Well, I'm not going to speculate about the first questionOriginally Posted by AldRunh
; as for the second one, I don't know what you mean. He doesn't have two fingers on his left hand since childhood (has played with a WW2 mine). I don't know anything else.
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit, I
A couple of comments: In Russia, you can buy consumer goods for as little or as much as you want. For rediculously high prices, go to the center of Moscow and shop at the malls there. For reasonable prices, stay away from the center. For bargains, go to the markets.
Not all food products are cheaper here - my Russian friends and I have found many food items that can be purchased as cheaply or cheaper in the US. (Vodka is a notable exeption here.)
Most electronic items are sold at about the same price as in the States, but typically a bit more expensive if you buy them in a store. However, in the markets, you can by them for cheaper than in the U.S.
CDs, DVDs, etc: Rarely have I seen stuff here that isn't pirated, so yes, this stuff is cheaper.
Internet: unlimited access can be purchased for $35 a month in some districts.
Wages in Moscow: my wife's parents both are engineers with 20+ years experience. They rake in less than $500 a month each. My wife works in business (though here degree was in teaching), she has a couple years experience and has a salary of over $1000 a month.
St. Petersburg and Moscow have drastically different living conditions than most of the rest of the country. I know this from experience - I spent some time in a small Russian village, though only a couple hours from Moscow. There was no running water, the heater was fueled with wood, and I had to cross a goat pen to get to the outhouse (on the flip side, at least there was electricity). In the villages, very low living conditions are normal. It's definitely a different world out there.
Remember Yeltsin was in power from 1991 to 2000. Right?
OK. Now, just take a look at some charts:
Coal mining, mln. t., 1970-2002
Petrol production, mln. t., 1970-2002
[img]
http://www.situation.ru/app/rs/books/wh ... age010.gif
[/img]
Energy production, kW/h, 1970-2002
[img]
http://www.situation.ru/app/rs/books/wh ... age004.gif
[/img]
Steel production, mln. t., 1970-2002
[img]
http://www.situation.ru/app/rs/books/wh ... age016.gif[/img]
(to be continued...)
Кр. -- сестр. тал.
Well... coal, gas, petrol, even electricity - it is all the things so-called "liberals" despise. This is all about "raw-material economy", right? Maybe in more advanced areas of economy things are much better?
Oops, no. Actually, in advanced branches of economy things are much WORSE. Let's look, what happened with mechanical engineering during Yeltsinism:
Production of diesel generators (thousands), 1970-2002:
[img]http://www.situation.ru/app/rs/books/whitebook/c4.files/image044.gif
[/img]
Production of excavators (thousands), 1970-2002:
[img]http://www.situation.ru/app/rs/books/whitebook/c4.files/image046.gif
[/img]
Production of bulldozers (thousands), 1970-2002:
Production of tower cranes (thousands), 1970-2002:
Tractors (thousands), 1970-2002:
Lorries (thousands), 1970-2002:
Combine harvesters (thousands), 1970-2002:
Кр. -- сестр. тал.
Well... some "liberals" I encounter despise all industrial economic as well. Yes, there are ones seriouisly thinking, that the economics must be "postindustrial". Why people need these huge plant and factories, blast-furnaces and rolling mills, when they can build banks and stock exchanges instead?
Maybe they are right, and without industry people's life is better? Oh no, it's worse! What a striking surprise for "liberals"!
Consumption of milk products, in conv. units, per capita:
Consumption of meat products, kg, per capita:
Consumption of fish products, kg, per capita:
Production of wheat, flour and relatives, mln. t.:
Sugar and confectionaries, thousand t.:
Some medicines (1-antibiotics, 2-vitamines), t.:
And here are hospitals and clinics:
Кр. -- сестр. тал.
This gives some idea about Yeltsin's "reforms", right?
And here is their net result:
Overall population growth since 1950, per thousand:
Birth rate (green) and death rate (black):
Syphilis among teenagers:
I think it's enough.
Now, what do you think about Yeltsin???
Кр. -- сестр. тал.
I think you need to go look up "liberal" in your dictionary, or buy a new dictionary, one of the two.
No, he don't need. He marked the word "liberal" with inverted commas, you see. It means "so-called liberal" - they (our reformers) identify themself as liberal but they aren't indeed. But, neverthless, the West is in sympathy with them.
In Russian people call them "либерасты", "демокрады", "дерьмократы", "общечеловеки" и еще дофига таких же и более грубоватых выражений
That does not prove anything since Stalin was a mass murderer and Yeltsin was Clinton's friend. The immense population growth during Stalin's times and the depopulation under Yeltsin must be figments of Stalinist imagination.
Jonesboro, Arkansas. Mean, stupid, violent fat people, no jobs, nothing to do, hotter than a dog with 2 d--cks.
First, talk about yourself that way, not for all Russians.No, he don't need. He marked the word "liberal" with inverted commas, you see. It means "so-called liberal" - they (our reformers) identify themself as liberal but they aren't indeed. But, neverthless, the West is in sympathy with them.
In Russian people call them "либерасты", "демокрады", "дерьмократы", "общечеловеки" и еще дофига таких же и более грубоватых выражений
Second, you'd better follow scotcher's advice. You and Scorpio really mix up democracy and liberalism, as many Russians do. Meanwhile, these are completely different concepts, almost orthogonal. Yeltsin was liberal by all accounts. He just wasn't a real democrat.
Third, Scorpio, do you really think all that charts prove Yeltsin's guilt? Well, I know you do. Don't you think it's an oversimplification? Of course, he was in power and so he was responsible. But it's just not that simple to blame him in everything.
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit, I
А я и не говорил за всех русских. Я сказал, что на русском люди их так называют. И вы тоже, видимо, не заметили, что слово "либералы" заключено в кавычки. Спорить о понятиях либерал и демократ (без кавычек) я не собираюсь.
Это старая сказка о хорошем царе и плохих боярах?Of course, he was in power and so he was responsible. But it's just not that simple to blame him in everything.
Strangely, the same argument when applied to Stalin becomes: "have you seen the recently confirmed charts of those arrested and executed when Stalin was in power? Of course he was in power and so he was responsible. So one can simply blame him for everything." Then when one shows some positive charts (education, health care, to name a couple), the same argument becomes "... but it's just not that simple to attribute everything to him".
I perfectly understand that these charts cannot prove anything. It is not because something is the matter with the charts. It is because the posterior argument is highly selective and extremely biased.
Jonesboro, Arkansas. Mean, stupid, violent fat people, no jobs, nothing to do, hotter than a dog with 2 d--cks.
Are these charts supposed to put blame on Yeltsin for Russia's problems? They all start to dive in '87, 4 years before he came into power, and they all start to go back up 2 years before he left.
I'm saying this as one who is completly ignorant of Russia's economy and politics, but it doesn't look like he can be blamed for anything except not instantly fixing the country.
Tim.
Не знаю.
On Gorbachev & Yeltsin. Два сапога - пара.
What you're saying is correct. My impression is, too, that they all started to decline somewhere in 1987-88. The critical observation is that before 1991 that decline is within normal fluctuations (on that charts that show 1984 and earlier). But after 1991 they "sky-rocketed", into the ground. My interpretation is "there had been certain recession until 1991, and the reforms of 1991 were meant (or advertised) to deal with it, but they turned the recession into a catastrophe".
Not to mention that the prior recession is illuminating of Gorbi's perestroika.
Jonesboro, Arkansas. Mean, stupid, violent fat people, no jobs, nothing to do, hotter than a dog with 2 d--cks.
The oligarchs are liberals in the classical sense of the word. Freedom of the individual, freedom of the businessman, freedom of the market. Because of the "inevitability" of the free market in the West we call this "neoliberalism" (Democrats, Labour Party) to distinguish it from the traditional liberal of the 20th century (Green Party, Social Democrats) who would be opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. The confusion over the term is just another example of why using conventional left-right distinctions to classify political movements is outdated and worthless.
Now that I think about it, is there a paleoliberal party in Russia? I know the KPRF are anti-revolutionary (or at least claim to be in their platform), but usually liberals are capitalists who think they can just make things "more fair," not full-out socialists.
Where did I say that? Any governor is responsible, more that anyone else. But the responsibility and blame are different things. And in both cases (Yeltsin, Stalin, whoever) it is ridiculous to blame for everything.
However, one little, but principal difference does exist. Yeltsin has been elected in 1991 directly by people (let's set aside 1996, it's another story). So the nation bears direct responsibility for its choice and fate.
In case of Stalin it is not so simple, although my general point is that eventually it is nation's responsibility, too.
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit, I
Суть была в том, что они (Ельцин, там, Чубайс и пр.) - либералы без всяких кавычек (ну, или неолибералы, как вот mike подсказывает. Но, в общем-то, другое значение в русском давно не используется).
Нет. О том, что все друг друга стоят, в том чилсе и народ - правительство.Это старая сказка о хорошем царе и плохих боярах?
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit, I
Thank you for admitting that. I did not mean you in a particular, I was remarking on the general tendencies.Where did I say that? Any governor is responsible, more that anyone else. But the responsibility and blame are different things. And in both cases (Yeltsin, Stalin, whoever) it is ridiculous to blame for everything.
Correct. The only problem with that "responsibility" argument is that by 1991 the nation had no idea what they were up to. It was a nation so politically naive that any charlatan could have been elected. One actually was. Had it had a smaller scale, it could have been qualified as a fraud, and any criminal code treats that irrespectively of the victim's "responsibility". Yet I agree that they can only blame themselves for this choice. As well as for the choice to extend Yeltsin's immunity infinitely.However, one little, but principal difference does exist. Yeltsin has been elected in 1991 directly by people (let's set aside 1996, it's another story). So the nation bears direct responsibility for its choice and fate.
Agreed, too.In case of Stalin it is not so simple, although my general point is that eventually it is nation's responsibility, too.
Jonesboro, Arkansas. Mean, stupid, violent fat people, no jobs, nothing to do, hotter than a dog with 2 d--cks.
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
