With around 95% of votes counted, here are the results in terms of seats in the next Duma (for percentages, see previous post, update 3)
- United Russia: 238 seats
- Communist Party: 92 seats
- A Just Russia: 64 seats
- Liberal Democratic Party of Russia: 56 seats
This is what the Western press calls “Voters punish Putin”, “Putin Setback”, “Putin barely hangs on to majority” or “Poor results”. That, and of course, “fraud”, “irregularities”, “marred elections”, etc. etc. etc.
Had this been the USA, the UK, France, or Israel, that would have been called a “landslide victory” and a “strong popular mandate” I suppose.
It’s also amusing to me how they all fixate on Putin, never Medvedev. Heck, even when Medvedev was in power, the Western pundits were insisting that Putin was the “real” ruler of Russia.
No wonder they are called “Presstitutes”…
UPDATE1: Hillary chimes in: she has “serious concerns” about the elections in Russia. Yeah, I betcha she does indeed. With all the pro-US parties failing to even enter the Duma, I can imagine how depressed she must be…
UPDATE2: for a true masterpiece of how to turn black into white and and flip all the fact on their head, check out this amazing Reuters “analysis” in the Jerusalem Post.
Hi Saker
This is an off topic commentary, albeit related with your opinions about the situation of the empire.
It seems to me that a relavant issue in analyzing the future perspectives of the empire depends on which of two bigs economic theories end up being correct in the long term, namely the keinesian or the austrian school.
Oversimplifyng, the Keynesians believe that a monetary sovereign (Like the USA) can create whatever amount of money that it wishes with little consequence. Some famous keynesians, like Krugman, say that for this reason there can be big amounto of monetary stimulus for mantain social security nets. The austrians, on the other hand, believe that fiat money is essentialy a fraud, and the money printing advocate3d by teh keynesians inevitabily leads to hyperinflation and other dire consequences.
Probably you know this issues very well, but I want to ask you what is your take in this debate, because the consequences for the Empire are IMO quite clear. If the austrians got it right, then the bankruptcy of the Empire is almost certain, but if the keynesians got it right, then the situation is not that nice, since the infinite monetary wealth that they believe the sovereign can create, could be directed at whatever goal the elites want. In fact, I think that since at least 9/11 the powers that be got a keynesian attitude for their imperial projects. That is, mountains of money and debt -not for a welfare state advocated for some keynesians in the past, but for the imperial wars-.
I’d like to know your take about this, and more widely about the future of the empire. You have siad before that it is in a long decline, but how long you belive it to be? You think that we will see the fall of the empire or it will be a joy for future generations?
Regards
@Anonymous: For one thing I don’t believe that the choice is “Keynesians vs Austrians”. Also, if there is one thing my MA in International Economics taught me is that any economic school of thought can be justified if you use the correct assumptions. For example, both Marxist economic and “Austrian” economics sound great, if you live in a theoretical words which will never exist. But as soon as these theories crash with reality, they collapse with dire consequences for the poor people who believed in them. Lastly, I don’t believe in any universal theory of economics (or anything else). What is good for one country and time, might not be so good for another. Still, there are a few basic rules I believe in:
a) The state must to protect its weakest citizens against economic hardships.
b) Individuals and families should have the right to own private property.
c) Key, strategic assets and resources should belong to the entire nation and be administered by the state.
d) Banking should be a function of the state and not of private banks.
e) Corporations should be strictly monitored regulated and should be banned from participating in politics.
f) Trade, both domestic and international, should be regulated by the state.
That’s about it. The rest depends on specific circumstances. As for the US Empire, I believe that it is collapsing primarily due to imperial over-extension externally and corporate oligarchic control internally (one man one vote has been replaced by one dollar one vote).
HTH,
The Saker
The problem with free market libertarianism was best summed up by the philosopher Bryan Magee in his book “Confessions of a philosopher”
“The chief reason why I did not go along with the positive programme of the radical right is that the degree of libertarianism that they advocate would create in effect a free for all, and to that I have many objections. In an already advanced technological society most of the population would do quite well out of it, and some would do very well indeed, but many would come off badly. Those who have to cope with serious physical or mental health problems, either in themselves or within their close family; those who are simply no good at jungle warfare, the mild and the meek, or the ineffectual; also the unintelligent, the old and lonely, unmarried mothers with several children, ill-educated immigrants, the unlucky – these and all sorts of other disadvantaged individuals number several million in a country like Britain; and from them would breed an underclass in which crime, drug addiction, disease and slumdom were rife. The provision to them of adequate services in education, health and old age, given their inadequate(often hopelessly inadequate) purchasing power can only too plainly not be achieved by a free market.”
This being so I believe there should be a decent welfare state. Provided a minimum of welfare is in place I am agnostic about what kind of macroeconomic policy should be followed. Policymakers should follow whatever policy makes sense for a given country at a given time and not be dogmatic about it.
The Austrians have been proved right that a market economy will always be more efficient than a communist command economy. The Soviet Union proved that beyond doubt. But having rejected one extreme there is no need to lurch to its opposite and embrace market fundamentalism.
@Robert:
The Austrians have been proved right that a market economy will always be more efficient than a communist command economy.
That is highly debatable. In fact, it depends on what your goal is. Think of it this way, a cancer cell will be far more efficient that a healthy cell (if measured by growth), yet it kills the body. Capitalism is based on infinite growth and yet our planet is finite. So the comparison fully applies, IMHO. Furthermore, we would have to establish whether the communist economy crashed because of its command nature or because of idiotic choices of the Soviet Politburo. Finally, one could argue that the internal contradictions of Marxism have caught up with Marxist countries before the internal contradictions of capitalism have caught up with capitalist countries. Keeping in mind that imperialism is, indeed, the last stage of capitalism, you cloud easily explain why Marxists countries collapsed before capitalists ones did.
None of the above is in any way an apology of Marxism or of the command economy. It is, however, an attempt to show that we should not jump to conclusions without first establishing a LONG LONG list of cause and effects.
As for the “Austrians”, they are at least as disconnected from any reality as the Marxists. For Pete’s sake – as anybody ever seen something called the “free market”?! That is a complete chimera, an impossibility, based on ludicrous assumptions (‘perfect information’ and ‘rational choices’ are a most the worst ones). It is every bit as ridiculous as any type of geology based on the Flat Earth theory – great fun, but utterly impractical.
My 2cts.
I’m certainly not a fan of capitalism either, at least not in its current form. But it does seem unquestionable that the communist economy was incapable of producing the goods and services people wanted compared to the West. Having said thatit’s not impossible that capitalism will hit a terminal crisis just as communism did.
As you say the problem of infinite growth on a finite planet may prove to be the Achilles heel of capitalism. Resources such as oil are finite; indeed the Peak Oil crowd are saying that the point has already been reached where oil will become increasingly scarce and more expensive to extract. The other issue that threatens capitalism is the environmental crisis and global warming. Here’s an article by Naomi Klein about how conservatives and libertarians are in denial about global warming because they see it as a threat to capitalism http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0
As an avid Ron Paul supporter, I lean towards the Austrians, though Robert’s point’s are quite valid.
Keynesian-ism is a total sham. In effect that the government can create wealth by hiring people to dig a ditch, then hiring others to fill it up. That creating debt would never cause a problem, and that if it does, the solution is more debt.
Also, debt (IOUs) can be traded about as if they were money. That, along with fractional reserve banking is a recipe fro disaster.
The Austrian idea of “sound money” meaning a currency that cannot be manipulated by a central bank, or printed out of thin air, is a very stable and efficient system.
And while Austrians are not fans of massive social spending, you can have programs to care for the poor within an Austrian system. You just have to pay for it as you go and not print it as Keynes would.
Even Ron Paul said he would preserve Social Security and Medicare. His point was that we have to have money for it. Meaning, you have to cut something else. Namely ending foreign wars and closing various departments. Seems eminently sensible to me.
In answer to the OP, I would say that the collapse will come due to imperial overstretch, as Saker said, along with the need for the government to bail out the banking industry at the expense of the rest of us.
@robert: But it does seem unquestionable that the communist economy was incapable of producing the goods and services people wanted compared to the West.
Well, when communism has to compete in all sectors against a capitalist system I agree that the communist system is unable to produce to goods and services the people want, assuming want as much as the capitalists produce. In other words, I agree that capitalism provides a stronger, much more dynamic, growth mechanism. The issue is a) whether this is desirable and b) whether communism can exist in only one (or a few) countries. Trotsky seemed to think that no, Stalin that yes. I say the latter was proved wrong, but the jury is still out on the former. What would worldwide communism look in terms of economics? Assuming universal health care, zero spent on war, “to each according to his need from each according to his ability”, etc. etc. etc. I am NOT, repeat, NOT, saying that this is possible, or even desirable. ALL I am saying that this model has never been disproved, that we don’t know how such a system would perform in terms of providing goods and services.
But yes, our resources are finite which, I would argue, pretty much tells us that we need some form of economic management. Not necessarily a Marxist one, but some form of “command economy” has to be implemented in order to match the growth and the resources.
Another issue to ponder here is the one of freedom. I personally believe that BOTH Marxism and capitalism depend on crushing the freedom of most people. In other words, besides providing goods and services, we need an economic system which not only does not trample upon our freedoms, but one which fosters it. At the very least, we ought to strive towards such a system, even if it is unclear how we can really achieve that.
Lastly, Marxism and capitalism have totally failed to address the spiritual needs of people. Both produce a deeply alienated population, cynical, disgusted and mostly dejected. I strongly believe that any economic system has to be a subset of a larger, spiritual “container”. But this is, I suppose, another topics (besides, the secularist-Gestapo which sometimes goes berserk when I mention this type of topics will probably have a fit at this and I really don’t feel like arguing with them again).
My, oh, maybe 3cts this time :-)
@Lysander: I also like Ron Paul a lot. He is the only politician I actually sent money to (a modest 100 bucks). I really like the man and I fully agree with his foreign policy. And I fully support the dismantling of the Fed. But the rest of his economics are, IMHO, absolute nonsense, a no starter even. I think you and I will have to disagree here as I am most definitely what the libertarians call a ‘statist’. In fact, I am a BIG TIME statist as I consider the state the ONLY means to preserve democracy, freedom and the sovereignty of the people over their country.
But good friends can sometimes disagree, right?
Kind regards,
The Saker
Saker,
That’s a very minor disagreement.
Totally off topic, but I’m taking my guitar play in a new direction. Basically learning to play classic rock favorites in classical guitar style. It’s very hard (for me, anyway) but much more enjoyable than learning normal rock guitar. A Led Zep solo is awesome, but played in isolation without base, drums and vocals, it’s a bit sterile. And it’s too late to be part of a band.
Google a guitarist by the name of Edgar Cruz. He does a wonderful arrangement of Bohemian Rhapsody and some other Queen titles. I purchased his DVD and have been practicing for the last month. I estimate it will take about another 6 months to a year to learn it well.
Funny that they are complaining about vote fraud when international observers are praising how the election process is taking place.
Foreign experts laud Russia elections
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/12/05/61568822.html
Central Elections Commission did a great job, ACEEEO monitor says
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/12/05/61580997.html
Foreign observers consider Russian elections legitimate
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/12/05/61585184.html
The electronic vote system used in the US which was manipulated to give Bush a lead in Florida in 2000 also had a similar controversy in Mexico which Greg Palast covered for Democracy Now.
Not that western observers are worth a damn anyway as the CIA/Soros and EU institutions like Belarus, China, Venezuela and Serbia finance all opposition parties, alternative media, NGO’s, etc in Russia most of which are targeted towards minority ethnic groups which are historically hostile to Russia.
In the 96 elections in Russia the OSCE and international observers helped fake election results to bring Yeltsin into power for a second term through the work of a Belarussian PR man and basically gave Berezovsky and the Oligarchs and foreign powers total control of the Kremlin and in Serbia Otpor activists burned ballots of voting stations were Milosevic was leading in the vote.
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=14536&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1
http://www.network54.com/Forum/84302/thread/1016402697/HOW+THE+US+BOUGHT+YELTSIN%27S+ELECTION
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984833,00.html
The top financial contributors to both Republican and Democratic parties were the exact same international banks like Goldman Sachs who place their men into financial advisors no matter what the administration.
As for United Russia’s decreased majority in the polls it is probably due to Medvedev aligning himself with these British assets like Kudrin who were responsible for helping initiated Soros shock therapy economics policy and going along a pro-western route until Putin finally focused on Eurasian development and got rid of this City of London asset Kudrin.
All they need to do now is get rid of the Goldman Sachs BRIC trap.
Off topic but FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has recently wrote some good articles recently highlighting US-NATO-Chechen terrorist cooperation in the North Caucasus.
FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds: US directly supported Chechen terror groups between 96-2001
http://youtu.be/dfG77p8_gSs?t=6m22s
Why no US-Turkish diplomatic cables between 96-2001
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/11/28/bfp-exclusive-revisiting-my-silence-on-wikileaks/#more-8983
BFP Exclusive: US-NATO-Chechen Militia Joint Operations Base
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/11/22/bfp-exclusive-us-nato-chechen-militia-joint-operations-base/
Edmonds talks to Corbett about her US-Chechen-NATO article
http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-422-sibel-edmonds/
@Lysander: And it’s too late to be part of a band.
Oh but there is an easy and wonderful solution here: record yourself playing the chords and play the solos over it (you can even re-record that and mix it to listen to it later). The acoustic guitar is ideally suited for that kind of stuff. I did that for years. Also, consider beginning playing jazz guitar, in particular acoustic jazz. One of the most amazing jazz guitarists is a Belgian guy called Philip Catherine. Here is the first song of his which made me switch from rock guitar to jazz:
HOMECOMINGS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2NBIA–GSI
here he decodes his tune:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhHGfAI7fgs
here is an acoustic version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZorE7r5jaM
Also, check out these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiHc7ibMrus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3RJ-eGMKIo
Check out this due of Catherine with Larry Coryell: (same version of Homecomings, but with Nuages and Autumn Leaves added to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLLq5OE7Swg
Then there is John McLaughlin and one of the most beautiful tunes I ever heard, Lotus Feet. Here is the (now ancient) original version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhE-LXGOCmE
Here is a much better, recent one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOR0VxDo6sk
Also, check out this other amazing tune by Catherine, called “Twice a Week”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFQIFOUxA9U#
Lastly, check out Gypsy/Manouche guitar music. Here is a famous tune entitled “Les Yeux Noirs”, from the Russian song “Ochi Chernye”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZey9fRiH4w
The solos are hard, but the basic harmony is easy!
HTH
@Lysander: one more thing. When I began jazz guitar all I had was either analog tapes or, even worse, 33LPs. Now you have fantastic tools which you can use to decode music. If, as I sure hope, you are using GNU/Linux or a version of BSD, you can use this great little application: “Play it slowly”:
http://29a.ch/playitslowly/
It allows you to slow down a tune, but without loosing pitch!!
To record yourself, check out Audacity:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
(that one even has a Windoze and OSX version)
Anyway, these are just two small examples of how a computer can REALLY help you.
Cheers!
@Lysander: I have just listened to Edgar Cruz and his arrangements (and interpretation) are very good. His technique, however, is pure classical which is a universe away of how I play. I did 5 years of classical as a kid, but my technique then changed totally and was mostly influenced by John McLaughlin’s. But I like this stuff, so thanks for the pointer.
thanks for checking it out, Saker. Jazz is great and I actually saw Larry Coryel in concert a few years ago. Philip Catherine is very enjoyable. But jazz chords are freaky. It’s hard enough doing the chords on Bohemian Rhapsody, and they’re probably pretty basic for classical. Once I get this down, maybe I’ll move on to Jazz.
Flamenco sounds awesome too.
@Lysander:Coryell story is amazing. The guy was totally hooked on coke and booze and it took him years to get out of it, but now he is clearly a happy man.
Jazz chords are not that hard actually. The big difference is that in most rock music you have three notes (base, third, fifth) whereas jazz like to add one (seventh) or even two (11th and 13th). A ‘do’ played in rock is mostly do, mi, sol, while in jazz you will often hear do, mi, sol, si (major 7th chord). But that is far from freaky, really.
As for flamenco, it is fantastic and it is the basis for it all (well, the oud is, of course). The one huge problem with flamenco is that the techniques are *TOTALLY* different from any other guitar playing. Flamenco – that is freaky, if you ask me :-)
Cheers!
Assumptions may functionally determine a winner in a economics tournament, Keynes or Austrian or Marxism, but sometimes a real world experiment sheds some light and makes the discussion less academic. For example, when socialism, practically implemented, showed us some aspects of the debate over economic philosophy that illuminated the comparison. Now we are about to enter a similar comparison regarding following Keynes to the end of the cliff. Can we simply print money to cure recession or depression, or is the risk of hyper-inflation real? We can either bail out the banksters, as Keynesians want to us to do to “prevent a meltdown of the global economic system” and inflate our way out of the debt, OR let if fall and keep the money sound as the Austrians want to do. We have decided in the west to let the Kaynesians have their turn at bat, like the socialists in the USSR and China had theirs, and we shall add an important data point to the comparison of economic systems, one way or the other. Sometimes, it not all accademic, assumptions->economic system tournament winner. Sometimes we get a real world data point.