red Army. Sure, he still deported large numbers of people (including my favorites from the Caucasus to chilly Khazakhstan) but I gather that there was never a shortage of people available for industry. Unfortunately it is impossible to calculate the potential that was lost by all the executions and deportations.
On a slightly related note, I have an interesting book called ‘What if? Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been’ which covers a number of critical junctures in military campaigns from The Plague That Saved Jerusalem, 701 B.C. to If Chaing Kai-shek Hadn’t Gambled in 1946.
There seems to be a whole genre of these types of alternative history musings by historians.
At some point, Litvinenko is offered a cup of tea. Detectives believe that this was the delivery point for the fatal dose of polonium. It’s thought the mysterious third man was a trained assassin. A few hours later, Litvinenko felt ill.
———————————————–
The whole idea idiotic. Why would the “Russian KGB” would spent $30 million (the price of polonium) to assassin Litvinenko in a most tracable way???
Here are the facts:
1) Litvinenko was not very important in Russia
2) He made a mistake by betraying his country. Moreover, he assumed his country would continue to decay as during Yeltsyn’s time. He was wrong.
3) In the West he was desperate to show he was more important than he was. Hence, the fantastic stories about the “Russian KGB”.
4) Out of sheer need for money, he started “working” for Berezovsky. Berezovsky used him for a while. But shortly before Litvinenko’s death he cut his allowance. If anyone needed Litvinenko’s death it was Berezovsky.
5) There’s evidence Litvinenko was trying to start “any business”. One option was to sell radioactive materials to Islamic terrorists.
6) Most likely plutonium was part of such a deal.
7) Litvinenko ended his life as every traitor does. His death was used to the anti-Russian forces in order to discredit Russia and its leadership.
Just like the case with the late Princess Diana’s death. Who killed her? Someone who would profit from her death.
As American boomers contemplate the very real possibility of hyperinflation, I just wonder if we have the ’stuff’ to weather it.
One thing a study of the brief history of America would tell you is that Americans are pretty good at “weathering” stuff. You don’t go from being a gaggle of scruffy, barefoot refugees and minimalist religious pilgrims to being the most powerful nation in the world in under 200 years by being soft.
Tim, what I said was that in the 90s, the metro Russians approaching retirement went to their dachas and grew vegetables when their rubles melted away – these were the same people that were children in the 40’s. I’m not talking about the magic of DNA memory as you seem to believe in. Note too – we’re talking about suburban people, not the few people working the industrial farms in Iowa (no more of the small farmers that K saw in the 60s.)
Note: good anti-spam word for this comment: move. I think the city-city people who have jobs and public transportation are in a sustainable position. I think those small farmers (napa, tabaco-land ) that can grow their food and are a part of a neighborhood community are well positioned. I think the outer suburbanites in their 3 story houses and 3 car garages filled with Chinese junk are in the dead-zone. These boomers were the consumer culture engine – but, they’ve outrun their purpose.
At some point, Litvinenko is offered a cup of tea. Detectives believe that this was the delivery point for the fatal dose of polonium. It’s thought the mysterious third man was a trained assassin. A few hours later, Litvinenko felt ill.
The Polonium was traced back to Russia. Whoever killed Lit. had access to Russian polonium. Are you even suggesting that MI6 had access to Russian Polonium? That’s pretty poor security if that’s the case.
If the Russia Mob wanted him dead, why not shoot, or stab him. There are much easier methods.
My conclusion is that Lit.’s death has KGB written all over it. It was just a botched job. That is why there is the international outcry.
KGB wanted him to die to send a message to other agents. you betray, you die. That is well worth $30 million in Putin’s world.
Kolchak, I have some prime beach-front real estate in Utah to sell. Just the deal for somebody like you.
Tim, what I said was that in the 90s, the metro Russians approaching retirement went to their dachas and grew vegetables when their rubles melted away.
Well, some did. The women mostly. Meanwhile, and awful lot of the men simply hit the bottle and died, unable to cope with the sudden removal of the Soviet safety net. So I’m not altogether convinced that Russia was any stronger than the US will be.
Plus, let’s see how well Moscow’s younger generation like being sent out to the dacha to grow cabbages. My money is still on the Yanks.
Sean, a belated reply to your question in another thread a couple of days ago. To refresh your memory, you wrote:
“I happen to think that times like these are moments when the concrete bursts through ideology. For example, what many free marketeers would normally call “welfare” and “socialism” is now deemed as “necessity”.”
And the next day:
“What interests me in all this economic quaking is the space it has opened up. People are now talking about formerly forbidden things: nationalization, regulation, etc. I think this is significant, however brief it might turn out to be. Like said, yesterday, it’s one of those moments where the concrete busts through ideology. These are rare and I think we should savor it in a perverted kind of way.”
I pointed out that I found your words interesting, and you asked:
“I’d like to hear what you think of what you quoted above? My statements are still quite undeveloped.”
Well, I don’t know if can do any justice to your question. I simply found your comments quite perceptive. I like the imagery of “when the concrete bursts through ideology” and “what interests me in all this economic quaking is the space it has opened up.”
It goes to show the obvious that ideologies and theories are constructs. Although they can be helpful they are merely attempts to approximate an immensely more complicated reality. And, as you wrote, at times this reality intrudes rudely. As a result we can be at a total loss. What usually happens, though, is that we find a way to explain away (usually clumsily) the discrepancy. The hope is that sooner or later we come up with a better construct. In the interim we sort of scramble around and patch up our rickety model. While engaged in this process, if we are forced to adopt something that goes against our ideological dogma we often relabel it into something more palatable. (I’m sure there are tons of examples, what popped into my mind, though, is that the Catholic Church does not permit divorce, but they came up with “annulment”.)
It goes to show the obvious that ideologies and theories are constructs. Although they can be helpful they are merely attempts to approximate an immensely more complicated reality. And, as you wrote, at times this reality intrudes rudely. As a result we can be at a total loss. What usually happens, though, is that we find a way to explain away (usually clumsily) the discrepancy.
Thanks Kolya. I think your last point is key here. Usually, and I think that the financial crisis is a good example, crisis are explained within the logic of the ideology which is already at work. Taking your annulment example, Catholicism was stretched enough to ensure that annulment doesn’t violate the inherent logic of Catholic ideology. I actually don’t think such moves are clumsy at all. Usually, they are quite brillant ideological slight of hands.
I think we are seeing something similar with the financial crisis. I think we should concede that the ideology that colors all our perceptions (what in more honest times was called bourgeois ideology) is not recongnized as ideology at all. It is the Truth. Therefore why would anyone use a different ideological construct to understand crisis since the dominant ideology has proved at all others are False?
While I do see a space opening (i.e. things being considered that wouldn’t normally even be spoken) but I don’t yet see a major ideolgical disruption that will produce a political disruption, which of course is my hope. Some are saying “Everything has Changed,” a statement that has so been in vogue since 9/11, and writing mocking articles like this one which says we are now the United States of France, which I guess means the US is socialist now. Well, I don’t see anything really changing and certainly don’t see any socialism or anything close to a welfare state (which would be a revolution in and of itself), unless you are going to make the cynical “socialism for the rich” statement. I only see “really existing capitalism.” When mainstream (i.e. bourgeois) economists say that the crisis is a result of the inherent logic of capitalism itself, then I will think something explicity political is really going on.
[Sean, I wrote the below before reading your last comment (6:41 am)--it's not a reply to your interesting comment.]
I was trying to find examples of reality not conforming to our ideas. There are many. In the realm of economics, the history of communism during the 20th Century is a classic example.
A more modest but still telling illustration of reality versus ideas or dogmas comes from a Richard Posner piece on Milton Friedman that Posner wrote shortly after Friedman’s death. As many of you probably know, Richard Posner is a judge as well as one of the most prominent legal scholars in the US. To put it simply, it can be said that much of his approach to law is to to reduce to economics. He’s an economic conservative, but he also considers himself a pragmatist and some of his views don’t sit well with social conservatives (a reason why he was never nominated to the Supreme Court). Everyone describes him as brilliant, but there is something very cold about him. Well, enough about Posner. Here is some of what he wrote about Milton Friedman (as well as a quick mention of Hayek):
“I find slightly off-putting what I sensed to be a dogmatic streak in Milton Friedman. I think his belief in the superior efficiency of free markets to government as a means of resource allocation, though fruitful and largely correct, was embraced by him as an article of faith and not merely as a hypothesis. I think he considered it almost a personal affront that the Scandinavian nations, particularly Sweden, could achieve and maintain very high levels of economic output despite very high rates of taxation, an enormous public sector, and extensive wealth redistribution resulting in much greater economic equality than in the United States. I don’t think his analytic apparatus could explain such an anomaly.
I also think that Friedman, again more as a matter of faith than of science, exaggerated the correlation between economic and political freedom. A country can be highly productive though it has an authoritarian political system, as in China, or democratic and impoverished, as was true for the first half century or so of India’s democracy and remains true to a considerable extent, since India remains extremely poor though it has a large and thriving middle class–an expanding island in the sea of misery. What is true is that commercial values are in tension with aristocratic and militaristic values that support authoritarian government, and also that as people become economically independent they are less subservient, and so less willing to submit to control by politicians; and also that they become more concerned with the protection of property rights, which authoritarian government threatens. But Friedman seemed to share Friedrich Hayek’s extreme and inaccurate view that socialism of the sort that Britain embraced under the old Labour Party was incompatible with democracy, and I don’t think that there is a good theoretical or empirical basis for that view. The Road to Serfdom flunks the test of accuracy of prediction!”
When mainstream (i.e. bourgeois) economists say that the crisis is a result of the inherent logic of capitalism itself, then I will think something explicity political is really going on.
Don’t you mean if rather than when? I think if any mainstream economist started talking about inherent logic of capitalism, he would find his credentials being checked pretty sharpish.
I think if any mainstream economist started talking about inherent logic of capitalism, he would find his credentials being checked pretty sharpish.
They certainly would. Kind of like how dissidents were see as crazy and hospitalized for opposing the Soviet system. After all, if you oppose the Truth of humanity’s liberation, you must be crazy! What kind of sane person oppose that! As we all well know and recognize the real insanity was in that argument.
And that is kind of my point. Most opinions expressed outside the orthodoxy are seen as specious, crazy, or just wrong. But when false become truth, and vice versa, or mainstream economists begin to question the inherent logic of capital-profit for profit sake is good-then, as I said, I will really think something is going on. There would have been a paradigm shift of revolutionary (revolutionary not in the political, but ideological sense) magnitude.
I think Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is instructive here. His explanation of scientific truths and how scientific revolutions happen is a good discussion of what must happen for minority ideas become accepted orthodoxies.
“Meanwhile, and awful lot of the men simply hit the bottle and died, unable to cope with the sudden removal of the Soviet safety net.”
Im not sure the Soviet safety net was suddenly removed. AFAIK most of that stuff was kept intact, with further things addes during Yeltsin. I think the drinking increase has to do with the sudden increased availablity of alcohol (?).
“And we will cut the heads off the mercilessly. We will crush sedition, eradicate the treason… A kingdom cannot be ruled without an iron hand… I stand alone. I can trust no one.” Ivan The Terrible (Part One 1944) Somethings never change. It amazes me that the Russians have ingrained in their Russian souls that they must be lead by an Iron Hand. Ivan’s, Peter’s, Elizabeth’s, Stalin’s, now Putin’s regimes have enslaved and killed millions or Russians. The Iron Hand has not brought prosperity. It has not brought happiness or an idea of a “Russian Dream”. How much more blood needs to be shed before the Russians will reject this Iron Hand theory?
Palin to Meet World Leaders, Bono
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/palin-to-meet-w.html
Thought you guys would appreciate that headline.
Kind of like how dissidents were see as crazy and hospitalized for opposing the Soviet system.
No Sean, nothing like that. An economist talking about the inherent logic of capitalism would be like an engineer talking about the inherent logic of metallurgy.
But when false become truth, and vice versa, or mainstream economists begin to question the inherent logic of capital-profit for profit sake is good…
I think it highly unlikely that there are many economists who believe that profit for profit sake is always good; most economists would agree that the pursuit of profits has positive effects which usually outweigh the negative effects. That the pursuit of profits sometimes has negative effects and detrimental effects on people and the environment has been acknowledged by economists for years.
The reason I doubt they will start questioning the “inherent logic” you mention is because economists probably don’t view the pursuit of profits as having anything to do with logic. Economists are more interested in incentives, and their position with regards this particular subject derives not from logical theory but from centuries of empirical evidence. Economists love to observe behaviour under certain conditions and offer explanations, I’ve not come across too many who have been indoctrinated with the “inherent logic of capitalism” and now risk having the scales fall from their eyes.
Most opinions expressed outside the orthodoxy are seen as specious, crazy, or just wrong.
Incdientally, there is a very good reason for this.
His explanation of scientific truths and how scientific revolutions happen is a good discussion of what must happen for minority ideas become accepted orthodoxies.
One more thing: capitalism being doomed to failure is about as much a minority idea as Christianity.
One more thing: capitalism being doomed to failure is about as much a minority idea as Christianity.
This is a rhetorical canard. I’m not suggesting this in the least. To question capital is not to suggest its collapse. At least in my view, It’s merely to re-posit it as theory that attempts to explain the material world rather than a Truth that reflects it. I would be satisfied if people stopped talking about capitalism in utopian terms. Or as Kolya reminded us about Milton Friedman as if it was some kind of faith. This is why my new slogan is “really existing capitalism.” I think this is a modest enough request and one I would hope a crisis wouldn’t have to provoke. The way some of the financial press is talking its like they’ve had a Paulian conversion experience. All the things they’ve preached were anathamas to captalism–the state, regulation, nationalization–are all suddenly capitalism’s savior. Don’t you find this significant?
Kolchak is Kim Zigfield’s Mini-Me.
“Taking your annulment example, Catholicism was stretched enough to ensure that annulment doesn’t violate the inherent logic of Catholic ideology. I actually don’t think such moves are clumsy at all. Usually, they are quite brillant ideological slight of hands.”
You are probably right, Sean. I know very little of the inherent logic of Catholic doctrine. It may not apply to Catholicism at this moment, but I suspect that once there are too many of those sleight of hands, any doctrine/ideology will start looking like a rickety structure full of patches and makeshift repairs. Unless replaced by something new, it will eventually either collapse beyond repair or simply peter out and die.
It’s merely to re-posit it as theory that attempts to explain the material world rather than a Truth that reflects it. I would be satisfied if people stopped talking about capitalism in utopian terms.
I don’t know what people you are talking about, but the ones I follow don’t talk about capitalism in utopian terms, mainly for the reason that capitalism in certain forms, i.e. state capitalism, authoritarian capitalism either don’t work very well or are incompatible with basic human rights. What people do talk about as a path to utopia is the right of people to trade freely with whomever they wish, which has been the major vehicle to lifting people out of poverty for centuries. By not allowing people to trade freely, or disincentivising them from doing so, people remain in poverty. And the only system thus far discovered which allows people to trade freely is capitalism. Capitalism is the means, not the end in itself. The end is the facilitation of trade. Come up with another system which allows people to trade freely, and you’ll probably find a lot of economists deserting capitalism. Until then, it’ll be like convincing them to give up on liberal democracy and the pursuit of happiness.
All the things they’ve preached were anathamas to captalism–the state, regulation, nationalization–are all suddenly capitalism’s savior. Don’t you find this significant?
Who is actually saying this though? People who have studied economic history or advocates of free trade? Or people who have a consistent habit of shafting the taxpayer regardless of the situation, or journalists? The answer to this will determine whether I find this significant.
One more thing: capitalism being doomed to failure is about as much a minority idea as Christianity.
Has Lenin returned? Are we really in the 21st Century. First, there are two things. Capitalism is not akin to say Marxism. Marx never set out to develop a Utopian vision. Marx was trying to figure out and explain much like Adam Smith what capitalism was and how it worked. Eventually he concluded that in the end Capitalism would bring about its own end. He was wrong on this point. He was wrong only because he did not know what other great economists built upon his work like Edgeworth, Marshall, Schumpeter, Keyenes, and Von Hayek.
These economists have proven that a monopolistic market is corrupt and inefficient. It leads to deficits and greater inequality than a free market system. That is why capitalism will never go away. First, it is a more efficient system that provides greater amount of goods and services and second it provides greater income equality. To see evidence of this, look no further than the USSR vs. USA. (That is not to say that capitalism does not produce any modicum of poverty. There is poverty in a Capitalistic society. But compared to a Socialistic/Communistic society where all industries are basically State run monopolies, the people in a capitalistic society are much better off. )
Second, ever since man took a step on this earth, he has been engaged in trade. Trade is instinctive and inherent in our genes. As a Capitalism is a system that is practically inherent in our nature.
“What people do talk about as a path to utopia is the right of people to trade freely with whomever they wish, which has been the major vehicle to lifting people out of poverty for centuries. By not allowing people to trade freely, or disincentivising them from doing so, people remain in poverty. And the only system thus far discovered which allows people to trade freely is capitalism. Capitalism is the means, not the end in itself. The end is the facilitation of trade. Come up with another system which allows people to trade freely, and…”
—————————–
Tim, I didn’t know that you are hidden true marxist
But you are!
PS. One more wrong statement
“Kind of like how dissidents were see as crazy and hospitalized for opposing the Soviet system.”
They were DECLARED crazy (for kind of legal purpose) but they were not seen crazy.
“I think you could explain why Kolya is totally wrong with his statement “That is why capitalism will never go away. ””
I didn’t say that.
Is capitalism ANY kind of trading or market? Isn’t that like stating that ANY kind of egalitarian/redistributive measure (regardless how modest–social security in the US) is socialism?
Kolya, I know, I know…it was Kolchak. Sorry
“Is capitalism ANY kind of trading or market? ”
I would say no. What distinguishes a capitalist economy is not trading or a market, both of which are really really old and exist in all kinds of noncapitalist societies and in fact in some socialist societies, but WAGE LABOR.
“It may not apply to Catholicism at this moment, but I suspect that once there are too many of those sleight of hands, any doctrine/ideology will start looking like a rickety structure full of patches and makeshift repairs. ”
And yet Catholicism still stands!
“The reason I doubt they will start questioning the “inherent logic” you mention is because economists probably don’t view the pursuit of profits as having anything to do with logic. ”
I think the logic Sean is talking about is not regarding how people in a (capitalist, in this case) system operate, but the direction in which the system tends to move due to the sum total of those operations. Like the “logic” of natural selection, to use a very rough analogy.
Thanks, Chris. I have to confess that I’m very rusty on the little I learned about capitalism (division of labor, freedom of trade, etc), Marxism, and so on. It’s just that I thought I noticed a creeping tendency to somehow wrongly equate capitalism with any sort of trading or market. The flip side would be to call socialism any sort of egalitarian/redistributive measure. This would mean that most governments that ever existed were socialist.
I think “socialism” is one of the words, like “fascism,” the meaning of which has drifted so far from what the people who came up with it intended it to signify that it should just be junked.
“Is capitalism ANY kind of trading or market? ”
I would say no. … but WAGE LABOR.
Really,
You believe in the the Labor Theory of Value. That has be disproven by Edgeworth and Marshall. Demand is not a function of price. Demand is a function of Utility. (What is that product worth to me personally). That is why beanie babies are still being producted today. The only way for the labor value to work is for Demand to be a function of price, i.e. 1000 ford workers spend x hours building a Expedition, therefore the SUV is worth x dollars. But we know this not to be true. Right now we can’t give Expeditions away. Hybrids are exacting a premium on the market. If the price of gas goes down dramatically, then the reverse might be true.
What determines capitalism is private property and free enterprise.
Sockpuppet or not, Kolckak is a moron.
If you have free competition plus privately owned slaves, is that capitalism?
The reason I doubt they will start questioning the “inherent logic” you mention is because economists probably don’t view the pursuit of profits as having anything to do with logic.
Isn’t math a form of logic, or am I the only one who was taught this? In this sense, profits are logical, simply because you can’t keep spending more than you are aquiring. A business is an equation with 3 possible outcomes … negative total (loss), zero total (break-even) and positive total (profit).
Of the three, profit is the logical solution as it allows the trade or business to persist the longest (i.e. the break-even solution needs only one bad period to become a negative total or loss).
I thought this was Economics 101, first day
If you have free competition plus privately owned slaves, is that capitalism?
Of course. Since when did either the amount of the workers wages or their ability to move or live freely become a requirement for capitalism?
In this example, our slaves are paid with food and shelter and half a day off on Sunday, so in principle they are employed workers for our fictional enterprise.
Somehow I am reminded of Tennessee Ernie Ford:
You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don’t you call me, ’cause I can’t go;
I owe my soul to the company store…
Why invent a wheel? Marx came up with I think the most basic criteria: type of ownership of means of production. Socialism/communism is communal ownership of means of production. Now, is it even theoretically possible? Certain conditions must be met – the most important being efficiency of production should not be a factor.
Either we can satisfy demand with unlimited a la Star Trek conversion of energy into matter, or we can restrict demand by either controlling and regulating distribution by fiat or letting the market deal with it. The latter seems to be more efficient so far.
This whole socialism/capitalism argument is silly since there isn’t a single case of pure one or another. Hardly possible or at least sustainable.
I think that existence of different combinations of proportioinally more or less communal(state in reality)/private ownership of means of production is a good thing provided people are allowed freely to choose one which they prefer. Some would want a more socially supportive and conscious Germany, others would go for a more individualistic US and some might even opt for a USSR type if it could just exist without trying to poop everybody else’s party.
“Marx came up with I think the most basic criteria: type of ownership of means of production. ”
I think the problem with this is that there are systems generally recognized as noncapitalist that feature private ownership of the MoP.
“Since when did either the amount of the workers wages or their ability to move or live freely become a requirement for capitalism?”
AMOUNT of wages is not important. What is important is the extension of the market to them, i.e. the existence of a labor market. Otherwise you have some variant of feudalism, using the term broadly.
I think the problem with this is that there are systems generally recognized as noncapitalist that feature private ownership of the MoP.
I hate to quote myself, but that\’s exactly what I said:
This whole socialism/capitalism argument is silly since there isn’t a single case of pure one or another. Hardly possible or at least sustainable.
There is nothing that\’s black and white. Everything is a shade of gray.
I think the logic Sean is talking about is not regarding how people in a (capitalist, in this case) system operate, but the direction in which the system tends to move due to the sum total of those operations.
I can understand this, but if we are going to look at the direction in which the system moves due to the sum total of these operations, we’re going to have to consider the formidable number of government operations taking place within this “capitalist” system and look at what effects they have on the direction the whole system moves at. I suspect that such a study would find as much fault in the government operations as those of private individuals, meaning the problem is as political as it is economic. It is for this reason I don’t see economists questioning what they have long taken to be a proven truth.
It’s just that I thought I noticed a creeping tendency to somehow wrongly equate capitalism with any sort of trading or market.
I’ve been quite careful, at least in this discussion, to avoid equating free trade with capitalism, for the main reason that I don’t really know what is meant by the latter. I don’t know of too many economists who write in praise of capitalism as being the end in itself, but plenty write in terms of free trade being the desired result which capitalism facilitates more than any other system.
I find the confusion between capitalism and free trade to be more common on the left, where examples of capitalism’s shortfalls are held up as justification for government intervention into a market.
“I can understand this, but if we are going to look at the direction in which the system moves due to the sum total of these operations, we’re going to have to consider the formidable number of government operations taking place within this “capitalist” system and look at what effects they have on the direction the whole system moves at”
Sean is a Marxist.
The state is a product of the economic system, not something intervening from outside (for Marxists, I mean).
My petty problem with “economics” — with the caveat that my exposure to it has been limited — is that it seems far too historically/culturally limited to be a “science.” It seems mostly to be a description of how modern trade-based industrial societies function, as opposed to a study of the principles (if any such there are) underlying human productive activity as a whole.
)It suddenly occurs to be that it’s a tad like Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which though it was intended to be a description and analysis of human behavior and the good life is pretty clearly really a description of the good life as understood by a fourth-century-BC Athenian and the ways in which fourth-century-BC Athenians acted.)
It seems mostly to be a description of how modern trade-based industrial societies function, as opposed to a study of the principles (if any such there are) underlying human productive activity as a whole.
This would be the reason why I said on another thread that reporting on the Economy doesn’t involve people, only numbers, percentages etc. From my understanding, political economy is dead in Economics departments. Political economists have been pushed into other fields: geography, history, sociology. Now economics is all about math forgetting or erasing the fact that economics begins with a relation between people.
This is my big problem with economics as it is perceived today. It’s an abstract numbers game to passes itself off as a science because it uses math.
Defining what capitalism is IS the problem in my opinion. It is clearly at the heart of this discussion. We all seem to have different definitions, from the biological and transhistorical to understandings that it means free trade, the domination of wages etc. Unfortunately, I don’t think something as complex as capitalism can be reduced to a one sentence definition. But for the sake of discussion, here are some elements of my definition. A capitalist system is characterized when the following phenomena are qualitatively dominant (in no particular order of importance):
1. The notion of inviolable private property codified in law and is universal to the extent that it is considered a right. While there were forms of property before capitalism, many of these, particularly land, was really the property of a king, which was in trun really the property of God.
2. The domination of wage labor and therefore the transformation of labor into a commodity that is subject to market forces as opposed to tradition and custom.
3. The disciplining of labor in terms of time and space (i.e. the clock and the workplace), as opposed to the traditional rhythms of a calendar or home (there are some great historical essays on efforts to discipline labor to clocks), the concentration of labor in one place, usually outside home where labor is under surveillance, whether that surveillance be by managers, statisticians of productivity, laws, etc.
4. The division of the labor process where laborers are mediated from the commodities they produce. No one laborer produces the whole commoditity.
5. The intertwining of the state with the economy, where the state is fundamental to the functioning of the system. This includes laws, infrastructure, protection of economic interests with force, regulating labor, etc. I think it is important to remember that every industrialized country did so with the intimate involvement of the state. That is to say the business of the state is business. The buisness of government is to create the social-political-cultural conditions for capital.
6. Whether the exchange value of a commodity dominates over its use vaule. That is to say three things. First, a commodity’s price is in relation to other commodities, including money. A commodity’s production and value is determined by its exchangability in the market rather than its use. Second, a commodity’s value has virtually nothing to do with its use. An SUV is vauled not because of its ability to navigate rough roads but because the it has a cultural and emotional effect on the consumer. Third, the strive to reduce all things, even life itself into a commodity that has exchange value. Even one’s body and emotions are subject to commoditfication.
7. The means of production are concentrated in both ownership and in space, though the latter is becoming challenged though not qualitatively.
8. Money is the universal mediator between commodities.
9. Where production for exchange is the end in itself of economic activity. People don’t produce for their own consumption (use value) but for a market (exchange value) where they can get money to buy commodities, sometimes even the commodities they themselves produced.
10. Finally, where all of the elements of capitalism above are considered natural truths that are even “scientifically” proven. Capitalism becomes dominant when it feels natural and we cannot imagine a viable world outside its dominance. Capitalism therfore produces a particular culture that strives for universial homogeniety, but nonetheless subsumes and disciplines national cultures into its logic of exchange. Capitalism is not just an economic system, it is a historical condition.
There are certainly more. These are just what came to my mind.
“The notion of inviolable private property codified in law and is universal to the extent that it is considered a right. While there were forms of property before capitalism, many of these, particularly land, was really the property of a king, which was in trun really the property of God.”
Well that’s true de jure and ideologically in much of the Middle Ages, but it wasn’t really true in fact, since the power — both coercive and moral — of the king was usually very circumscribed. If you think it’s hard for the Kremlin to control the provinces today, imagine what it was like with no telephones and railways.
It’s also untrue of many other premodern societies, such as ancient Athens, even on the ideological level.
In general, I really suspect too much is made of the disctinction. Sure, in theory the king could confiscate your property. In theory, so can modern capitalist governments. They do it regularly.
Well that’s true de jure and ideologically in much of the Middle Ages, but it wasn’t really true in fact.
No doubt. But I think the distinction, even if it is ideological, is rather important particularly in regard to the position of the law. The important part of my statement was “codified in law”. So even if a capitalist government confiscates your property they have to present legal justification for it (even if that legal justification is manufactured). Plus, if your property is confiscated, you can appeal, not to the sovereign, politician or bureaucrat, but to the law. This denotes a fundamental shift in the exercising of power in my view. Of course, as we know in practice things can be and are different. Ultimately, if the state wants your stuff it will take it. As Carl Schmitt says, it is the sovereign (i.e. in this case the state) that determines the state of exception.
Tim, for what is worth, when I wrote:
“It’s just that I thought I noticed a creeping tendency to somehow wrongly equate capitalism with any sort of trading or market.”
I was not referring to you in particular–otherwise I would have mentioned your name or quoted your words. It was, just as I wrote, that I thought I was noticing such a creeping tendency and, not being well-versed in the issue, I wanted more clarity on this.
Speaking of far provinces…how about Alaska? What kind of capitalism is this? Sarah Palin in this clip ( at about 2.5) describes how ownership of Means of Production is split between the state of Alaska and the oil companies.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/434/video-webex.html
Alaska owns the oil resources, oil co’s have royalities for pulling it out of the ground. She slapped on a new 2.5% tax which the oil co’s didn’t like – not what her predecessors negotiated (echoes of putin’s rejection and reformulation Yeltsin-signed contracts) . She then distributes proceeds from this tax to all Alaskans ; hence no income or sales tax in that state. Tax payers even get big fat checks. Workers (Todd Palin) are happy! Alaskans are happy! Sarah has huge approval rating. Could she make it 5% if she wanted? State appears to have the upper hand in these whenever-she-feels-like-it negotations. Is this socialism or capitalism or Putinism. Could Arnold do this in California? It sounds great! New tax brought Alaska $2B this year .
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/434/video-webex.html
“Plus, if your property is confiscated, you can appeal, not to the sovereign, politician or bureaucrat, but to the law. ”
I’m no expert on this, but wasn’t this actually the case in Rome?
I find the confusion between capitalism and free trade to be more common on the left, where examples of capitalism’s shortfalls are held up as justification for government intervention into a market.
Was Douglass North a liberal? (Maybe, he does teach in Cambridge, Massachusetts after all.)
I think this is more about you attributing anything that you don’t like to “the left”. Multiple cycles of economic crashes from the 1880s to 1920s, followed by decades of relatively stability (until successive generations of Republicans deregulated the markets) proved the worth of “government’s responsibility to ensure a legal and institutional context that is conducive to well-functioning markets.”
Otherwise you have some variant of feudalism, using the term broadly.
My understanding is that feudal society was the basis for capitalisim as we know it today, and formed the foundations of the industrial revolution.
“My understanding is that feudal society was the basis for capitalisim as we know it today, and formed the foundations of the industrial revolution. ”
Sure. It didn’t come from nowhere.
Tess and others, in addition to the oil revenues, there are other reasons for Sarah Palin’s high ratings in Alaska. To understand what her admirers see in her is one of the best ways of getting a sense of what’s behind her popularity. An important task, considering that she may well become a US president. That’s why I’m excerpting here the beginning of a New Yorker piece written by a person who identifies herself with Palin (link for the full piece below). Mind you, I’m not an admirer of Palin, but now I have a better understanding of the special rapport she has with many true Americans.
/////
MY GAL
Explaining how she felt when John McCain offered her the Vice-Presidential spot, my Vice-Presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, said something very profound: “I answered him ‘Yes’ because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.”
Isn’t that so true? I know that many times, in my life, while living it, someone would come up and, because of I had good readiness, in terms of how I was wired, when they asked that—whatever they asked—I would just not blink, because, knowing that, if I did blink, or even wink, that is weakness, therefore you can’t, you just don’t. You could, but no—you aren’t.
That is just how I am.
Do you know the difference between me and a Hockey Mom who has forgot her lipstick?
A dog collar.
Do you know the difference between me and a dog collar smeared with lipstick?
Not a damn thing.
We are essentially wired identical.
So, when Barack Obama says he will put some lipstick on my pig, I am, like, Are you calling me a pig? If so, thanks! Pigs are the most non-Élite of all barnyard animals. And also, if you put lipstick on my pig, do you know what the difference will be between that pig and a pit bull? I’ll tell you: a pit bull can easily kill a pig. And, as the pig dies, guess what the Hockey Mom is doing? Going to her car, putting on more lipstick, so that, upon returning, finding that pig dead, she once again looks identical to that pit bull, which, staying on mission, the two of them step over the dead pig, looking exactly like twins, except the pit bull is scratching his lower ass with one frantic leg, whereas the Hockey Mom is carrying an extra hockey stick in case Todd breaks his again. But both are going, like, Ha ha, where’s that dumb pig now? Dead, that’s who, and also: not a smidge of lipstick.
A lose-lose for the pig.
There’s a lesson in that, I think.
Who does that pig represent, and that collar, and that Hockey Mom, and that pit bull?
You figure it out. Then give me a call.
Seriously, give me a call.
Now, let us discuss the Élites. There are two kinds of folks: Élites and Regulars. Why people love Sarah Palin is, she is a Regular. That is also why they love me. She did not go to some Élite Ivy League college, which I also did not. Her and me, actually, did not go to the very same Ivy League school. Although …
/////
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/09/22/080922sh_shouts_saunders?yrail
Kolya – sounds very much like anger.
I’m shocked that nobody said anything about the 16 tons reference I made last night. When I looked up the lyrics (to get them exactly right) I saw some bit about how the song was popular and adapted in Soviet times, and there is some club in Moscow called 16 tons.
http://www.16tons.ru/rus/home/index.shtml
I really thought one of you would latch onto it, bringing the cultural reference to institutionalized wage slavery and debt bondage into a complete circle that involved both American and Russian culture.
Alas, as usual, my cleverness went unrecognized.
“there is some club in Moscow called 16 tons.”
I’ve been there twice.
He-he. You guys in the States might like this.
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
DEAR AMERICAN:
I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.
I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.
I AM WORKING WITH MR. PHIL GRAMM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY. AS A SENATOR, YOU MAY KNOW HIM AS THE LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S. THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE.
THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED A BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.
PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS.
YOURS FAITHFULLY MINISTER OF TREASURY PAULSON
Yeah, I’ve gotten that spam e-mail like 3 times now.
Would be funnier if it weren’t so true…
Did you all realize that there’s one foreign policy issue with Russia that McCain and Obama agree on? http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/09/a_bipartisan_consensus_on_russ.htm
As much as I’d love to see Misha’s adorable mug not behind bars, I’m pretty sure the fate of Mr. Khodorkovsky is just about the last thing on the American voters’ minds right now. We’re too busy trying to save our own conniving billionaires…
When the middle east becomes a smoking ruined heap, consisting of hardened glass, after the nuclear strikes, Russia will have no one to blame but herself for helping the enemies of the USA. Why do you do it? Can you not see the end game?
Iran will have to be destroyed… Russia too if she doesn\’t wake up.. will y\’all allow China to collect the spoils of the world?
Fools…
http://forum.glavred.info/viewtopic.php?t=4585
photos from Tshinvali and some “stories”…