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 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_

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

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?

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...'

Originally Posted by 14Russian

What collapse? I don't think any collapse is happening or going to happen. Or it's again not what you meant?
Russia on Verge of Junk as S&P Puts Rating on Negative Watch - Bloomberg

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

"Junk rating" or speculative rating means that investors are less likely to invest money in that particular country economy and it's far from "collapse"
First of all, if you didn't know Russia having problem at the moment to bring Western investments because of the sanctions, it's been like that for several month, it's a problem but not a catastrophe.
Second if you read your article then you might notice that it says: "Russia may lose its investment-grade credit rating for the first time in a decade after Standard & Poor’s". So it may or may not but you already predicting a collapse which means you are trying to sell your personal desires as a fact, does not look very convincing though.
BTW if S&P does lower the rating then Russia will go a step lower and will stand with countries like: Turkey, Bulgaria, Georgia, Croatia, Serbia, Costa Rica, Portugal etc. are they collapsing too or it is not what you meant again?
And third, here is an argument against yours - Rogers: Russia next year will be a great investment - News 24

Подскажите, пожалуйста, лучшее название для этой дискуссии.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Подскажите, пожалуйста, лучшее название для этой дискуссии.

Demographic dynamics under socialism (Plus tidbits of Putin)

Originally Posted by diogen_

Demographic dynamics under socialism (Plus tidbits of Putin)

How about Russophobic lies and how to expose them?

When it comes to population trends in the early days of the USSR:

1) There was a civil war going on. It's a common trend in wars, that people have less children.

2) There were public information campaigns on a large scale in the USSR. Communist ideology has an aspect of liberating women. Part of that is educating women in controlling how many children they have. Not being pregnant all the time would have been incredibly liberating for women in those days. There are many ways to reduce the chance of getting pregnant without using modern contraceptives. I think it's very likely that women got educated on that, and were able to reduce the number of children they had.

3) The USSR was the first country in the world to officially legalise abortion - this happened in 1920. It's quite likely that the option to have an abortion reduced births significantly. A lot of single women or very poor women probably chose this option rather than have a child they weren't in a position to look after.

4) The influence of religion reduced, so ideas about "go forth and multiply" and "let God open and close the womb"
probably became less influential.

Then in the 1930s the number of births increased per the stats that diogen posted. That ties in perfectly with something I studied at university, whereby the USSR was starting up creches and various state-run facilities to provide childcare for working women. This was somewhat unique and the way that the USSR did this was much studied in other countries. I read a book about it at university, by a woman who toured the USSR just to look at how childcare was organised. A lot of the aspects of the Soviet childcare system was copied in Sweden, precisely to solve the childcare problem which meant that women in the 1930s had less children. Basically, when free good quality childcare was available, women were probably more willing to start having more children.

Also, by the 1930s, a lot of people probably in better housing than in the 1920s, the Civil War was in the past and things were more stable.

Originally Posted by hddscan

How about Russophobic lies and how to expose them?

What am I missing if I don't think blackpainting socialism is Russophobic ?