Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

[dcarrigg]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

As someone who has lived and worked in a Central Asia Republic, I will suggest a good dollop of caution in that forecast. 70 years of Soviet influence did considerable harm to its Central Asian satellite states. One family rule (unless ousted by another family in a coup, a la Kyrgyzstan), pervasive corruption imbedded in the national DNA, structurally hopeless economies where reforms are impossible as they threaten the entrenched crony interests, absent work ethic, a complete lack of trust in government agencies including the police are but a few of my observations from my time there.

Comparisons with the USA in this respect are facile. People in China, Russia and the Central Asian Republics are trying to get out. To get to the UK or the USA is the highest hope for many. Finding a job in the Persian Gulf is the alternative for many others, especially young professionals. I don't see too many trying to migrate the other direction.

If indeed your 5-10 year forecast is correct it will mean the most privileged in China, the most privileged in Russia and the Ruling Families in the Central Asian Republics have carved up the pie. Sort of like how they cut up the cash in one of those Edward G. Robinson gangster movies. And the mass of citizens are even more wretchedly impoverished than they are today. Unless they get out.

I don't know. Don't have very good anecdotes. Just what the data says and what I can see through the tubes.

What was Russia's real per capita GDP in 1999? Something like $1,500? What was it last year? Something like $15,000? There's a reason why the strongmen come with a certain popularity. And when you get a 10-fold increase in 15 years, taking a hit back down to $8,000 isn't so bad. That's where you were 4 years ago.

I admit, some of the more bizarre of strongmen like Turkmenbashi were stone-cold nuts.

But I imagine this is why they want Moscow to police the the thing. Keeps everyone in line. Makes sure it works.

I mean, if they're really going forward with plowing through a huge new highway/passenger rail/freight system with all the trimmings and then some, it's not going to be worth a damn if the Central Asian Republics keep their borders so closed and their visas so nonsensically difficult etc.

I suppose that's another reason to get Moscow involved. If the EEU standards require you can travel overland from Beijing to Rotterdam through Almaty, Bishkek and Moscow relatively freely, at least without visas, that changes things up somewhat.

All I know is the People's Daily seems hell-bent on making it happen, which means the CCP is hell-bent on making it happen, and they have the cash and the industry and the state-owned enterprises to do it. Meanwhile, Moscow seems hell bent on putting Humpty Dumpty together again. They want a single-currency Eurasian Economic Union. This gives them some outside pressure to make it happen on a timetable. Beijing's pissed at Washington for the TPP. Moscow's pissed at Washington for the sanctions. And they finally decided to work together.

But let me be clearer about what I see China getting out of this. China gets to send it's giant construction machine off doing stuff in other places instead of letting it rot and letting so many go unemployed. Hopefully, in the long term, it gets expanded access to markets to dump overproduction. That's what it gets.

Moscow gets the legal/monetary integration with Central Asia. At least with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The others may never join. They'll pull in Armenia from the caucuses and Belarus too while they're at it. Maybe they get their new free trade deal with Vietnam they've been working on. But you know, all the king's horses...

But, this doesn't mean that in a decade they won't have driven the infrastructure through and established a common super-ruble and travel and trade protocol. I'm not expecting this to be come kind of panacea. I don't think free trade is ever a panacea. And of course the billionaires will be making all the cash and GINI will keep getting worse. This is true of every nation on earth...

[gwynedd1]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

When empires become expensive they are usually ditched. The British brought stability to India while exploiting the natural resources so it wasn't always an "expensive occupation". Ditto for Kenya and most assuredly South Africa.

That's is a logical fallacy. India was profitable regardless of the form of occupation. The form of occupation was still the more expensive form, a military garrison form of occupation which can still be profitable . It astonishing that you failed to note the not too socialist British empire fell apart as well. India is entirely lost. Yet Britain still cooperates with its old colonies like Australia, Canada and the US , proving my point in spades. Had the Soviets been so called capitalists, I am not convinced it would not have fallen apart like all the other empires did.

The Soviet Union fell apart because communism is based upon faulty economic theorems and a ridiculous view of human nature. Add to that the fact that everyone in power lied about the true state of affairs. (Sounds like our political elites of today, doesn't it?)

Communism fell apart in the first 9 months. War communism replaced it which is just another name for an authoritarian run empire. People could not move where they liked. They were lied to and imprisioned. They slaughtered many of their educated populace which does cause lingering problems. Information was controlled. None of that is communism or socialism. They did it because thats how you run an empire.

Get a copy of Age of Delirium by David Satter. He lived there six years in the late 1970s and early 1980s and knew what life was like in the Soviet State. It's an eye-opener to the insanity of the economic system that liars like Walter Duranty saw as leading to a glorious future.

I know about a hundred ex-Soviets personally, so I think I will pas on the book. It was no mere economic system. David Satter is hardly an name to inspire me. The people that told me about the Soviets had names like Serge, Arkady , Svetlana, Slava, Lubov, Demitri, Alexei. I have drunk Kvas on the quad of Soviet architecture. I have ridden on their trams and merto. One thing I do know about Americans is their ratio of actual first hand knowledge to the strength of their opinion is rather dubious.

One anecdote from someone I know from Kirghiz told me of those that made any money from their own enterprises. Any wealth that was accumulated was considered suspicious. That is if you made extra money selling honey from your own beehive , it would attract bureaucrats and one would have to prove it was not from corruption. Again, where is the actual theoretical socialism here? Where is this brand of socialism in Finland?

It is indeed. And Russia has enough problems carried over from their glorious socialist past, a near non-existent work ethic for one. (And I wonder how long before we'll be in a similar boat thanks to the rape of the Middle Class by banksters and the government they own, handing out unemployment checks instead of facilitating growth in real employment through structural change.)

I have seen a lot change in just 10 years. I still don't know where they plan to put all the cars, but I think they will need some parking garage high rises rather soon.

[Raz]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

That's is a logical fallacy. India was profitable regardless of the form of occupation. The form of occupation was still the more expensive form, a military garrison form of occupation which can still be profitable . It astonishing that you failed to note the not too socialist British empire fell apart as well. India is entirely lost. Yet Britain still cooperates with its old colonies like Australia, Canada and the US , proving my point in spades. Had the Soviets been so called capitalists, I am not convinced it would not have fallen apart like all the other empires did.

Let me begin by saying that whatever I said that so angered you was unintentional and I apologize forthwith.
From the tone of your reply one would wonder if I had given you the finger in my original post.


“Logical fallacy"? I believe I said it wasn’t always an expensive occupation, so what are you refuting?

The form of occupation in India was the least expensive form that could possibly be had. The British Indian Army from 1903 to 1938 cost the government of the UK practically nothing and was funded by revenues from India proper. It was really only with the invasion of China by Japan in 1937 that the crown decided to modernize the BIA with updated weaponry and the expense of that was held in check by reducing the total numbers of men under arms. Although the British had earlier used the BIA in Afghanistan and Burma it was only in 1923 that the UK agreed to bear the full cost of supply and salary should the BIA be sent to fight outside the borders of India. (Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, pp. 88-89. I have a copy and have read it several times.).

It is “astonishing” that you didn’t mention what actually brought about the financial wreck of the UK government and the concurrent loss of its empire: World War I. Act II of this same war (1939-45) finished it off.

As corrupt as the soviets were I would tend to agree that capitalism under such governance would have likely collapsed, but communism only brought about the collapse sooner. The LTV (Labor Theory of Value) is not correct, certainly not as Adam Smith propounded it. Marx came up with a better, more nuanced form but it remains fallacious. And the communist theoreticians’ idea of Homo Sovieticus is practically insane as it sees human nature to be perfectable through education and environment. If so, then why are some of the "best and brightest" nothing less than white collar criminals who are willing to grind others under their heel?

Communism fell apart in the first 9 months. War communism replaced it which is just another name for an authoritarian run empire. People could not move where they liked. They were lied to and imprisioned. They slaughtered many of their educated populace which does cause lingering problems. Information was controlled. None of that is communism or socialism. They did it because thats how you run an empire.

Technically you are correct: what they had was Leninism. But Communism in practice is a pseudo-theocracy that allows no dissent because that is the only way it can be enforced. There are two ways to generate capital: through the incentive of gain combined with a disciplined willingness to defer consumption, or by the point of a bayonet.


ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and distributes the milk to the poor.


Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both of your cows but gives you a ration of milk.


Nazism: You have two cows. The government takes both of your cows and shoots you.


Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

I know about a hundred ex-Soviets personally, so I think I will pas on the book. It was no mere economic system. David Satter is hardly an name to inspire me. The people that told me about the Soviets had names like Serge, Arkady , Svetlana, Slava, Lubov, Demitri, Alexei. I have drunk Kvas on the quad of Soviet architecture. I have ridden on their trams and merto. One thing I do know about Americans is their ratio of actual first hand knowledge to the strength of their opinion is rather dubious.

Well I can play the “I know ex-soviets” game, too. I was a host parent for two young Russians in university near my home: Denis Alexandrovitch from Lipetsk and Dmitriy Vladimirovich from Ryazan. I also belong to a parish where I’ve personally known about twenty Russians and Ukrainians and one Moldavian who now live here or went to university here. One is a professor of physics who served in the Soviet Army in Afghanistan and is a close friend as I’m godparent to his youngest son; another is an engineer who did the same. The others vary in age from forty to seventy and in occupation from CPAs to chemistry professors to professional military officers. Six of the aforementioned are personal friends and have spent many hours in my home eating dinner and discussing life and work experiences.

And what exactly is your beef with David Satter? He’s rated highly by sources as disparate as The Guardian and the Hudson Institute.
And why the pointed insult about “lack of firsthand knowledge” when you knew absolutely nothing of my “firsthand knowledge”?
Nothing personal, gwynedd1, and no insult intended, but if you didn’t live in the Soviet Union for more than six years I believe I’ll take Satter’s “first hand knowledge” over yours.

One anecdote from someone I know from Kirghiz told me of those that made any money from their own enterprises. Any wealth that was accumulated was considered suspicious. That is if you made extra money selling honey from your own beehive , it would attract bureaucrats and one would have to prove it was not from corruption. Again, where is the actual theoretical socialism here? Where is this brand of socialism in Finland?

I believe I used the word Communism, so why the straw man?

[GRG55]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

I don't know. Don't have very good anecdotes. Just what the data says and what I can see through the tubes.

What was Russia's real per capita GDP in 1999? Something like $1,500? What was it last year? Something like $15,000? There's a reason why the strongmen come with a certain popularity. And when you get a 10-fold increase in 15 years, taking a hit back down to $8,000 isn't so bad. That's where you were 4 years ago.

I admit, some of the more bizarre of strongmen like Turkmenbashi were stone-cold nuts.

But I imagine this is why they want Moscow to police the the thing. Keeps everyone in line. Makes sure it works.

I mean, if they're really going forward with plowing through a huge new highway/passenger rail/freight system with all the trimmings and then some, it's not going to be worth a damn if the Central Asian Republics keep their borders so closed and their visas so nonsensically difficult etc.

I suppose that's another reason to get Moscow involved. If the EEU standards require you can travel overland from Beijing to Rotterdam through Almaty, Bishkek and Moscow relatively freely, at least without visas, that changes things up somewhat.

All I know is the People's Daily seems hell-bent on making it happen, which means the CCP is hell-bent on making it happen, and they have the cash and the industry and the state-owned enterprises to do it. Meanwhile, Moscow seems hell bent on putting Humpty Dumpty together again. They want a single-currency Eurasian Economic Union. This gives them some outside pressure to make it happen on a timetable. Beijing's pissed at Washington for the TPP. Moscow's pissed at Washington for the sanctions. And they finally decided to work together.

But let me be clearer about what I see China getting out of this. China gets to send it's giant construction machine off doing stuff in other places instead of letting it rot and letting so many go unemployed. Hopefully, in the long term, it gets expanded access to markets to dump overproduction. That's what it gets.

Moscow gets the legal/monetary integration with Central Asia. At least with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The others may never join. They'll pull in Armenia from the caucuses and Belarus too while they're at it. Maybe they get their new free trade deal with Vietnam they've been working on. But you know, all the king's horses...

But, this doesn't mean that in a decade they won't have driven the infrastructure through and established a common super-ruble and travel and trade protocol. I'm not expecting this to be come kind of panacea. I don't think free trade is ever a panacea. And of course the billionaires will be making all the cash and GINI will keep getting worse. This is true of every nation on earth...

The GDP rise lifted all resource economy boats around the globe. 1999 was the all time bottom for oil after the post Iran revolution peak two decades earlier. It's the same reason Brazil under Lula da Silva (hardly a strongman) was touted as a model economy during the same time. Rising commodity prices cover a LOT of mistakes, and everyone looks like a hero.

Kazakhstan was the last Soviet Republic to declare independence; that was in December 1991. By 1999 it was near destitute and the out migration was in waves. Other than the tribally well connected, life for most was pretty hard scrabble and harsh. If you get the chance talk to some of the older people from that region that lived through that time. By 2001 mineral prices were starting their climb and by 2004, the first time I went to Almaty, the early signs of a real estate boom were well underway. By 2006 there were any number of US$ one million+ villas for sale on the hillside of the lower reaches of the Tian Shan above the city. It wasn't nearly as crazy as Dubai, but it was more than interesting to watch as an outsider - brought back memories of the run up in Houston and Calgary during the 1970s boom, and the entirely predictable ending too.

No argument China is looking for any way possible to soak up some of the enormous "overcapacity in everything" it is now dealing with. Exporting people, machinery, materials and some money to fund infrastructure in LDCs has been a long standing China policy. During the dark days of the 1990s plenty of Chinese investment flowed in to Central Asia under active encouragement because it was politically more difficult to claim independence while looking to Russia for assistance, which Russia itself at the time was little able to provide in any case. A lot of Arab Gulf money also flowed into the Central Asia Republics at that time in an effort to draw these Muslim states further out of the Russian sphere of influence. Saudi Arabia was a huge contributor at that time. Which should make for some interesting dynamics to watch as Russia reasserts itself in this region, as you noted above.

[lektrode]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

as long as gridlock in the beltway continues - with 'team NO' coupled with THE MOST INEPT/CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN US HISTORY ?

its looking more likely by the day that xi + putin will get something done (assuming that john Fraud kerry dont end up touching off ww3 while 'building the legacy' of o'dipwad&co...)

[gwynedd1]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

Let me begin by saying that whatever I said that so angered you was unintentional and I apologize forthwith.
From the tone of your reply one would wonder if I had given you the finger in my original post.

Telling people to read a book when they have a strong opinion implies one is carelessly making ignorant statements. Telling me to read a book is patronizing and condescending. You'll wind up telling monks to go to Sunday school at some point, and you will piss them off. If you want to mention a book, say you read this book and how it impressed you and why think it holds merit. So yeah, ya did flip me the bird.


I was actually astonished to see a fractured piece of an empire used against the argument. The whole point is that far too much is attributed to the economic system and far too little is attributed to the fragility of empires. That is to say nothing of the fact that even within the bounds of the current Russian Federation , they are nothing like the US. They are half again as much European union. Adyghe is doing a lot better than Navehoe. Any example using the British empire , which fell apart is simply astonishing to me.

And the problem is this is used over and over again while to polemic continues to rot. "Socialist countries" are not dropping like flies. The "capitalist US" was until someone , a planner in the middle if you will , decided the gold standard had to be abandoned to have any chance to defeat Germany's pay for work system of national socialism.

“Logical fallacy"? I believe I said it wasn’t always an expensive occupation, so what are you refuting?

It was an expensive form of occupation compared to any colony.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...porate-raiders

By 1803, when the EIC captured the Mughal capital of Delhi, it had trained up a private security force of around 260,000- twice the size of the British army – and marshalled more firepower than any nation state in Asia. It was “an empire within an empire”, as one of its directors admitted. It had also by this stage created a vast and sophisticated administration and civil service, built much of London’s docklands and come close to generating nearly half of Britain’s trade. No wonder that the EIC now referred to itself as “the grandest society of merchants in the Universe”.

...
In a scene that seems horribly familiar to us today, this hyper-aggressive corporation had to come clean and ask for a massive government bailout. On 15 July 1772, the directors of the East India Company applied to the Bank of England for a loan of £400,000. A fortnight later, they returned, asking for an additional £300,000. The bank raised only £200,000. By August, the directors were whispering to the government that they would actually need an unprecedented sum of a further £1m. The official report the following year, written by Edmund Burke, foresaw that the EIC’s financial problems could potentially “like a mill-stone, drag [the government] down into an unfathomable abyss … This cursed Company would, at last, like a viper, be the destruction of the country which fostered it at its bosom.”

Nothing surprising to anyone who read Machiavelli .

But in maintaining armed men there in place of colonies one spends much more, having to consume on the garrison all income from the state, so that the acquisition turns into a loss, and many more are exasperated, because the whole state is injured; through the shifting of the garrison up and down all become acquainted with hardship, and all become hostile, and they are enemies who, whilst beaten on their own ground, are yet able to do hurt. For every reason, therefore, such guards are as useless as a colony is useful.

The form of occupation in India was the least expensive form that could possibly be had. The British Indian Army from 1903 to 1938 cost the government of the UK practically nothing and was funded by revenues from India proper. It was really only with the invasion of China by Japan in 1937 that the crown decided to modernize the BIA with updated weaponry and the expense of that was held in check by reducing the total numbers of men under arms. Although the British had earlier used the BIA in Afghanistan and Burma it was only in 1923 that the UK agreed to bear the full cost of supply and salary should the BIA be sent to fight outside the borders of India. (Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, pp. 88-89. I have a copy and have read it several times.).

This just repeats the fallacy of composition. A business breaking even from using expensive contractors doesn't make expensive contractors cheap. It simply means the company as a whole is profitable enough to afford them.
Given that Britain was on the winning side of two world wars, clearly from the benefits of close affinity to it old colonies, which do you think was the better investment?

It is “astonishing” that you didn’t mention what actually brought about the financial wreck of the UK government and the concurrent loss of its empire: World War I. Act II of this same war (1939-45) finished it off.

As corrupt as the soviets were I would tend to agree that capitalism under such governance would have likely collapsed, but communism only brought about the collapse sooner. The LTV (Labor Theory of Value) is not correct, certainly not as Adam Smith propounded it. Marx came up with a better, more nuanced form but it remains fallacious. And the communist theoreticians’ idea of Homo Sovieticus is practically insane as it sees human nature to be perfectable through education and environment. If so, then why are some of the "best and brightest" nothing less than white collar criminals who are willing to grind others under their heel?

Its also astonishing to me that you didn't mention Britain breaking up. Empires break up when the money runs out, just proving my point again. Empires cost money to run. Nations stay together in a siege. Colonies are the most reliable allies and remain the cheapest form of remote occupation. This was the Soviet problem. They did not have these things. They had Lithuania, Western Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia and so on. It failed because it was an empire.

Technically you are correct: what they had was Leninism. But Communism in practice is a pseudo-theocracy that allows no dissent because that is the only way it can be enforced. There are two ways to generate capital: through the incentive of gain combined with a disciplined willingness to defer consumption, or by the point of a bayonet.

The problem with communism is that there are no central planners...Kind of ironic given its failure is attributed to central planners. The Bolsheviks had a central plan to steal the revolution, and they did from the Mensheviks who had no plan. . The problem that arises with forms of socialism is that there are few central planners that create monopolies.

ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and distributes the milk to the poor.
Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both of your cows but gives you a ration of milk.

Nazism: You have two cows. The government takes both of your cows and shoots you.

Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

An oldie but a goodie.

Well I can play the “I know ex-soviets” game, too. I was a host parent for two young Russians in university near my home: Denis Alexandrovitch from Lipetsk and Dmitriy Vladimirovich from Ryazan. I also belong to a parish where I’ve personally known about twenty Russians and Ukrainians and one Moldavian who now live here or went to university here. One is a professor of physics who served in the Soviet Army in Afghanistan and is a close friend as I’m godparent to his youngest son; another is an engineer who did the same. The others vary in age from forty to seventy and in occupation from CPAs to chemistry professors to professional military officers. Six of the aforementioned are personal friends and have spent many hours in my home eating dinner and discussing life and work experiences.


And what exactly is your beef with David Satter? He’s rated highly by sources as disparate as The Guardian and the Hudson Institute.
And why the pointed insult about “lack of firsthand knowledge” when you knew absolutely nothing of my “firsthand knowledge”?
Nothing personal, gwynedd1, and no insult intended, but if you didn’t live in the Soviet Union for more than six years I believe I’ll take Satter’s “first hand knowledge” over yours.

If you had first hand knowledge then why read a book? That's my beef. I grew up reading bibles with comments in the margins so I have first hand knowledge that argument by authority is also a fallacy. If you wanted it to hold any sway then you would have presented any facts he can prove and his methodologies.

There is no such thing as a good journalist anymore than there is a such thing as a good prosecutor. Without a competent defence , a "good prosecutor" would put innocent people in jail. He has an axe to grind. 6 years in Moscow is nothing. Anyone who knew anything about the Soviets would know Moscow was it own world much like NYC. So again you just don't seem to have a grasp of it. Why would you think this guy is an experrt and the combined knowledge of 20 ex-Soviets is not? 3 natives from different parts of the empire are worth more than him. A free press by design is to create an adversarial system which is the best estimate of the truth when lacking anything else.

I believe I used the word Communism, so why the straw man?

Well that might be because it was called the Soviet Socialist Republics. That and there was not a single trace of orthodox Marxism with the Soviets. In addition to this , what was going on was all about the -ism.

Socialism is another "ism" much like feminism where one feminist says its about preventing women from being exploited as sex objects while another says its about selling tickets for singing in her underwear. We have two very different things here under the same label. Most of it isn't about "econmic-ism".

You replied to me to refute that the main problem of the Soviet Unions was "communism" rather than an authoritarian run empire. Had your argument been that Orthodox Marxism left the regime politically defenceless to usurpation, that would be an impressive argument to me. However David Satter appears to be a Soviet critic which is completely out of scope for that argument. It was no mere economic system. It was a regulation of power, far more necessary in a prison house of nations.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

The Russian exodus from Thai beach resorts is causing local depressions. The influx of Chinese tourists in the north is having the opposite effect.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susancun...sm-in-thailand

The Russians are leaving! The Russians are leaving!

Of course, there have been knock-on effects on restaurants, tour companies and hotels catering to Russian tourists, even if Russian tour groups are known in the hospitality trade as cheapskate” low yield” tourists. Russians that do come are discovering that smartphones and electronics are no longer cheaper in Thailand than at home. The value of the ruble has fallen about 50% against the Thai baht in the past year.

But who would guess that the Russian declines would also have such a major impact on the condo market in Pattaya, as reported by the Bangkok Post last month. Who would buy a condo is sleazy old Pattaya? With its filthy beach, filthy people, and pathetic old and young prostitutes? A lot of Russians, apparently. According to the Post story, in 2013 Pattaya accounted for 19% of all Thailand real estate sales–and about 65% of those were to Russians. The “deputy honorary consul of the Russian Federation” for the Pattaya area says that half of Russian visitors to Thailand in 2014 spent at least some time in Pattaya.

The trend was to buy a condo and then rent it out to other Russians when not owner occupied. Some owners are now struggling now to meet their payments. Others that are fully paid up still want to sell, even at a loss, to get hard currency. Construction projects are being called off as well. Andrey Snetkov, who works for a Russian travel agency, says that Russians can no longer easily get bank loans for travel. He also notes that citizens of other countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States are being affected by similar pressures.

Pattaya: Russian Media Hub

There’s a Russian-language magazine that specializes in Pattaya properties as well but the editor says she hasn’t seen a drop in advertising because she is targeting “the premium market.” (Premium in Pattaya?). The operators of Russian-language TV and radio stations in Pattaya don’t profess to be concerned either.

I suppose I was surprised by so much Russian participation in Pattaya real estate because the degraded seaside city east of Bangkok is usually the first way station when prepaid package tours from a new market start arriving in Thailand. Some tourists from the particular market gradually become willing to pay slightly more for prettier surroundings and cleaner beaches and move up to Phuket, maybe Samui and Koh Chang.

The annual Chinese tourist numbers to Thailand piled up for years–into the hundreds of thousands–without being very visible in most of Thailand. That’s because the Chinese were coming on super-cheap tours and staying in low-star hotels in Pattaya or in giant blocks on outer Bangkok expressways. I started noticing Chinese tourists around the time annual arrivals surpassed 1 million. That’s when some began staying in two- and three-star hotels in inner Bangkok, tearing through hypermarts and dispersing cigarette butts outside McDonald’s outlets.

Russians followed the pattern to some extent–moving on up–though I have never noticed that many in Bangkok. They still rank as the third-largest visitor group to Thailand, after Chinese and Malaysians. Russians certainly are a presence in Phuket, where charter flights from Russian cities still fly directly, though there are fewer in number than last year. There have long been rumors that super-wealthy Russians were buying villa condos and other properties in Phuket.

Then, in the past few years, as Australia and Singapore enacted measures to stem purchases by mainland Chinese of high-end residential properties, some wealthy Chinese were supposedly investing in bolt-holes in Thailand. In the Post’s story on Pattaya property woes, some real estate brokers suggest that Chinese buyers will fill in for the Russians soon enough. And why shouldn’t new middle-class Chinese have their own bolt-holes?

[Raz]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

Telling people to read a book when they have a strong opinion implies one is carelessly making ignorant statements. Telling me to read a book is patronizing and condescending. You'll wind up telling monks to go to Sunday school at some point, and you will piss them off.

Having carefully reread my posts I must agree and your point is well taken. I posted without fully engaging my brain and better judgement, IOW without thinking how it would be received. I'm truly sorry and I offer you my apology.

If you want to mention a book, say you read this book and how it impressed you and why think it holds merit. So yeah, ya did flip me the bird.

You're absolutely right and that's what I should have done.
I never intended to "flip you the bird" but inadvertently it appears I did. Again, I apologize.

The whole point is that far too much is attributed to the economic system and far too little is attributed to the fragility of empires.

I think you're correct. Every empire in history has suffered collapse. The American empire will suffer the same fate.
Politically I clearly lean to the conservative side but I detest the American empire AND the Neocon nitwits who are destabilizing the world and helping to wreck our country.

Adyghe is doing a lot better than Navehoe.

All I know about the Circassian people is they lived in the Carpathian Mountains and were expelled by the Czars with tremendous loss of life. A third generation Russian physician from New York whom I befriended while he lived here in the deep south (he's now in Phoenix) told me about it. His ancestors lived in the area before they emigrated to the United States.

You replied to me to refute that the main problem of the Soviet Unions was "communism" rather than an authoritarian run empire. Had your argument been that Orthodox Marxism left the regime politically defenceless to usurpation, that would be an impressive argument to me. However David Satter appears to be a Soviet critic which is completely out of scope for that argument. It was no mere economic system. It was a regulation of power, far more necessary in a prison house of nations.

It is much easier to misread someone through text communication that by voice. I know I did and it's quite possible that we agree far more than disagree. Initially - without thinking - I must have concluded that you were defending socialism and denigrating capitalism. And from my ill-advised post you might have thought I was condoning if not outright defending imperialism.

We could have had a polite and reasonable exchange of ideas but I'm afraid I peed in the lemonade.

[touchring]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

People in China, Russia and the Central Asian Republics are trying to get out.

Don't know about Russia or Central Asian Republics, but I do know quite a couple of working class Chinese in Singapore going back to China in recent years because they have better work prospects in China, especially with the international exposure. The wages in China for senior management have gone up quite a lot in the past 5 years.

I know someone who worked a couple years in California, came back to Singapore because he wants his kids to learn Chinese, and now is back in China holding a high post.

On the other hand, I now see a lot of Indians and Filipinos coming to Singapore to work, from the Middle East, from America, from their hometown.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

Having carefully reread my posts I must agree and your point is well taken. I posted without fully engaging my brain and better judgement, IOW without thinking how it would be received. I'm truly sorry and I offer you my apology.


You're absolutely right and that's what I should have done.
I never intended to "flip you the bird" but inadvertently it appears I did. Again, I apologize.

We all do it at one time or another and text hardly relays the real attitude. I am certainly no diplomat myself.
Though here at itulip, I think you will find prepared arguments. Thus you need to engage well entrenched positions unless you have reason to think otherwise.

I think you're correct. Every empire in history has suffered collapse. The American empire will suffer the same fate.
Politically I clearly lean to the conservative side but I detest the American empire AND the Neocon nitwits who are destabilizing the world and helping to wreck our country.

I grew up a conservative. I am just saying that the Soviet collapse framed in the usual dichotomy is getting very old. I also agree with Hobbs on the three essential forms of government, the rule of one, the few or the many with various attitudes about specific instances of them making all the rest. To evade the problem of China, it is stamped "state capitalism" while also avoiding the comparisons to Wall Street and Gosbank.

All I know about the Circassian people is they lived in the Carpathian Mountains and were expelled by the Czars with tremendous loss of life. A third generation Russian physician from New York whom I befriended while he lived here in the deep south (he's now in Phoenix) told me about it. His ancestors lived in the area before they emigrated to the United States.

And so on. Asiatic Russia reminds me of the West in the 19th century.

It is much easier to misread someone through text communication that by voice. I know I did and it's quite possible that we agree far more than disagree. Initially - without thinking - I must have concluded that you were defending socialism and denigrating capitalism. And from my ill-advised post you might have thought I was condoning if not outright defending imperialism.

Indeed it is very difficult to communicate this way.

We could have had a polite and reasonable exchange of ideas but I'm afraid I peed in the lemonade.

That I engage in heated debates belies the fact that I hold absolutely no grudges. I had better not since myself 20 years ago is a much more adversarial philosophical position than what you had presented.

When I get to the point of treating you abysmally, then it means I have become so comfortable that I have accepted you as family

'twas a heated debate and nothing more....

[gwynedd1]

Re: Russia Retreats To Autarky As Poverty Looms

Don't know about Russia or Central Asian Republics, but I do know quite a couple of working class Chinese in Singapore going back to China in recent years because they have better work prospects in China, especially with the international exposure. The wages in China for senior management have gone up quite a lot in the past 5 years.

I know someone who worked a couple years in California, came back to Singapore because he wants his kids to learn Chinese, and now is back in China holding a high post.

On the other hand, I now see a lot of Indians and Filipinos coming to Singapore to work, from the Middle East, from America, from their hometown.

Speaking of other such comparative fallacies, and that Central Asians and Russians might have a preference for So Cal...How much of this is because of the weather? Lets not give credit to the body politic what is due to the land. America the body politic is at this point second rate to many parts of the world. North America on the other hand is still quite appealing.....