Conquer Club

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Do you ever feel like you are the main character of a Tom Clancy novel?

I've only read a couple of his books, and his characters are usually your typical all-american bad asses with navy seals training. I would not consider myself all american or particularly bad-ass, forget about any sort of military training.

so no.

Do you ever feel like you're in an episode of Rocky and Bullwinkle, then?

Are you going to get tired of my constant, American-style stereotyping of Russians (though I feel my shot glass question was legit)?

Why is Russia making trouble in the Bible, that Magogic bastard!

I've heard some unsettling news, namely that Russia might be to the north of Israel.
IS THIS TRUE? SHOULD WE ALERT THE PRESIDENT?

Neoteny wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Do you ever feel like you are the main character of a Tom Clancy novel?

I've only read a couple of his books, and his characters are usually your typical all-american bad asses with navy seals training. I would not consider myself all american or particularly bad-ass, forget about any sort of military training.

so no.

Do you ever feel like you're in an episode of Rocky and Bullwinkle, then?

Are you going to get tired of my constant, American-style stereotyping of Russians (though I feel my shot glass question was legit)?

Sadly no.

It's all in good fun. Besides most stereotypes have a nugget of truth to them so they can often lead to interesting discussion of how the stereotype fits into reality.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I've heard some unsettling news, namely that Russia might be to the north of Israel.
IS THIS TRUE? SHOULD WE ALERT THE PRESIDENT?

It is true. I recommend Defcon 2 at least.

Woodruff wrote:Why is Russia making trouble in the Bible, that Magogic bastard!

Obviously due to their hatred of all that is right and holly.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I've heard some unsettling news, namely that Russia might be to the north of Israel.
IS THIS TRUE? SHOULD WE ALERT THE PRESIDENT?

It is true. I recommend Defcon 2 at least.

Woodruff wrote:Why is Russia making trouble in the Bible, that Magogic bastard!

Obviously due to their hatred of all that is right and holly.

No, Holly was a leftist progressive commie.

Woodruff wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I've heard some unsettling news, namely that Russia might be to the north of Israel.
IS THIS TRUE? SHOULD WE ALERT THE PRESIDENT?

It is true. I recommend Defcon 2 at least.

Woodruff wrote:Why is Russia making trouble in the Bible, that Magogic bastard!

Obviously due to their hatred of all that is right and holly.

No, Holly was a leftist progressive commie.

So is Russia.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why is the crime rate so high in Russia relative to its GDP per capita? (It's an amazing outlier; sorry can't find the right chart)

This doesen't surprise me, but do you remember which areas of crime were high?

That being said factors in Russia which would contribute to crime.

A big factor would have to be the important role black and grey economic activity had in the Soviet period. This engendered a disregard for official rules and resulted in a core of disreputable economic actors ready to expand when market liberalization occurred. Add on top of that how privatization occurred in Russia, a highly corrupt process and the slow rate at which laws were brought up to speed with new realities.

In addition to those purely environmental factors, Russia's public servants on all levels are poorly paid. As a result they need to look elsewhere for money. This means shady types are able to buy their way out of legal troubles or use connections to push out competition.

Russia's courts are not truly independent, and as a consequence of the above are often heavily leaned on to gain certain results (or the judge is simply bribed).

There are also insurgencies in certain areas (the north Caucasus), the presence of these insurgencies likely exacerbate all of the other factors. Insurgents boost the black market sector, which in turn boosts crime.

Throw in high levels of alcoholism and other narcotics abuse.

lastly they have very weak social safety nets or what is in place is not effective in the least. As a result there are allot of people who live in desperate situation which leads to eager recruits for the maffiya.

All of the above being said, Russia is still a fairly safe place to visit. No more dangerous than say Bolivia or Brazil (assuming you stay away from Chechnya/Ingushetia).

I had in mind only violent crime, but this answers it pretty well.

I got a conspiracy theory for Russia, circa 1990s.

The economic transition occurred very quickly because it enables the government and/or ex-KGB to exert high control over the allocation of the goods into the hands of select team players. These team players of the recently privatized businesses would later reinforce the upcoming "democratic" government. It was a swift power deal, done in a quick manner in order to avoid the development of an effective judicial system (which could foil their plans), and to reduce costs in keeping the people unaware, or at least ineffective at resisting the plan.

What'dya think?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why is the crime rate so high in Russia relative to its GDP per capita? (It's an amazing outlier; sorry can't find the right chart)

This doesen't surprise me, but do you remember which areas of crime were high?

That being said factors in Russia which would contribute to crime.

A big factor would have to be the important role black and grey economic activity had in the Soviet period. This engendered a disregard for official rules and resulted in a core of disreputable economic actors ready to expand when market liberalization occurred. Add on top of that how privatization occurred in Russia, a highly corrupt process and the slow rate at which laws were brought up to speed with new realities.

In addition to those purely environmental factors, Russia's public servants on all levels are poorly paid. As a result they need to look elsewhere for money. This means shady types are able to buy their way out of legal troubles or use connections to push out competition.

Russia's courts are not truly independent, and as a consequence of the above are often heavily leaned on to gain certain results (or the judge is simply bribed).

There are also insurgencies in certain areas (the north Caucasus), the presence of these insurgencies likely exacerbate all of the other factors. Insurgents boost the black market sector, which in turn boosts crime.

Throw in high levels of alcoholism and other narcotics abuse.

lastly they have very weak social safety nets or what is in place is not effective in the least. As a result there are allot of people who live in desperate situation which leads to eager recruits for the maffiya.

All of the above being said, Russia is still a fairly safe place to visit. No more dangerous than say Bolivia or Brazil (assuming you stay away from Chechnya/Ingushetia).

I had in mind only violent crime, but this answers it pretty well.

In which case the leading factor would be Insurgencies in Chechnya and the north caucasus in general. Though journalists often get whacked by Maffiya types.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I got a conspiracy theory for Russia, circa 1990s.

The economic transition occurred very quickly because it enables the government and/or ex-KGB to exert high control over the allocation of the goods into the hands of select team players. These team players of the recently privatized businesses would later reinforce the upcoming "democratic" government. It was a swift power deal, done in a quick manner in order to avoid the development of an effective judicial system (which could foil their plans), and to reduce costs in keeping the people unaware, or at least ineffective at resisting the plan.

What'dya think?

Sounds about right actually, minus the deliberate weakening of the Judiciary.

Yeltsin and his oligarch bros organized the selling off of Soviet assets behind closed doors and often at absurdly low prices. In return they heavily supported Yeltsin even when he was near death/almost always drunk. Though whether they deliberately screwed over the Judicial system or simply took advantage of a weak one is less clear.

Putin has maintained the system though strengthened the Kremlin's power at the expense of the oligarchs somewhat.

Though a word of caution, we should be careful not to chalk up to maliciousness what could just as easily be chalked up to incompetence, inexperience or both.

No private markets for 70 years and they decide to try and introduce those private markets at the same time as massive political reform, bound to be a little chaotic. Also remember allot of western experts were advising the Russians that shock therapy was the way to go.

I think there is a very solid case to be made about the corruption of the privatization process, less clear would be the deliberate weakening of the Judiciary. More likely would be a multitude of independent actions by either Oligarchs or other actors to undermine the courts, not some broad conspiracy.

Okay, the first thing I wanted to know is about the presidents of Russia.

Could you name every president in Russia's history in alphabetical order? Also what city they were born in?

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I got a conspiracy theory for Russia, circa 1990s.

The economic transition occurred very quickly because it enables the government and/or ex-KGB to exert high control over the allocation of the goods into the hands of select team players. These team players of the recently privatized businesses would later reinforce the upcoming "democratic" government. It was a swift power deal, done in a quick manner in order to avoid the development of an effective judicial system (which could foil their plans), and to reduce costs in keeping the people unaware, or at least ineffective at resisting the plan.

What'dya think?

Sounds about right actually, minus the deliberate weakening of the Judiciary.

Yeltsin and his oligarch bros organized the selling off of Soviet assets behind closed doors and often at absurdly low prices. In return they heavily supported Yeltsin even when he was near death/almost always drunk. Though whether they deliberately screwed over the Judicial system or simply took advantage of a weak one is less clear.

My point about the judicial branch is that if the economic transition would have occurred over a slower time, other institutions would have had more time to develop (thus strengthen themselves as a more effective check and balance on other political branches). Given this possibility, it seemed most expedient for the Big Players to speed things along as quick as possible.

Whether or not they perceived this possibility, I've no idea though.

Baron Von PWN wrote:Putin has maintained the system though strengthened the Kremlin's power at the expense of the oligarchs somewhat.

Though a word of caution, we should be careful not to chalk up to maliciousness what could just as easily be chalked up to incompetence, inexperience or both.

Of course, but saying "conspiracy theory" is really fun!

Baron Von PWN wrote:No private markets for 70 years and they decide to try and introduce those private markets at the same time as massive political reform, bound to be a little chaotic. Also remember allot of western experts were advising the Russians that shock therapy was the way to go.

I think there is a very solid case to be made about the corruption of the privatization process, less clear would be the deliberate weakening of the Judiciary. More likely would be a multitude of independent actions by either Oligarchs or other actors to undermine the courts, not some broad conspiracy.

Well, they did have black markets (which are private), but the private property rights aren't clearly delineated and were enforced by a very arbitrary "judicial" system (e.g. people with guns minus the rule of law). What was debilitating from the 70 years of Communism were the outcomes of its extreme emphasis on central planning and complete deviation from capitalism (i.e. private property rights, profit and loss, and prices from the market process). And, of course Communism's oppressive political institution didn't help either.

Regarding the Russian experience with "shock economics," what was missing from the Philosopher Kings' (i.e. western experts) analysis was an understanding of the role of institutions. One simply can't design an economic institution based on the Western European or American model and then transplant it into a country with different political, legal, economic, and social institutions. Shit's wack, yo.

So, the corruption of privatization process is a problem, I agree. But if anything, this experience has shown the incapability of "experts" in designing and exporting economic systems abroad (i.e. essentially, the ineffectiveness of heavy central planning). Regarding the corruption, a more robust legal system matters because if corruption is the problem, then apparently the rule of law isn't being seriously enforced.


From my education in economics, the most humbling insight

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I got a conspiracy theory for Russia, circa 1990s.

The economic transition occurred very quickly because it enables the government and/or ex-KGB to exert high control over the allocation of the goods into the hands of select team players. These team players of the recently privatized businesses would later reinforce the upcoming "democratic" government. It was a swift power deal, done in a quick manner in order to avoid the development of an effective judicial system (which could foil their plans), and to reduce costs in keeping the people unaware, or at least ineffective at resisting the plan.

What'dya think?

Sounds about right actually, minus the deliberate weakening of the Judiciary.

Yeltsin and his oligarch bros organized the selling off of Soviet assets behind closed doors and often at absurdly low prices. In return they heavily supported Yeltsin even when he was near death/almost always drunk. Though whether they deliberately screwed over the Judicial system or simply took advantage of a weak one is less clear.

My point about the judicial branch is that if the economic transition would have occurred over a slower time, other institutions would have had more time to develop (thus strengthen themselves as a more effective check and balance on other political branches). Given this possibility, it seemed most expedient for the Big Players to speed things along as quick as possible.

Whether or not they perceived this possibility, I've no idea though.

Baron Von PWN wrote:Putin has maintained the system though strengthened the Kremlin's power at the expense of the oligarchs somewhat.

Though a word of caution, we should be careful not to chalk up to maliciousness what could just as easily be chalked up to incompetence, inexperience or both.

Of course, but saying "conspiracy theory" is really fun!

Baron Von PWN wrote:No private markets for 70 years and they decide to try and introduce those private markets at the same time as massive political reform, bound to be a little chaotic. Also remember allot of western experts were advising the Russians that shock therapy was the way to go.

I think there is a very solid case to be made about the corruption of the privatization process, less clear would be the deliberate weakening of the Judiciary. More likely would be a multitude of independent actions by either Oligarchs or other actors to undermine the courts, not some broad conspiracy.

Well, they did have black markets (which are private), but the private property rights aren't clearly delineated and were enforced by a very arbitrary "judicial" system (e.g. people with guns minus the rule of law). What was debilitating from the 70 years of Communism were the outcomes of its extreme emphasis on central planning and complete deviation from capitalism (i.e. private property rights, profit and loss, and prices from the market process). And, of course Communism's oppressive political institution didn't help either.

Regarding the Russian experience with "shock economics," what was missing from the Philosopher Kings' (i.e. western experts) analysis was an understanding of the role of institutions. One simply can't design an economic institution based on the Western European or American model and then transplant it into a country with different political, legal, economic, and social institutions. Shit's wack, yo.

So, the corruption of privatization process is a problem, I agree. But if anything, this experience has shown the incapability of "experts" in designing and exporting economic systems abroad (i.e. essentially, the ineffectiveness of heavy central planning). Regarding the corruption, a more robust legal system matters because if corruption is the problem, then apparently the rule of law isn't being seriously enforced.


From my education in economics, the most humbling insight

That's all very sound and I am in agreement.

Though a quibble with the Black markets thing. Though they are a type of private enterprise it isn't quite the same thing as legitimate private enterprise. I wouldn't think there is nearly as much freedom of choice, or the same kind of respect for property rights.

PROFITS wrote:Okay, the first thing I wanted to know is about the presidents of Russia.

Could you name every president in Russia's history in alphabetical order? Also what city they were born in?

That's easy there's only been three so far.

Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin Born in Butka, Sverdlosk District
Dimitry Anatolyevich Medvedev Born St.Petersburg (then leningrad)
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin Born St.Petersburg

Baron Von PWN wrote:
That's all very sound and I am in agreement.

Though a quibble with the Black markets thing. Though they are a type of private enterprise it isn't quite the same thing as legitimate private enterprise. I wouldn't think there is nearly as much freedom of choice, or the same kind of respect for property rights.

lol, I cut myself off. Basically, it helps to be humble. Many economists essentially view economics as a physical science, ignore that which can't be measured, proscribe policy, and make huge mistakes.

Anyway, thanks for reading!

COME ONE, COME ALL!! ASK YE BVP ABOUT RUSSIA AND THE RUSSIANS!!!

Baron Von PWN wrote:

PROFITS wrote:Okay, the first thing I wanted to know is about the presidents of Russia.

Could you name every president in Russia's history in alphabetical order? Also what city they were born in?

That's easy there's only been three so far.

Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin Born in Butka, Sverdlosk District
Dimitry Anatolyevich Medvedev Born St.Petersburg (then leningrad)
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin Born St.Petersburg

Supper fun follow up all of Russia's leaders In descending chronological order from Gorbachev

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, Stavropol, Leader 1988-1991
Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko, Bolshaya Tes (Krasnoyarsk Krai) Leader Feb 1984- March 1985
Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov, Stanitsa Nagutskaya, (stavropol district), Leader 1982-Feb 1984
Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, Karmenskoe ( Modern day Dnipropetrovsk region of Ukraine) Leader 1964-1982
Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, Kalinovka, (modern day Kursk Oblast) Leader 1953-1964
Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili(Stalin), Gori (modern day Georgia) Leader 1924-1953
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin), Simbirsk (now called Ulyanovsk ) Leader 1917- 1924

Revolution!

Alexander Fyodorovich Kerensky , Simbirsk (<-interesting!) Leader July 1917- November 1917
Georgy Yevgenyevich Lvov, Dresden (though of Russian nobility) Leader March 1917 - July 1917
Revolution!

Nikolay II, Nikolay Alexandrovich Romanov, Tsarskoe Selo (modern day Leningrad region) Leader 1894-1917
Alexander Alexandrovich Romanov, St.Petersburg, Leader, 1881-1894
Aleksandr II Nikolaevich Romanov, Moscow, Leader 1855- 1881
Nikolay Pavlovich Romanov, Gatchina, Leader 1825-1855
Aleksandr I Pavlovich Romanov, St.Petersburg 1801-1825
Pavel Petrovich Romanov, St.Petersburg 1796-1801
Yekaterina II Velikaya Romanova (The Great), Stettin pomerania, 1762-1796
Pyotr III Fyodorovich Romanov, Kiel, Jan 1762-July 1762
Elizaveta Petrovna Romanova, Kolmenskoye (Moscow region), 1741-1762
Ivan VI Antonovich Romanov, St.Petersburg, 1740-1741
Anna Ivanovna Romanova, Moscow, 1730-1740
Peter II Alekseyevich Romanov, St.Petersburg, 1727-1730
Yekaterina I Alekseyevna Romanova, St.Petersburg 1725-1727
Pyotr Alexeyevich Romanov (The Great), Moscow, 1682-1725
Feodor III Alexeyevich Romanov, Moscow 1676-1682
Aleksey Mikhailovich Romanov, Moscow, 1645-1676
Mikhail I Fyodorovich Romanov, Moscow 1613-1645

Time of Troubles!
Vasíliy Ivanovich Shuyskiy, Nizhny Novgorod, 1606 -1610
Grigory Otrepyev (The false Dimitry Ivanovich ) Birthplace unknown, 1605-1606
Time of Troubles!

Fyodor II Borisovich Godunov, Moscow, April 1605- June 1605
Boris Fyodorovich Godunov, Moscow, 1585- 1605
Fyodor I Ivanovich (Rurik Dynasty) , Moscow, 1584-1585
Ivan IV Vasilyevich (Rurik Dynasty), Moscow 1533-1584
Vasili III Ivanovich (Rurik Dynasty), Moscow 1505-1533
Ivan III Vasilyevich (Rurik Dynasty), Moscow, 1462- 1505
Vasily II Vasiliyevich (Rurik Dynasty), Moscow , 1423-1462
Vasiliy I Dmitriyevich (Rurik Dynasty), Moscow, 1389-1425
Saint Dmitry Ivanovich (Rurik Dynasty), Moscow, 1359-1389
Ivan II Ivanovich (Rurik Dynasty), Moscow, 1353-1359
Simeon Ivanovich (Rurik Dynasty), Moscow, 1340-1353
Ivan I Danilovich (Rurik Dynasty) Moscow, 1325-1340
Yuriy Danilovich (Rurik Dynasty) Birthplace Unkown, 1303-1325 The first Prince of Moscow

There you have it every leader of the Moscow centred Russian state since 1303.

You can trace it further back into the Vladimir Suzdal principality 1168-1389

and then further back to Kievan Rus which goese back to about 880. Which was established by Varangian Vikings. Which itself preceded by a poorly documented polity called the Rus Khaghanate (I dun goophed earlier )

Can you tell me who the elderly lady was that lived upstairs from me, when I was growing up? I wish I knew her name.

How much control does Putin exert over Russia's (1) domestic policy and (2) foreign policy?

What constraints him from exerting absolute power (if that's at all possible)?

Evolution299 wrote:Can you tell me who the elderly lady was that lived upstairs from me, when I was growing up? I wish I knew her name.

No sorry

Was it a woolly mammoth or a bear with a fish?

BigBallinStalin wrote:How much control does Putin exert over Russia's (1) domestic policy and (2) foreign policy?

What constraints him from exerting absolute power (if that's at all possible)?

Putin is maintaining the fine Russian tradition of having a seemingly minor or subservient position while running the show. So Putin exerts a great deal of control over domestic and foreign policy. Though Medvedev is supposed to be in charge of foreign policy you often see Putin going to allot of the important international events. Their recent announcement of playing swichies with job titles show just how subservient Medvedev is.

If he is able to do away with the President (according to the Russian constitution the most powerful position in Russia) he can assuredly do away with any other minister.

Though there are areas where the Kremlin's power(and therefore Putin's) is not absolute, many of the ethnic republics within the Russian federation maintain varying measures of autonomy. Chechnya for example, despite the large number of Russian troops in the area the republic does pretty much what it feels like, and that's ok with the Kremlin, so long as the Chechens remember who's boss. Though the more Russian the republic the less autonomous, at least it seems that way.

Russia's mayors also serve to cause pockets of independence to Kremlin policy, depending on city. Though the Kremlin has taken steps to reduce this by appointing "professional city managers".

To a limited degree elections do still seem to offer something of a check to Putin. The recent election saw his party lose allot of seats and has energized the opposition, what will come of it remains to be seen. Though by how embarrassed the kremlin was by the results it shows they do care about public opinion, or at least what public opinion means for them. The Kremlin was deeply disturbed by the "colour" revolutions that occurred in parts of eastern Europe a few years back a big fear for them is that they come to home.

It might even mean he has to Campaign a bit more rigorously than normal for his re-election as president.

. The Duma occasionally will put up token resistance voting against some proposed legislation, however I suspect these may be staged shows of "democracy" and how reasonable the Government is.

I hope that answers your questions. Feel free to ask me to elaborate on any points.

Pedronicus wrote:Was it a woolly mammoth or a bear with a fish?

No clue what your going on about.

This is a very enlightening thread, BvP. I've learned a lot just by reading through it.

Props to you, good sir.

tkr4lf wrote:This is a very enlightening thread, BvP. I've learned a lot just by reading through it.

Props to you, good sir.

Thanks! I'm glad it could be of help/ was not a huge snooze fest. Though don't let me be the only source of your info on Russia/the USSR. There is so much matrial on the region and so many interpretations of events, what I have to say is by no means the final word. If you found something in here particularly interesting, please Google it, go to your local public library see if you can find an interesting book on it and expand your knowledge.

One of my favorite things to do while researching a paper was to just brows all the Russian history books that were near the book I was looking for. It wasn't helping me write my paper but it sure was cool!