Thread: Demographic dynamics under socialism + tidbits of Putin + related stuff

Originally Posted by Lampada

Открывшаяся свобода передвижения может сыграла какую-то роль? Только в Чикаго больше миллиона иммигрантов из Польши. В Западной Европе живёт более двух миллионов.

Конечно, с этим спорить не приходится. Вопрос в другом: ведь свобода передвижения действует в обе стороны? Почему же тогда люди из Западной Европы не стремятся в Польшу? Нет, серьезно, я понимаю, что уровень жизни в Западной Европе выше, но ведь и возможностей для потенциального роста больше в развивающейся экономике? В Западной Европе высокая безработица и рынок давным-давно поделен - начинающему бизнесу не так просто на него пробиться, а в Польше по идее должны быть такие радужные перспективы для развития? Или это очередная "лапша на уши"? Ведь не от хорошей жизни люди с высшим образованием едут из Польши в Западную Европу, чтобы работать там сантехниками и гувернантками?

Originally Posted by SergeMak

Кстати, не объясните, почему при ужасном коммунистическом режиме население Польши уверенно росло, а после 1991 г. убывает? (Версия про то, что ужасные коммунисты запрещали средства контрацепции не канает по причине того, что это брехня, как и многое из того, что вы тут живописали о тяжелой судьбе простых русских.)

I don’t know much about Poland. Maybe, the influence of the church started to wane.

But the idea that socialism positively contributes to the growth of population is definitely false. After the coup of 1917 the level of childbirth decreased dramatically in the USSR in comparison with that of the Russian Empire. The chart below is a vivid example of that. After the generation of 1922 urban women (who represented the majority of population) gave birth on average to less than two children , and this figure was at this stably low level throughout all soviet times without any definite upward tendency. Hence, there are no achievements to brag about.

Несмотря на то, что рождаемость поколений, появившихся на свет в Российской империи и СССР в первые десятилетия 20 в., была заметно выше, чем в европейских странах, воспроизводственный результат для поколений 1905-1930-х годов рождения у нас оказался таким же или даже ниже, чем результаты, полученные для ряда поколений во Франции (когорты 1901-1908 ), в Швеции (когорты 1901-1915), в Норвегии (когорты 1901-1910), в Италии (когорты 1914-1919). Это может быть объяснено только существенно более высоким уровнем смертности в СССР.

http://www.infran.ru/vovenko/60years_ww2/demogr1.htm

Originally Posted by diogen_

But the idea that socialism positively contributes to the growth of population is definitely false. After the coup of 1917 the level of childbirth decreased dramatically in the USSR in comparison with that of the Russian Empire.

Nice facts twisting
So higher death rates are consequences of socialism? But not consequences of three revolutions and two world wars?
Propaganda detected.

Originally Posted by hddscan

Nice facts twisting
So higher death rates are consequences of socialism? But not consequences of three revolutions and two world wars?
Propaganda detected.

Why are you jumping the gun and don’t want to read the article first? All the answers to your vitriolic diatribe are given there. Some of them are connected with socialism, some not.

Однако, наряду с эволюционными и потому достаточно плавными переходными процессами, в условиях СССР 20 в. огромную роль играли катастрофические события, резко искажавшие эволюционный характер демографического развития. В частности, в советской истории четко выделяются три кризисных периода, во время которых наблюдалось резкое снижение общего числа рождений в стране: 1915-1922 гг. (первая мировая война, гражданская война, голод); 1930-1936 гг. (коллективизация, голод); 1941-1948 гг. (Великая Отечественная война, голод). Обращают на себя внимание почти одинаковая длительность кризисов и чрезвычайно малое число спокойных лет между ними (табл. 1)

And sorry, you need to provide some valid statistical arguments about the positive contribution of socialism to the trend of childbirth to look convincing. Irony doesn't count here.))

Originally Posted by diogen_

Why are you jumping the gun and don’t want to read the article first? All the answers to your vitriolic diatribe are given there. Some of them are connected with socialism, some not.

Because you conveniently omitted some parts of the article that wouldn't fit certain narrative.
I've seen such a pattern many-many times and it usually happens on MSM that spread Russophobic propaganda.
Just saying.

Originally Posted by diogen_

And sorry, you need to provide some valid statistical arguments about the positive contribution of socialism to the trend of childbirth to look convincing.

First we need to agree to a definition of socialism and countries that have/had it.

That's funny how the table turns. Typically, socialism leads to an end, now "The end" thread has led to socialism. Just saying. =))

Originally Posted by hddscan

Because you conveniently omitted some parts of the article that wouldn't fit certain narrative.
I've seen such a pattern many-many times and it usually happens on MSM that spread Russophobic propaganda.
Just saying.

No,I didn’t. I give an excerpt and the link from where it was cut from. No legerdemain was done with the extract. I don’t have to copy and paste the whole article. It’s a spam.

First we need to agree to a definition of socialism and countries that have/had it.

Surely we need to agree to come to terms with the definition but only if you disagree that the USSR refers to it.)) Otherwise, it’s an attempt to sidetrack the discussion. Please stay focused on the topic!))

Originally Posted by diogen_

No,I didn’t. I give an excerpt and the link from where it was cut from. No legerdemain was done with the extract. I don’t have to copy and paste the whole article. It’s a spam.

You have drawn your conclusion based on certain parts of the article you posted.
The conclusion however is misleading and provocative and now you are tying to mask it with referring to original articles which is, in whole, does not confirm you conclusion but rather disproves it.

Originally Posted by diogen_

Surely we need to agree to come to terms with the definition but only if you disagree that the USSR refers to it.

Your statement does not make much sense to me. You probably would have to elaborate a little. If you want to continue of course.

Originally Posted by hddscan

You have drawn your conclusion based on certain parts of the article you posted.
The conclusion however is misleading and provocative and now you are tying to mask it with referring to original articles which is, in whole, does not confirm you conclusion but rather disproves it.

Your statement does not make much sense to me. You probably would have to elaborate a little. If you want to continue of course.

It’s just blah blah blah to save face. With the above you didn't contribute with something substantial to the discussion beside some sweeping generalizations of my possible "true" intentions based on your unconfirmed suggestions. Please provide some specific facts with links on how the socialism in the USSR positively contributed to the demography of this country instead of pretending you don't understand what I mean.))

Originally Posted by diogen_

It’s just blah blah blah to save face. With the above you didn't contribute with something substantial to the discussion beside some sweeping generalizations of my possible "true" intentions based on your unconfirmed suggestions.

You mean on the contrary of your blah blah blah?

Originally Posted by diogen_

Please provide some specific facts with links on how the socialism in the USSR positively contributed to the demography of this country instead of pretending you don't understand what I mean.))

I don't need to provide such facts, because I have never said neither that socialism did some remarkable contributions to the demography nor I stated that socialism caused any decline to the demography.
You on the other hand said that

Originally Posted by diogen_

But the idea that socialism positively contributes to the growth of population is definitely false.

And yet failed to provide facts to prove that, because the article you referring to says:

Социальные потрясения 20 века на всем пространстве бывшего СССР - войны, голод, массовое насилие в ходе революционных процессов и социально-экономических экспериментов - нарушили естественный ход демографической эволюции и непосредственным образом сказались на демографических судьбах поколений, испытавших воздействие чрезвычайных обстоятельств на тех или иных отрезках времени своей жизни.

I merely pointed out that such a conclusion looks like a Russophobic propaganda to me.

And now you trying to provoke a fight, so moderator would close the whole topic. Don't, just go pick a fight somewhere else.

Originally Posted by hddscan

I don't need to provide such facts, because I have never said neither that socialism did some remarkable contributions to the demography nor I stated that socialism caused any decline to the demography.

So, it means you simply don’t have any strong opinion on the issue based on facts and still try to pass judgments on others. Get it.))

And yet failed to provide facts to prove that, because the article you referring to says...

Sorry,“голод, массовое насилие в ходе революционных процессов и социально-экономических экспериментов” are those specific negative factors that contributed to the demographic situation in the USSR, and these factors are not only mentioned in the article but also closely tied up with socialism in the USSR.

I merely pointed out that such a conclusion looks like a Russophobic propaganda to me.

If somebody doesn’t share communist believes, it by no means can be qualified “Russofobic propaganda”. Some shortage of logic once again.))

And now you trying to provoke a fight, so moderator would close the whole topic. Don't, just go pick a fight somewhere else.

It’s is wishful thinking and appeal to authority of moderator in order to stop the discussion. According to the rules, I can challenge any of your points without asking permission. No personal insults have been given in the thread so far.

Originally Posted by diogen_

...No personal insults have been given in the thread so far.

Не думаю, что вы опуститесь до персональных оскорблений, но дискуссия вроде приобретает недружелюбный характер, что само по себе абсолютно нежелательно и вредно для форума. И так уже слишком много закрытых тем.

Originally Posted by hddscan

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you on that or maybe you hide it very well.
Moreover the way you present your information sources show that you are always getting one side of the story, which means you are not operating with facts but with propaganda only

Hmm, let's face the facts, shall we?
You asked to confirm where Putin says that he takes responsibility, I gave you that and please note that information sources you read did not give you that information i.e. they lied to you.
Now you still insist that I'm being lied to over and over but in reality it's the other way around. I guess that makes you what? Harperbot?

True, and this is completely and entirely fault of Russian government - Putin's government and Yeltsin's and Medvedev's.
Although I finally see something good happening about that not that it is Putin's desire but rather inevitability of the situation.

Do I need to care about that? And why?
BTW I have no plans to keep my earnings in Canadian dollar and I bet I'm not alone. Does it make Canadian currency unimportant?

Hold to that thought
Now go and read all those precious MSM you've been referring to.
You'll find that they all claim loud and ambitious that the sanctions are working and Russian economy is hurt because of that.
So what is it? Do they work or do they not? You can't have it both ways.

You're the one that is not facing facts. Also, can you stop with your neo-Soviet propaganda in this thread? Bickering with diogen, you're going to get it closed. Or maybe that is your intent? This is Sergei's thread to deal with the economy in Russia at the moment.

I already explained my choice of sources. If you don't know about my 'anti-West' comments, you didn't read all my posts (from previous) and that's your problem, not mine.

If I interpreted, correctly, Putin didn't take the blame per se. He merely stated, that a head of state is responsible for the country (country's economy etc.). He didn't say, explicitly, that 'my actions led to this predicament.' Can you recognize or distinguish a difference? Probably not.

'Although I finally see something good happening about that not that it is Putin's desire but rather inevitability of the situation.' - Based on what? You have no logic to your conclusions.

Are you saying the sanctions aren't having an impact at all? I never contested that they were the main driving force hurting Russia's economy. I said, that Russia is not SELF-SUSTAINING. I predicted an economic collapse way before sanctions, way before the Ukraine conflict. They are too reliant on oil/gas. The economy is mismanaged, in general. Now, that oil/gas prices have dropped, it's easier to recognize these weaknesses - except for Putinoids, I guess.

'BTW I have no plans to keep my earnings in Canadian dollar and I bet I'm not alone. Does it make Canadian currency unimportant?' - Possibly? If people are losing faith in the value of a currency and dumping it, it might mean it's becoming unimportant? Did you fail economics? I'm not sure why you're saying this unless you are implying that there isn't a concern with the ruble? Btw, the Canadian currency has fallen with respect to the U.S. dollar and if one considers the U.S. dollar has been falling more than recovering, that's alarming, imho. But, I digress...

I hope I answered your questions.

Btw, I don't know what is wrong with this statement:
Социальные потрясения 20 века на всем пространстве бывшего СССР - войны, голод, массовое насилие в ходе революционных процессов и социально-экономических экспериментов - нарушили естественный ход демографической эволюции и непосредственным образом сказались на демографических судьбах поколений, испытавших воздействие чрезвычайных обстоятельств на тех или иных отрезках времени своей жизни.

Sounds accurate to me. Btw, I have a theory that the population in Poland started dropping after EU association. If you look at current EU policies and the culture they push, it's to promote work for both parents. Thus, they are having less children. This is part of the social-democratic (socialist) model so in essence, diogen, is correct. You are wrong....as usual.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

You're the one that is not facing facts. Also, can you stop with your neo-Soviet propaganda in this thread?

Not saying that socialism is nothing but bad is not neo-Soviet propaganda, you and diogen on the other hand say that socialism-USSR-Russia is nothing but bad, so you spread propaganda. Looks logical to me.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

This is Sergei's thread to deal with the economy in Russia at the moment.

It's not me who started turning it to socialism discussion, so maybe you need to bark at the source?

Originally Posted by 14Russian

If I interpreted, correctly, Putin didn't take the blame per se. He merely stated, that a head of state is responsible for the country (country's economy etc.). He didn't say, explicitly, that 'my actions led to this predicament.' Can you recognize or distinguish a difference? Probably not.

This is what you asked for

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Where has he said he takes full responsibility? Or any responsibility? Find me one site, whether Western or Russian or any source.

And I answered it, changing the initial question does not make you right it just makes you stubborn.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

'Although I finally see something good happening about that not that it is Putin's desire but rather inevitability of the situation.' - Based on what? You have no logic to your conclusions.

Based on recent government moves that supposed to start creating businesses in Russia:
These moves are:
-setting the real market value of rouble (was planned on 2015 but changed to late 2014 because of oil price)
-increased subsidizing of credits for agriculture (signed on Dec 22)
-leaving bank rate at 6.5% for small business loans and 9% for investment loans but setting bank rate to 17% for other loans (Dec of 2014)

Originally Posted by hddscan

This is what you asked for

And I answered it, changing the initial question does not make you right it just makes you stubborn.

Based on recent government moves that supposed to start creating businesses in Russia:
These moves are:
-setting the real market value of rouble (was planned on 2015 but changed to late 2014 because of oil price)
-increased subsidizing of credits for agriculture (signed on Dec 22)
-leaving bank rate at 6.5% for small business loans and 9% for investment loans but setting bank rate to 17% for other loans (Dec of 2014)

'And I answered it, changing the initial question does not make you right it just makes you stubborn.'
No, you are arguing semantics. I didn't interpret it that way. Many others didn't either. I also said, he is responsible for the condition of the country but he made a general statement about heads of state are responsible for their economies. I am saying he sugarcoated his concession that he is 'responsible' for it.

Those 'government moves' are going to stop the collapse? Удачи!!

Originally Posted by 14Russian

I didn't interpret it that way. Many others didn't either.

I didn't interpret anything, I took your words, translated them and posted the answer, if it's not what you meant that's fine, just choose your wording better next time

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Many others didn't either.

I disagree and you have no proof

Originally Posted by 14Russian

I also said, he is responsible for the condition of the country but he made a general statement about heads of state are responsible for their economies.

Hm, let's see
So you are saying that he's responsible for the conditions and he's saying that he, as a president responsible for the conditions but somehow what you're saying and what he said are two different things. Interesting, illogical, but still interesting. Don't know if there is any point to argue with that since I cannot even see a difference.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Those 'government moves' are going to stop the collapse?

What collapse? I don't think any collapse is happening or going to happen. Or it's again not what you meant?

Подскажите, пожалуйста, лучшее название для этой дискуссии.

Originally Posted by hddscan

I didn't interpret anything, I took your words, translated them and posted the answer, if it's not what you meant that's fine, just choose your wording better next time

I disagree and you have no proof

What collapse? I don't think any collapse is happening or going to happen. Or it's again not what you meant?

My last comment on this: it's not difficult to understand. If you read the article PLUS the comments, they all had the same conclusion I did: Putin said he is responsible for the economy as a head of state. He said it in vague and generic terms. But, he didn't take blame or responsibilty for the actual problems - his argument is that oil prices is causing some difficulty and that's where he made his 'us vs them' and we're the cornered bear speech. So, he didn't take responsibilty that Russia is not self-sustaining and that without advantageous oil/gas market conditions, Russia is susceptible to major economic problems. There might have been a hint of a 'we must diversify' comment but that's it.

Saying, "I am responsible for my country and the economy.' (PERIOD) is not exactly the same as 'I am responsible for my economy going into the toilet.' (PERIOD). He is more or less, merely saying, 'don't worry, I'll take care of it.' Not that his policies have resulted or contributed in the problem in the first place. I guess you don't see a difference because you have your Putinoid goggles strapped tight on your head.

What collapse? I don't think any collapse is happening or going to happen. Or it's again not what you meant?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...-watch-1-.html

"Yeah, I dunno....I don't see one either....duhhhhh...'