Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Could it be? A positive article on Russia?!!

  1. #1
    Завсегдатай sperk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    США
    Posts
    2,285
    Rep Power
    17

    Could it be? A positive article on Russia?!!

    Life after Debt - Russia's New Millennium

    By Eric Kraus

    When John - a man who does as good a job as anyone on earth rendering arcane economic theory accessible to non-specialists - asked me to write a brief review of Russian financial opportunities, I shuddered. I write a Russian strategy review entitled Truth and Beauty (and Russian Finance) which runs to a good 25 pages per month. Frankly, explaining Russia to the outside world is no less a challenge than explaining the arcana of Fed policy....or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. And in just five pages...I hardly know where to begin...

    Since the beginning of the Putin era, the kind reader will have been repeatedly warned of Russia's impending collapse. Hair-raising stories in the financial press told of dysfunctional government, criminal oligarchs, industrial decline, corruption and chaos. Yet oddly enough, since 1998 Russia can boast the world's best-performing equity market (the RTS Index has appreciated from 58 to >1930, i.e. more than 37-fold!) as well as the fastest GDP growth rate of any country outside of Asia. Why?

    Neither of the two usual explanations: "it's just a bubble," or "oil prices!" hold much water. Markets can temporarily move out of sync with their fundamentals, but they tend to snap back fairly fast - witness the Russian Bubble of 1996-97 (or NASDAQ 2000). For a "bubble" to grow continuously for almost a decade would suggest that it had an unusually strong skin. As for oil prices, certainly, they have been the icing on the economic but then oil prices are high for Venezuela and Saudi Arabia too, yet their markets are in the tank. Furthermore, relatively high oil prices in 1995-96 did not benefit Russia - the notorious Russian Oligarchs pillaged their own country, pumping their export revenues abroad. As Russia starved, a few unscrupulous operators such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky became fabulously rich.

    The resultant 1998 debt-crisis marked a watershed - over the ensuing years, Russia prepaid the lion's share of her foreign debt, while the economy has doubled in size; at $310bn foreign exchange reserves are now the world's third largest; inflation has fallen into the single digits for the first time in 20 years while Russia is rated investment-grade by all rating agencies.

    Russia's spectacular recovery from the crisis was made possible by some tough belt-tightening. First, they stopped borrowing. Under Putin the tax system was revamped, with a 13% flat tax on income (Russian immigration forms are available on request!), provoking a huge increase in tax receipts. The government ran massive trade and budget surpluses, and the $100bn "rainy-day" Stabilization Fund meant to buffer the effects of commodity price volatility is now large enough to last an entire monsoon; Russia could maintain 2006 budget spending unchanged for four years at any oil price - Including zero.

    With real revenue per capita growing at more than 10% per year, there is an explosion in Russia's middle class - retail distribution is growing like wildfire as vast shopping malls mushroom up around the major cities, consumer lending is rising to European levels, mobile phone penetration has surged to over 100%...and with several hundred thousand new automobile registrations each year, traffic in St. Petersburg and Moscow's is grinding to a halt (ah, for the good old days, when one could have safely stopped to have a picnic in the middle of any Soviet street...) For the first time ever, the average Russian can enjoy the things that Americans have long taken for granted: buying a car, a new washing-machine, and escaping the cold Russian winter for a quick flight to the beaches of Egypt.


    Politics

    While investors in the G7 countries can usually pretty much ignore the politics, in the developing countries, this is often the top economic consideration. Thus, to understand the current situation, we need a brief historical overview:

    Unlike America, which has enjoyed two really good centuries, Russia's last millennium was - to put it mildly - difficult. It began with the catastrophic Mongol invasions, proceeded through Tsarism, devastation in the Napoleonic Wars, a largely wasted 19th Century, then the Bolshevik revolution, with renewed devastation in the two World Wars - where Russian losses dwarfed those of any other combatant.

    By the mid-1980s when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, the Soviet Union was showing the strain. Collapsing commodity prices, rising popular expectations, the Afghan war, and an increasingly-restive Eastern Europe were major challenges to the Communist Party. Yet vitally for the understanding of current Russian policy, the Soviet Union had seen off far worse crises since the 1917 Revolution; and in 1986-89, while it was shaky, it was nowhere near collapse. Instead, the Soviet Union was the first empire in history to voluntarily legislate itself out of existence.

    While this voluntary liquidation was greeted as a millennial event in the West, for the average Russian, it was a period of intense misery. Prices soared as the rouble lost all value; with the social and industrial infrastructures collapsing, hunger stalked the streets. Russia was repeatedly humiliated on the global stage. Although well-intentioned Western leaders had vowed to respect Russia's security concerns, nature abhors a vacuum; the temptation for NATO to forget Reagan's promises and advance NATO's forward bases up to Russia's borders "just in case" proved irresistible. For ordinary Russians, the good-hearted Western powers and indeed, the very term "democracy" gradually became synonymous with hunger, chaos and national humiliation.

    Economically, the 1990s were a lost decade. Russia had neither the historical experience of capitalism nor the institutions necessary to support a sudden liberalization. Instead, privatization benefited only a tiny fraction of society as the brutal "Oligarchs" gained control of entire industries by corruption and violence. Some of these same men are now belatedly spinning themselves as "heroes for democracy and transparency." That many in the West are ready to believe such fables demonstrates the power of well-managed PR!

    At Yeltsin's invitation, the Russian regions gradually broke away from central control; the regional elite - generally Soviet-era bosses-turned-privateers - built their independent kingdoms. The supposed Russian "free press" was firmly under the thumb of the Oligarchs who first demanded that their tame journalists ensure the dubious reelection of a desperately unpopular Boris Yeltsin in 1996, then, after winning the election, turned their fire on each other in the "Banker's Wars", helping to bring down the "Young Reformers" government and ushering in the 1998 financial crisis.

    When Yeltsin's surprise resignation on New Year's Eve 2000 catapulted then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin into the presidency, the latter found himself at the helm of a badly-holed ship. The Western press gave Putin little chance of success, predicting that, like Yeltsin before him, he would be hamstrung by the all-powerful Oligarchs and their closest allies, the corrupt regional governors.

    In fact, Mr. Putin was made of far sterner stuff than anyone suspected. He quickly moved to break the power of the most arrogant of the Oligarchs, while reducing the regional governors to dependency on the Kremlin. Tax and fiscal policy were totally revamped, reform legislation pushed through a newly-compliant Duma, vital energy resources were at least partially reclaimed by the State (like in every other major oil exporter) - and suddenly, Russia was back in business.

    From Politics to Geopolitics

    Many in the West have voiced concerns about the supposed loss of democratic freedoms - some perhaps sincere, but others clearly to advance their personal agendas.

    Yes, Russian democracy remains very imperfect, although it is not intuitively obvious why Vladimir Putin, who regularly polls above 80% approval ratings, is any less "democratic" than was Boris Yeltsin, who rarely managed to make it into the 2 digits! Perhaps the systematically negative tone to Russian coverage by the foreign press since 2000 may have something to do with the fact that, while Yeltsin craved the approval of the West, Vladimir Putin has been far more focused upon courting his Russian electorate.

    In any event, of the most successful emerging countries which rose from grinding rural poverty to first-world wealth in a single generation, - first Singapore, Korea and Taiwan; now China, Vietnam and Russia - none was remotely democratic, at least during their early transition phases. Of course, as countries become richer, their rising middle classes gradually demand more political representation. Russia is not there quite yet.

    The good news, on the other hand, is that any talk of a new cold-war is totally misguided. The Cold War was a confrontation of ideologies - today, like China, Russia has no desire to spread her politico-economic system to the rest of the world. Instead, Russia has entered into the hyper-competitive global capitalist game, and Mr. Putin intends to see Russia regain her status as a major economic, energy and diplomatic power in a multipolar world.

    Comparing Russian with Chinese diplomacy, the Chinese appear happy to let Russia take the diplomatic flack, while they sit back, quietly and skillfully advancing their pawns. Russia, on the other hand, insistently demands her place at the top table because Russia feels herself to be a stake-holder in the current geopolitical system. No one in the Russian government is crazy enough to imagine that Russia can rule the world...nor even half of it. China, of course, may have other intentions.

    It would be sheer madness for the West to continue antagonizing the Russian Bear, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by pushing Russia into China's welcoming embrace.

    Economics

    From the investor's standpoint, Russia's recovery can be divided into three phases:

    -In the immediate aftermath of the 1998 crisis, Russian Eurobonds offered yields of 50% per annum (Russia never missed a payment on her external debt). It was easy money, at least if one believed that the whole country was not about to disappear off the map!

    -By 2000, the bonds were getting pricier, and it was time for a look at the blue chip natural resources stocks - mostly oil and gas. With Russia's top oil company, Lukoil trading at $6 (a P/E ratio of less than 2), and shares in the world's largest gas company - Gazprom - going for pennies, it was akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Significantly, Russian domestic investors who - until then - had wisely avoided their own equity market were quick to recognize the new opportunities; they, and those few foreigners willing to make the leap of faith, enjoyed rich pickings.

    -Now, seven years later, although the Russian RTS market index still trades at a tempting discount to its global emerging peers, the lowest-hanging fruit has already been picked. The blue chip equities still represent good value, but investors can no longer hope for 3-digit annual returns. Given the high taxation of oil exports, the Russian oil companies are becoming utilities - offering modest but unexciting profits at any realistic oil price, and the sharpest investors are looking further afield.

    Russia's New Asian Century

    Sometimes the accepted wisdom is right. The global economic center of gravity is currently shifting from the G7 countries towards the industrial powerhouses of Asia - also enriching countries such as Russia, Argentina and Brazil which supply the "Dragon economies" with the commodities they so crave.

    Smart investors are surfing this wave. The commodities cycle turned in 2000 - although in nominal dollars commodities now seem expensive, their real inflation-adjusted prices are just now rising off of their historic lows. With Asian economies firing on all cylinders, commodities are set to run right off the charts.

    The main engine for Russian economic growth will remain the supply of raw materials to the Asian dragons: not just oil and gas, but also metals (precious and industrial), ores and minerals, chemicals, fertilizers and forestry products. After 50 years as the world's top agricultural importer, Russia has become a significant exporter.

    That said, as the Russian economy diversifies and Russia becomes a middle-income country, the best investment opportunities will be found the fastest-growing industries - companies oriented towards satisfying domestic demand: retail, construction, real estate, banking and insurance, telecoms, automobiles, etc. Yes, serious problems remain: creaking infrastructure, very uneven corporate governance (ranging from "international standards" to "simply dreadful"), too much bureaucracy and - like the world's other two fastest-growing economies, China and Vietnam, widespread corruption. Yet, over the past 8 years, investors have been richly rewarded for taking the risk - provided that is, that they are present on the ground in Moscow, run properly diversified portfolios, and keep a finger on the pulse.

    Russia is a vital part of any emerging markets portfolio, and investors wishing to prosper over the coming years must have some exposure to these powerhouses of global growth. While US-listed ADRs allow direct purchase of the Russian blue-chips, it would be unfortunate to miss the mid-cap opportunities, and for those not inclined to follow the market full-time (including nights and weekends), it would be best to invest via funds. The Russian bear is back, flaunting his new horns!
    Кому - нары, кому - Канары.

  2. #2
    Завсегдатай kalinka_vinnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, Cali
    Posts
    5,771
    Rep Power
    19
    Nah. The author must have been smoking large quantities of socks to be writing something positive about Russia! What is the source?

    The problem is that our Russian friends won't read this article unless it is translated to Russian... and positive articles somehow never get translated...
    Hei, rett norsken min og du er død.
    I am a notourriouse misspeller. Be easy on me.
    Пожалуйста! Исправляйте мои глупые ошибки (но оставьте умные)!
    Yo hablo español mejor que tú.
    Trusnse kal'rt eturule sikay!!! ))

  3. #3
    Завсегдатай Ramil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Other Universe
    Posts
    8,499
    Rep Power
    30
    Don't underestimate us. We have read this article and were consent with it.

    Pass our thanks to the author, for we are pleased.



    Do English speaking monarchs also refer to themselves in plural?
    Send me a PM if you need me.

  4. #4
    Властелин
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Invalid City!
    Posts
    1,347
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil

    Do English speaking monarchs also refer to themselves in plural?
    Yes.

    It's known as 'the Royal 'we'.

  5. #5
    Завсегдатай Ramil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Other Universe
    Posts
    8,499
    Rep Power
    30
    And what paper is it, btw?
    Send me a PM if you need me.

  6. #6
    Завсегдатай sperk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    США
    Posts
    2,285
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil
    And what paper is it, btw?
    I don't think an article like this could makes its way into a Western newspaper. It was written by Eric Kraus who writes a newsletter called "Truth and Beauty" about the Russian economy and markets. Eric works in the finance industry and is an accomplished money manager.
    Кому - нары, кому - Канары.

  7. #7
    Завсегдатай Ramil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Other Universe
    Posts
    8,499
    Rep Power
    30
    I thought the same. Given the notion about "freedom of speech" it appears that western media still tends to publish things selectively.
    Send me a PM if you need me.

  8. #8
    Властелин
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,348
    Rep Power
    14
    The Russian bear is back, flaunting his new horns!

  9. #9
    Завсегдатай sperk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    США
    Posts
    2,285
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by laxxy
    The Russian bear is back, flaunting his new horns!
    that refers to a bull market in stocks, when stocks are going up, versus a bear market, when stocks are going down. Russia is in a bull market, so the Russian bear has horns...kind of a play on words.
    Кому - нары, кому - Канары.

  10. #10
    Подающий надежды оратор
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil
    I thought the same. Given the notion about "freedom of speech" it appears that western media still tends to publish things selectively.
    *cough* hollow

  11. #11
    Завсегдатай kalinka_vinnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, Cali
    Posts
    5,771
    Rep Power
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil
    I thought the same. Given the notion about "freedom of speech" it appears that western media still tends to publish things selectively.
    ? What on earth has an editors decision on what to print to do with free speech, apart from that he can decide to print whatever he wants?
    Hei, rett norsken min og du er død.
    I am a notourriouse misspeller. Be easy on me.
    Пожалуйста! Исправляйте мои глупые ошибки (но оставьте умные)!
    Yo hablo español mejor que tú.
    Trusnse kal'rt eturule sikay!!! ))

  12. #12
    Завсегдатай Ramil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Other Universe
    Posts
    8,499
    Rep Power
    30
    Why all editors are so singlesided then?
    Send me a PM if you need me.

  13. #13
    JJ
    JJ is offline
    Властелин
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ural, Russia
    Posts
    1,390
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
    ? What on earth has an editors decision on what to print to do with free speech, apart from that he can decide to print whatever he wants?
    He prints whatever he's been paid for.
    Gib immer 100% bei der Arbeit: 12% am Montag, 23% am Dienstag, 40% am Mittwoch, 20% am Donnerstag, 5% am Freitag ...

  14. #14
    Завсегдатай kalinka_vinnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, Cali
    Posts
    5,771
    Rep Power
    19
    Right...

    Freedom of speech: Freedom of speech is the liberty to freely say what one pleases, as well as the related liberty to hear what others have stated. Recently, it has been commonly understood as encompassing all types of expression, including the freedom to create and distribute movies, pictures, songs, dances, and all other forms of expressive communication.

    Where does it say that editors HAVE to publish every thing coming out of a person's mouth? Bias, OK, but why diss the freedom of speech?
    Hei, rett norsken min og du er død.
    I am a notourriouse misspeller. Be easy on me.
    Пожалуйста! Исправляйте мои глупые ошибки (но оставьте умные)!
    Yo hablo español mejor que tú.
    Trusnse kal'rt eturule sikay!!! ))

  15. #15
    Завсегдатай Ramil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Other Universe
    Posts
    8,499
    Rep Power
    30
    My opinion is that that the press should reflect the whole spectrum of opinions on the matter, not just some part of it. There's no freedom of speech in a country where press publishes only selected opinions and editors play as if they were censors.
    Send me a PM if you need me.

  16. #16
    Завсегдатай
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,216
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil
    Why all editors are so singlesided then?
    Люди тенденциозные в общем, так что они просто соответствуют человеческой природе! ! ! !

  17. #17
    Властелин
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Invalid City!
    Posts
    1,347
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil
    My opinion is that that the press should reflect the whole spectrum of opinions on the matter, not just some part of it.
    That is already the case. If a certain opinion is not being expressed, it's because no-one holds it, or, rather, those who do are in enough of a minority that you aren't seeing evidenence of it from half way around the world.

  18. #18
    Завсегдатай Ramil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Other Universe
    Posts
    8,499
    Rep Power
    30
    That is an interesting question, which statement is true:

    (A) The publications reflect the opinion of the majority
    -or-
    (B) The opinion of the majority is formed by the publications?

    Now, nearly any government in the world needs public approval for their actions. The public approval is achieved through the publications in press and media.
    Send me a PM if you need me.

  19. #19
    Властелин
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Invalid City!
    Posts
    1,347
    Rep Power
    16
    That is an interesting question, which statement is true:

    (A) The publications reflect the opinion of the majority
    -or-
    (B) The opinion of the majority is formed by the publications?
    They are both partially true.

    Mainstream newspapers are just businesses, published to make money, so they have to sell as many copies as possible. They can do this either by going straight for mainstream opinion and trying to take readers away from other mainstrean publications, by trying to be a small fish in a big pond, or they can go for a niche sector of the market that isn't as well catered-for, trying to be a big fish in a small pond. Either way, they are following public opinion.

    Once they are in the market, they have to do two things. Firstly, they have to keep the readership they already have. They do this by preaching to the choir. They're trying to keep their readership 'loyal', by reflecting their opinions more closely than the competition does. At the same time, they are trying to expand their readership, and to do this they have to argue their position more effectively than their competitors. So in this sense, they are trying to affect public opinion.

    It's sometimes difficult to distinguish between them, especially with the mainstream press who sit on the centre ground. A good example of this is The Sun, which has the biggest circulation of any paper in the UK (I actually read that it's the biggest in Europe). It's a tabloid aimed at the centre-right mass market, owned by Murdoch's News Corp. Being a tabloid, whose readers aren't perhaps as bright as they could be, it always makes a point of declaring which side it supports (as opposed to the broadsheets, who tend to trust their readers to read between the lines). Traditionally, it supported the Tories, but in 1996, under great fanfare, it switched alliegance to Labour. Overnight it went from zealously defending everything the Tories did and attacking Labour, to zealously attacking the government and spreading Labour's propaganda. Lo and behold, Labour went on to win a landslide election in '97.

    The things is, nobody can agree on how much The Sun's position affected that election. There are those (mostly Sun journalists ) who claim that their switch was decisive, because they took hundreds of thousands of readers with them, but there are others who think The Sun just saw which way the wind was blowing and backed the party that was guaranteed a huge majority anyway.

    Now, nearly any government in the world needs public approval for their actions. The public approval is achieved through the publications in press and media.
    Yes, but you can achieve 'good press' in many ways. You can take direct or indirect control of the media. Or you can intimidate or bribe the press into submission, or legislate them into silence. Or you can you can cosy-up to people like Rupert Murdoch and hope they bless you with their support.

    Or you can just argue a more convincing case than the other lot.

  20. #20
    Почтенный гражданин
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    257
    Rep Power
    13
    I often hear or read in papers that elections in Russia is free but not fair. What does that mean? I think that if election is free then it, obviously, fair.
    Единственное, что люди любят давать бесплатно - это советы.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 19th, 2010, 06:57 PM
  2. Happy Russia Thread - Share Positive Stories!
    By kalinka_vinnie in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 17th, 2007, 09:09 AM
  3. Replies: 59
    Last Post: April 9th, 2007, 10:25 PM
  4. Bleak article about Russia
    By sperk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: November 11th, 2006, 06:39 PM
  5. Bleak article about Russia -- er I mean, the Baltic States
    By Бармалей in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 25th, 2006, 08:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Russian Lessons                           

Russian Tests and Quizzes            

Russian Vocabulary