"crony capitalism" as a better alternate?

According to many socialists, Russia is a far superior country to the US and other mixed economies. I ask this question: why is a country that cant even achieve a decent standard of living to its people a better country than the US and when the economy is the antithesis of socialism? Can someone explain this to me....? "Capitalism is bad, but the worst form of capitalism is good because that's how Russia is and I like Russia"

calinis wrote:

According to many socialists, Russia is a far superior country to the US and other mixed economies. I ask this question: why is a country that cant even achieve a decent standard of living to its people a better country than the US and when the economy is the antithesis of socialism? Can someone explain this to me....? "Capitalism is bad, but the worst form of capitalism is good because that's how Russia is and I like Russia"

Good living standards are subjective.
Russia is "the rogue empire".
Russia has a superior cultural level.
Russia hasn't been able to get completely rid of the phantoms of the USSR.

I'm personally of Russian ancestry and love Russian culture and the country itself.

Better, superlative of good is subjective. What is good for you maybe probably not good for me and vice versa.

"In the case of Russia, the term implies that between the president and the country's business leaders - known as the "oligarchs" - there emerged a tacit understanding. If the oligarchs used their economic power to supply political and financial support for the president, in return they would be allowed to influence for their own benefit the formulation of laws and restrictions on a range of important matters."

This doesn't sound all that good, does it?

But of course your blind chauvinism will disregard facts....

So what is that you hate about capitalism in the US and like about capitalism in Russia?

calinis wrote:

"In the case of Russia, the term implies that between the president and the country's business leaders - known as the "oligarchs" - there emerged a tacit understanding. If the oligarchs used their economic power to supply political and financial support for the president, in return they would be allowed to influence for their own benefit the formulation of laws and restrictions on a range of important matters."

This doesn't sound all that good, does it?

But of course your blind chauvinism will disregard facts....

Of course like when Khodorkovskiy got Yukos expropriated. Indeed.

calinis wrote:

So what is that you hate about capitalism in the US and like about capitalism in Russia?

I don't like capitalism in Russia of course, but I wouldn't expect that your limited intelligence would allow you to understand it even if I explained it to you a 100 times.

No one is saying here Russia is perfect. I'm just saying that even beeing capitalism Russia is better than US and Western Europe. I gave you a least of personal reasons you're supposed to read and which should serve as a reply to your question..

"A prominent example is that of insider dealings in the process of privatization, which, for example, allowed the transfer of major oil companies into private hands at extremely low prices. Another is the introduction of a system of "authorized banks," whereby a few select commercial banks were allowed to handle the government's accounts. Such rights could be abused: for example, by delaying the processing of payments received. Under conditions of high inflation, the real value eventually passed on to the final destination would be greatly diminished. There have also been serious allegations of insider dealings by the cronies in Russian government securities."

This enclyopedia says otherwise.

Your personal reasons for liking Russia's capitalism are plagued with obvious bias. I want reasons without bias why Russia has a better economy than the US.

Superior culture level is subjective and has no relavence to the economy.

I'm talking about a comparison of capitalism between the US and Russia and you haven't offered any facts why Russia's economy is better than the US. What is better- crony capitalism or a mixed economy?

calinis wrote:

"A prominent example is that of insider dealings in the process of privatization, which, for example, allowed the transfer of major oil companies into private hands at extremely low prices. Another is the introduction of a system of "authorized banks," whereby a few select commercial banks were allowed to handle the government's accounts. Such rights could be abused: for example, by delaying the processing of payments received. Under conditions of high inflation, the real value eventually passed on to the final destination would be greatly diminished. There have also been serious allegations of insider dealings by the cronies in Russian government securities."

This enclyopedia says otherwise.

Regardding to Khodorkovskiy's case? If you really think so, then for a native speaker of English you have a very poor reading comprehension.

About privatization... ehm... when did I deny it?

calinis wrote:

Your personal reasons for liking Russia's capitalism are plagued with obvious bias.

And your strawman phallacies are plagued with plain stupidity and immaturity.

You prove my point that even if I explained a hundread times that I don't li ke Russia's capitalism you wouldn't understand.

calinis wrote:

I want reasons without bias why Russia has a better economy than the US.

Since Russia's capitalism is not imperialistic, is much less influential and is less developed than USA's, while unacceptable, is "the lesser of two evils".

calinis wrote:

Superior culture level is subjective and has no relavence to the economy.

Hey silly boy, where do I say Russia has a superior cultural level that impacts economy?

calinis wrote:

I'm talking about a comparison of capitalism between the US and Russia and you haven't offered any facts why Russia's economy is better than the US. What is better- crony capitalism or a mixed economy?

Read above in this post.

Now, about my previous posts. They're a reply to your question on "why do some people consider Russia a better country than USA and other mixed economies". [adressing Russia as being a superior country in contrast to other mixed economies you're automatically adressing countries with mixed economies and not the mixed economies themselves]

Quote :

Regardding to Khodorkovskiy\'s case? If you really think so, then for a native speaker of English you have a very poor reading comprehension.

People get arrested in the US for fraud and money laundering all the time.
I dont know about that guy, just briefly looked him up. So one time there wasintegrity issue and the guy\'s company got seized, that doesnt mean oligarchs aren\'t common in Russian society.

Quote :

You prove my point that even if I explained a hundread times that I don\'t li ke Russia\'s capitalism you wouldn\'t understand.

You said the reasons you like Russia are....and I could only infer that you liking Russia implies you like the economic system.

Quote :

Since Russia\'s capitalism is not imperialistic, is much less influential and is less developed than USA\'s, while unacceptable, is \"the lesser of two evils

Russia\'s imperalist.

Quote :

Hey silly boy, where do I say Russia has a superior cultural level that impacts economy?

Since I\'m not talking about culture, I dont know why you brought it up?

Quote :

Now, about my previous posts. They\'re a reply to your question on \"why do some people consider Russia a better country than USA and other mixed economies\". [adressing Russia as being a superior country in contrast to other mixed economies you\'re automatically adressing countries with mixed economies and not the mixed economies themselves

Since the economic ystem has a huge infleunce on one\'s live (there is a dramatic quality of life in market economies compared to command economies), it is worth keeping note how the economic system effects people.

calinis wrote:

People get arrested in the US for fraud and money laundering all the time.
I dont know about that guy, just briefly looked him up. So one time there wasintegrity issue and the guy's company got seized, that doesnt mean oligarchs aren't common in Russian society.

Who said they're uncommon? I just said they don't have the upper hand. If they go against the government they get screwed.

calinis wrote:

You said the reasons you like Russia are....and I could only infer that you liking Russia implies you like the economic system.

Another point agaisnt your comprehension capabilities.

calinis wrote:

Russia's imperalist.

And you saying so makes it fact? Wrong, Billo Jr.

Russia hasn't got dominated a single country in any aspect. Whee's her imperialism?

calinis wrote:

Since I'm not talking about culture, I dont know why you brought it up?

You asked why people like me like Russia, I gave a personal reply.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Russia hasn't got dominated a single country in any aspect. Whee's her imperialism?

Finland,Poland and other eastern countries that suppoed to be "free'd" from the nazi's.

Quote :

Who said they're uncommon? I just said they don't have the upper hand. If they go against the government they get screwed.

Same thing happens in the US. Why would the FBI investigate the Enron scandel otherwise? The US is not dominated by capitalism and corporations do not infleunce society. So why is Russia better in that respect?

Quote :

Another point agaisnt your comprehension capabilities.

Why do you hate the US? Because of capitalism? Yet you love Russia, it's capitalist.

Quote :

Russia hasn't got dominated a single country in any aspect. Whee's her imperialism?

All the other countries that were part of the Soviet Union.

Quote :

You asked why people like me like Russia, I gave a personal reply.

And never mentioned the economy.

Quote :

Finland,Poland and other eastern countries that suppoed to be "free'd" from the nazi's.

Good point. That was hardly liberating them, but heavily creating the Soviet dominance. While the US did free form countries from nazi occupation, all of western europe. What did the Soviets do? Create a bigger sphere of infleunce? That's not imperalism?

CoolKidX wrote:

Finland,

Wasn't dominated, check your facts.

CoolKidX wrote:

Poland and other eastern countries that suppoed to be "free'd" from the nazi's.

Poland is the main case and probably Czechoslovakia too. But the others sided with the nazis so I could argue that they were paying for siding with them.

Else, they were not exploited nor Russian culture was imposed over them nor were they annexed, so it's not imperialism. And they didn't claim independence from USSR because... they were not part of USSR!

Ah... and something very important. We're talking about Russia not USSR. Don't confuse.

calinis wrote:

Same thing happens in the US. Why would the FBI investigate the Enron scandel otherwise? The US is not dominated by capitalism and corporations do not infleunce society. So why is Russia better in that respect?

In USA the capital does domain absolutely politics enron was merely a fly among giants, the giants that pull the strings.

Anyway, why is Russia better in that respect? Oligarchs are not allowed to sell their assets to foreigners giving a mediocre deffense to Russia. Mediocre but not unexistant.

calinis wrote:

Why do you hate the US? Because of capitalism? Yet you love Russia, it's capitalist.

I don't hate the USA, I hate is position as a capitalist empire and as the beacon of capitalist culture. I love Russia for many reasons, and, if you were able to understand your own language you'd be able to realize that I hate the fact that Russia has capitalism.

calinis wrote:

All the other countries that were part of the Soviet Union.

Like Estonia, Lituania, Latvia and Georgia? Sure.

calinis wrote:

And never mentioned the economy.

I did. You could try reading. But in case you missed it and are too lazy to scroll, here it goes again: I hate capitalism in Russia, but, since Russia's capitalism is not imperialist and is much less developed than EU's or USA's it is more tolerable. Else it is more fragile which makes it far better.

calinis wrote:

Good point. That was hardly liberating them, but heavily creating the Soviet dominance. While the US did free form countries from nazi occupation, all of western europe. What did the Soviets do? Create a bigger sphere of infleunce? That's not imperalism?

Like Europe wasn't exploited and dominated politically by US... Like I said USSR didn't exploit eastern european countries so no imperialism.

And don't go off-topic this is not about USSR but Russia.

Don't wnna interupt your conv. with callanis but when i mean Russia in the old times i mean USSR but just type Russia.

And if these countries were sideing with Nazi germany is that a good reason to stay there for 40 years O>O?

CoolKidX wrote:

Don't wnna interupt your conv. with callanis but when i mean Russia in the old times i mean USSR but just type Russia.

Which is absolutely wrong Mr. Spanish.

CoolKidX wrote:

And if these countries were sideing with Nazi germany is that a good reason to stay there for 40 years O>O?

I could argue this: "How would I know they won't side with my eneies again?"

Quote :

Else, they were not exploited nor Russian culture was imposed over them nor were they annexed, so it's not imperialism.

But...but they had to live under crappy communism. You even say the countries of Eastern europe were not communist, so why is it okay for them to live under this system?

Quote :

In USA the capital does domain absolutely politics

But big buisnesses do not have political power

Quote :

Like Estonia, Lituania, Latvia and Georgia? Sure.

Yes.

Quote :

Like Europe wasn't exploited and dominated politically by US... Like I said USSR didn't exploit eastern european countries so no imperialism.

Actually they did. Tell that to my neighbour who lived in Romania during the evil communist dictator's reign (dont remember his name). had Romania not have been communist (influenced from the USSR), my neighbour would not have suffered and same with everyone else living there.

I like Russia just cus i like russia, I dont like its government very much, and the soviet union seldom played the good guy in my opinion. I am in the the US a bit, but its culture doesn't captivate me very much, though i do like the "old west" stuff.

calinis wrote:

But...but they had to live under crappy communism. You even say the countries of Eastern europe were not communist, so why is it okay for them to live under this system?

Happens there was no communism so your arguement has nil value.

calinis wrote:

But big buisnesses do not have political power

Sure, because they don't have the least influence. They're just fountains of money.

calinis wrote:

Yes.

Why don't you get informed and learn they're not dominated by Russia?

calinis wrote:

Actually they did. Tell that to my neighbour who lived in Romania during the evil communist dictator's reign (dont remember his name).

Caucescu you mean. And no, no communism there so again your arguement is nil.

Else, in the very specific case of Romania, Caucescu was pretty distanced from the USSR.

calinis wrote:

had Romania not have been communist (influenced from the USSR), my neighbour would not have suffered and same with everyone else living there.

Continuing with the nulity of your arguement... Also, I ust inform you that this does not adress my point.

Quote :

Happens there was no communism so your arguement has nil value.

I'm saying that those people shouldn't have had to lived under that system, whatever it was, it was worse than the US. I'd rather live in western europe than eastern europe at that time. Why was the USSR justified in aserting it's dominance?

Quote :

Sure, because they don't have the least influence. They're just fountains of money.

If you mean politicans take bribes, it happens all the time in politics and not just in the US. What comes to mind is the USSR.

Quote :

Else, in the very specific case of Romania, Caucescu was pretty distanced from the USSR.

Would he have come to power if the USSR didn't "liberate" them?

calinis wrote:

I'm saying that those people shouldn't have had to lived under that system, whatever it was, it was worse than the US.

In your view, in my view it was superior to USA's except for its unstability and contradictory natures which nonetheless could have been easily changed.

calinis wrote:

I'd rather live in western europe than eastern europe at that time.

You. I'd prefer the other way around.

calinis wrote:

Why was the USSR justified in aserting it's dominance?

In the case of Poland and Czechoslovakia, by no means. The rest sided with Nazi Germany. There was a Cold War and USSR needed buffers.

Anyway I'm sure Eastern Europeans would have assumed a good attitude towards USSR if USSR had just freed them and gone. The problem is they most probably would have got weak US-leaning governments.

calinis wrote:

If you mean politicans take bribes, it happens all the time in politics and not just in the US.

Nah, I'm not talking about bribes. They're irrelevant actually.

calinis wrote:

What comes to mind is the USSR.

Except you don't bribe the owner of the business.

calinis wrote:

Would he have come to power if the USSR didn't "liberate" them?

Most probably not, which doesn't mean there would have been a better one.

Quote :

In your view, in my view it was superior to USA's except for its unstability and contradictory natures which nonetheless could have been easily changed.

I've always wanted to wait in long lines for toliet paper.

Why weren't these "[unstable] and contradictory natures" changed if they have easily been? Perhaps because people want power?

Quote :

There was a Cold War and USSR needed buffers.

Nah, it was just Stalin wanting to have a great Soviet empire. His paranoia brought on the cold war.

Quote :

The problem is they most probably would have got weak US-leaning governments.

The economically powerful nations of western europe are weak?

calinis wrote:

I've always wanted to wait in long lines for toliet paper.

Go and beat the meat over the idea of doing so.

It's so stupid how you always come with that when it was not a common nor permanent scenary in those countries.

calinis wrote:

Why weren't these "[unstable] and contradictory natures" changed if they have easily been? Perhaps because people want power?

Because of stupidity.

calinis wrote:

Nah, it was just Stalin wanting to have a great Soviet empire. His paranoia brought on the cold war.

Yeah sure, there's not a majour symbol of Imperial greatness to have an army stationed in little european countries while taking deffensive measures against a hostile world.

You don't seem to have a clue on what the cold war consisted of and much less count with antecedents...

You're becoming boring by the way.

Quote :

The problem is they most probably would have got weak US-leaning governments.

The economically powerful nations of western europe are weak?[/quote]

Quote :

It's so stupid how you always come with that when it was not a common nor permanent scenary in those countries.

According to my economics prof, you're wrong. He heavily critized command economies with evidence.

Quote :

Because of stupidity.

You can assure this wont happen again, right?

Quote :

Yeah sure, there's not a majour symbol of Imperial greatness to have an army stationed in little european countries while taking deffensive measures against a hostile world.

He wanted to conquer all of europe, fyi. Him taking on all these countries would ineviotably lead to hostility.

Quote :

You're becoming boring by the way.

I care?

calinis wrote:

According to my economics prof, you're wrong. He heavily critized command economies with evidence.

Whilst several inhabitants of those countries would disagree.

calinis wrote:

You can assure this wont happen again, right?

Of course.

calinis wrote:

He wanted to conquer all of europe, fyi. Him taking on all these countries would ineviotably lead to hostility.

Yeah, of course. USSR conquered nothing actually.

calinis wrote:

I care?

You better do if you want to keep posting.

Quote :

Of course.

How so?

Quote :

Yeah, of course. USSR conquered nothing actually.

Remember it took control of eastern europe. I dont think the people living there were too keen of that.

Quote :

You better do if you want to keep posting.

You're going to ban me for being boring?

this is random, but it is spamistan

I think we should be called USzers
not user but like us-r.


just a random thought when I was half asleep.