Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico
closg00 wrote:Trump is such a emotionally stunted man-child, his main concern last night was to implore his followers not watch HRC speech. DNV viewership was about 15% higher than the Repubs convention through Wednesday.
TGW wrote:Looks like neocon, war-happy republicans are voting for and financially backing Hillary.
Just freakin pa-the-tic and downright scary. I'm honestly considering voting for Trump. He'll be the most embarrassing president in US history next to Geroge Dubya, but at least he won't get thousands, if not millions, of people killed.
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/
nate33 wrote:I came across this article today. It was really an eye-opener:There’s more than just jingoistic hysteria behind the many accusations that Trump is “Putin’s agent.” In a poetic way, this is true. The international interests that financially wrecked Russia in the ’90s are doing the same to the United States now. Putin stopped them in Russia and Trump is promising to stop them in America. They recognize Trump as the enemy and slander in the only style they know—the paranoid style.
Trump was once blamed for praising Putin’s performance. But he was right. Pensions, salaries, GDP, and the value of gold reserves in Russia have risen greatly since 1999—in some cases tenfold or more. This was while both inflation and the debt-to-GDP ratio declined by orders of magnitude. The rise in living standard under Putin is reflected in longer life expectancy: It had dropped to a third-world level during the 1990s, to around 55–57, and has now risen back up to 70 by most measures. Birthrates have normalized and recently overtaken the United States. Visit Moscow and you will see infrastructure, buildings, and development that are more impressive than those found in any American city—though the same could be said, of course, for many other countries now.
By contrast, Russians remember the liberal and globalist experiment of the ’90s as a time of great suffering. The early death of literally millions of people from economic deprivation, the utter ruin of many of Russia’s formerly world-class industries: This is the legacy of economic liberalization in Russia. How did it happen?
Putin has somehow become known as the incarnation of evil in the world today. This is because globalists run the media and they want to discredit nationalism. In reality, Putin's nationalist regime has done a remarkable job in turning Russia around - at least economically. I did some personal research to verify this article. Here's what I found. (Note that Putin took over in 1999):
(Lower is more corrupt. Higher is less corrupt.)
Life Expectancy at Year of Birth
Sometimes you need to research these issues before believing everything the media has spoon-fed you. The media is dishonest and they have an agenda. Don't ever forget it.
The actual data pretty clearly shows that Putin's nationalist regime has been very good for Russia. Certainly, the situation in Russia in 1999 is different than the situation in America in 2016; but clearly, this idea that nationalism is universally a failed economic strategy is hogwash. It might not be good for international bankers, but it has proven to be quite effective for at least one nation in recent history. There is reason to believe that it could be good for the U.S.
Doug_Blew wrote:In addition that scientist
Could contribute 25 percent of his income plus 18k to a self employed iRA which is tax free. There are many tax breaks for corporations.
Kanyewest wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:You guys are boring. Ask me more economics questions!
Were the auto bailouts good for the American economy? What were the pros/cons. The US had GM stock so they earned back around $40 billion from stocks but someone on my Facebook feed is claiming that GM paid fairly low taxes so therefore it is not worth it.
Sent from my LG-D851 using RealGM mobile app
FAH1223 wrote:nate33 wrote:I came across this article today. It was really an eye-opener:There’s more than just jingoistic hysteria behind the many accusations that Trump is “Putin’s agent.” In a poetic way, this is true. The international interests that financially wrecked Russia in the ’90s are doing the same to the United States now. Putin stopped them in Russia and Trump is promising to stop them in America. They recognize Trump as the enemy and slander in the only style they know—the paranoid style.
Trump was once blamed for praising Putin’s performance. But he was right. Pensions, salaries, GDP, and the value of gold reserves in Russia have risen greatly since 1999—in some cases tenfold or more. This was while both inflation and the debt-to-GDP ratio declined by orders of magnitude. The rise in living standard under Putin is reflected in longer life expectancy: It had dropped to a third-world level during the 1990s, to around 55–57, and has now risen back up to 70 by most measures. Birthrates have normalized and recently overtaken the United States. Visit Moscow and you will see infrastructure, buildings, and development that are more impressive than those found in any American city—though the same could be said, of course, for many other countries now.
By contrast, Russians remember the liberal and globalist experiment of the ’90s as a time of great suffering. The early death of literally millions of people from economic deprivation, the utter ruin of many of Russia’s formerly world-class industries: This is the legacy of economic liberalization in Russia. How did it happen?
Putin has somehow become known as the incarnation of evil in the world today. This is because globalists run the media and they want to discredit nationalism. In reality, Putin's nationalist regime has done a remarkable job in turning Russia around - at least economically. I did some personal research to verify this article. Here's what I found. (Note that Putin took over in 1999):
(Lower is more corrupt. Higher is less corrupt.)
Life Expectancy at Year of Birth
Sometimes you need to research these issues before believing everything the media has spoon-fed you. The media is dishonest and they have an agenda. Don't ever forget it.
The actual data pretty clearly shows that Putin's nationalist regime has been very good for Russia. Certainly, the situation in Russia in 1999 is different than the situation in America in 2016; but clearly, this idea that nationalism is universally a failed economic strategy is hogwash. It might not be good for international bankers, but it has proven to be quite effective for at least one nation in recent history. There is reason to believe that it could be good for the U.S.
I posted this in September, its still true. This is their perspective:
The nationalists in Russia have wet dreams about the sanctions, being removed from the financial system as well.
It's a declaration of economic war, and the opportunity to get rid of the straight jacket of rules and regulations forced on Russia in 1991 during the Yeltsin years.
Putin as a lawyer likes to do things by the book methodically so he has been slow to move even though he is clearly sympathetic to the nationalist camp. He hadn't nationalized the central bank and if he does that, then things get really interesting.
Advisor Sergie Glazyev is one such nationalist and he holds the West in utter contempt, has zero respect for them and would love a full blown economic war not the current scuffle we have today. He was one of the first people put under U.S. sanctions during the Ukraine crisis by the Obama administration.
The Kommersant National Security Committee had a debate about the budget for 2016 and to troll the West they invited Glazyev to the debate to present his ideas.
Russia's Budget Debate Takes an Unexpected Turn
THIS is basically the message.
Russia welcomes a full scale economic war, because its in its long term interest to free itself from western rules and regulations and control over its currency and banking system. The sanctions fit in with their long term plan because they are actively looking for alternatives and partnerships. The Eurasian strategists are giddy about the China being Russia's BFF and the Iran Deal is a huge victory because it is at the heart of it all.
Also because the damage done to the EU will be far greater than Russia.
It will kill the EU, give the US a bloody nose, and Russia will be bruised and battered with black eye, but will be free to grow at very high rates in the future.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2014/eirv41n18-20140502/21_4118.pdf
Half of this plan have already been put into action. The alternative to SWIFT is online, and a new credit card issuer payment system from Visa and Mastercard is coming online and will work with Chinapay.
The Ruble has stabilized and the government did not waste its hard currency trying to prop up the Ruble, but let it slide.
They even raised interest rates sharply to 17%. A lot of Pro-Western politicians have even started to pretend to be more nationalistic and produce MORE anti-Western rhetoric than Putin but these are the same oligarchs that benefitted from the Yeltsin years. Examples of these people are Navalny, Liminov and Kasparof.
FAH1223 wrote:nate33 wrote:I came across this article today. It was really an eye-opener:There’s more than just jingoistic hysteria behind the many accusations that Trump is “Putin’s agent.” In a poetic way, this is true. The international interests that financially wrecked Russia in the ’90s are doing the same to the United States now. Putin stopped them in Russia and Trump is promising to stop them in America. They recognize Trump as the enemy and slander in the only style they know—the paranoid style.
Trump was once blamed for praising Putin’s performance. But he was right. Pensions, salaries, GDP, and the value of gold reserves in Russia have risen greatly since 1999—in some cases tenfold or more. This was while both inflation and the debt-to-GDP ratio declined by orders of magnitude. The rise in living standard under Putin is reflected in longer life expectancy: It had dropped to a third-world level during the 1990s, to around 55–57, and has now risen back up to 70 by most measures. Birthrates have normalized and recently overtaken the United States. Visit Moscow and you will see infrastructure, buildings, and development that are more impressive than those found in any American city—though the same could be said, of course, for many other countries now.
By contrast, Russians remember the liberal and globalist experiment of the ’90s as a time of great suffering. The early death of literally millions of people from economic deprivation, the utter ruin of many of Russia’s formerly world-class industries: This is the legacy of economic liberalization in Russia. How did it happen?
Putin has somehow become known as the incarnation of evil in the world today. This is because globalists run the media and they want to discredit nationalism. In reality, Putin's nationalist regime has done a remarkable job in turning Russia around - at least economically. I did some personal research to verify this article. Here's what I found. (Note that Putin took over in 1999):
(Lower is more corrupt. Higher is less corrupt.)
Life Expectancy at Year of Birth
Sometimes you need to research these issues before believing everything the media has spoon-fed you. The media is dishonest and they have an agenda. Don't ever forget it.
The actual data pretty clearly shows that Putin's nationalist regime has been very good for Russia. Certainly, the situation in Russia in 1999 is different than the situation in America in 2016; but clearly, this idea that nationalism is universally a failed economic strategy is hogwash. It might not be good for international bankers, but it has proven to be quite effective for at least one nation in recent history. There is reason to believe that it could be good for the U.S.
I posted this in September, its still true. This is their perspective:
The nationalists in Russia have wet dreams about the sanctions, being removed from the financial system as well.
It's a declaration of economic war, and the opportunity to get rid of the straight jacket of rules and regulations forced on Russia in 1991 during the Yeltsin years.
Putin as a lawyer likes to do things by the book methodically so he has been slow to move even though he is clearly sympathetic to the nationalist camp. He hadn't nationalized the central bank and if he does that, then things get really interesting.
Advisor Sergie Glazyev is one such nationalist and he holds the West in utter contempt, has zero respect for them and would love a full blown economic war not the current scuffle we have today. He was one of the first people put under U.S. sanctions during the Ukraine crisis by the Obama administration.
The Kommersant National Security Committee had a debate about the budget for 2016 and to troll the West they invited Glazyev to the debate to present his ideas.
Russia's Budget Debate Takes an Unexpected Turn
THIS is basically the message.
Russia welcomes a full scale economic war, because its in its long term interest to free itself from western rules and regulations and control over its currency and banking system. The sanctions fit in with their long term plan because they are actively looking for alternatives and partnerships. The Eurasian strategists are giddy about the China being Russia's BFF and the Iran Deal is a huge victory because it is at the heart of it all.
Also because the damage done to the EU will be far greater than Russia.
It will kill the EU, give the US a bloody nose, and Russia will be bruised and battered with black eye, but will be free to grow at very high rates in the future.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2014/eirv41n18-20140502/21_4118.pdf
Half of this plan have already been put into action. The alternative to SWIFT is online, and a new credit card issuer payment system from Visa and Mastercard is coming online and will work with Chinapay.
The Ruble has stabilized and the government did not waste its hard currency trying to prop up the Ruble, but let it slide.
They even raised interest rates sharply to 17%. A lot of Pro-Western politicians have even started to pretend to be more nationalistic and produce MORE anti-Western rhetoric than Putin but these are the same oligarchs that benefitted from the Yeltsin years. Examples of these people are Navalny, Liminov and Kasparof.
Zonkerbl wrote:It is a dirty little secret in economics that capitalism can work very well under dictatorships. Germany's economy under Hitler's was fundamentally capitalist, as was Pinochet's, and Putin is yet another example - when you are lucky enough to get a "competent" (Hitler was competent, if you only look at the economic aspect) dictator, the outcome is better than under a democracy. The problem is who takes over after these competent dictators die? Usually some idiot who messes everything up.
nate33 wrote:I came across this article today. It was really an eye-opener:There’s more than just jingoistic hysteria behind the many accusations that Trump is “Putin’s agent.” In a poetic way, this is true. The international interests that financially wrecked Russia in the ’90s are doing the same to the United States now. Putin stopped them in Russia and Trump is promising to stop them in America. They recognize Trump as the enemy and slander in the only style they know—the paranoid style.
Trump was once blamed for praising Putin’s performance. But he was right. Pensions, salaries, GDP, and the value of gold reserves in Russia have risen greatly since 1999—in some cases tenfold or more. This was while both inflation and the debt-to-GDP ratio declined by orders of magnitude. The rise in living standard under Putin is reflected in longer life expectancy: It had dropped to a third-world level during the 1990s, to around 55–57, and has now risen back up to 70 by most measures. Birthrates have normalized and recently overtaken the United States. Visit Moscow and you will see infrastructure, buildings, and development that are more impressive than those found in any American city—though the same could be said, of course, for many other countries now.
By contrast, Russians remember the liberal and globalist experiment of the ’90s as a time of great suffering. The early death of literally millions of people from economic deprivation, the utter ruin of many of Russia’s formerly world-class industries: This is the legacy of economic liberalization in Russia. How did it happen?
Putin has somehow become known as the incarnation of evil in the world today. This is because globalists run the media and they want to discredit nationalism. In reality, Putin's nationalist regime has done a remarkable job in turning Russia around - at least economically. I did some personal research to verify this article. Here's what I found. (Note that Putin took over in 1999):
(Lower is more corrupt. Higher is less corrupt.)
Life Expectancy at Year of Birth
Sometimes you need to research these issues before believing everything the media has spoon-fed you. The media is dishonest and they have an agenda. Don't ever forget it.
The actual data pretty clearly shows that Putin's nationalist regime has been very good for Russia. Certainly, the situation in Russia in 1999 is different than the situation in America in 2016; but clearly, this idea that nationalism is universally a failed economic strategy is hogwash. It might not be good for international bankers, but it has proven to be quite effective for at least one nation in recent history. There is reason to believe that it could be good for the U.S.
bsilver wrote:FAH1223 wrote:nate33 wrote:I came across this article today. It was really an eye-opener:
Putin has somehow become known as the incarnation of evil in the world today. This is because globalists run the media and they want to discredit nationalism. In reality, Putin's nationalist regime has done a remarkable job in turning Russia around - at least economically. I did some personal research to verify this article. Here's what I found. (Note that Putin took over in 1999):
(Lower is more corrupt. Higher is less corrupt.)
Life Expectancy at Year of Birth
Sometimes you need to research these issues before believing everything the media has spoon-fed you. The media is dishonest and they have an agenda. Don't ever forget it.
The actual data pretty clearly shows that Putin's nationalist regime has been very good for Russia. Certainly, the situation in Russia in 1999 is different than the situation in America in 2016; but clearly, this idea that nationalism is universally a failed economic strategy is hogwash. It might not be good for international bankers, but it has proven to be quite effective for at least one nation in recent history. There is reason to believe that it could be good for the U.S.
I posted this in September, its still true. This is their perspective:
The nationalists in Russia have wet dreams about the sanctions, being removed from the financial system as well.
It's a declaration of economic war, and the opportunity to get rid of the straight jacket of rules and regulations forced on Russia in 1991 during the Yeltsin years.
Putin as a lawyer likes to do things by the book methodically so he has been slow to move even though he is clearly sympathetic to the nationalist camp. He hadn't nationalized the central bank and if he does that, then things get really interesting.
Advisor Sergie Glazyev is one such nationalist and he holds the West in utter contempt, has zero respect for them and would love a full blown economic war not the current scuffle we have today. He was one of the first people put under U.S. sanctions during the Ukraine crisis by the Obama administration.
The Kommersant National Security Committee had a debate about the budget for 2016 and to troll the West they invited Glazyev to the debate to present his ideas.
Russia's Budget Debate Takes an Unexpected Turn
THIS is basically the message.
Russia welcomes a full scale economic war, because its in its long term interest to free itself from western rules and regulations and control over its currency and banking system. The sanctions fit in with their long term plan because they are actively looking for alternatives and partnerships. The Eurasian strategists are giddy about the China being Russia's BFF and the Iran Deal is a huge victory because it is at the heart of it all.
Also because the damage done to the EU will be far greater than Russia.
It will kill the EU, give the US a bloody nose, and Russia will be bruised and battered with black eye, but will be free to grow at very high rates in the future.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2014/eirv41n18-20140502/21_4118.pdf
Half of this plan have already been put into action. The alternative to SWIFT is online, and a new credit card issuer payment system from Visa and Mastercard is coming online and will work with Chinapay.
The Ruble has stabilized and the government did not waste its hard currency trying to prop up the Ruble, but let it slide.
They even raised interest rates sharply to 17%. A lot of Pro-Western politicians have even started to pretend to be more nationalistic and produce MORE anti-Western rhetoric than Putin but these are the same oligarchs that benefitted from the Yeltsin years. Examples of these people are Navalny, Liminov and Kasparof.
I don't put a lot of faith in economic statistics supplied by Russia. Here is another point of view:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11810209/Russia-masks-unemployment-with-Soviet-era-tactics.html
Also take into account Russia is currently in an economic down turn. Who knows where they'll end up.
dckingsfan wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:It is a dirty little secret in economics that capitalism can work very well under dictatorships. Germany's economy under Hitler's was fundamentally capitalist, as was Pinochet's, and Putin is yet another example - when you are lucky enough to get a "competent" (Hitler was competent, if you only look at the economic aspect) dictator, the outcome is better than under a democracy. The problem is who takes over after these competent dictators die? Usually some idiot who messes everything up.
I would add, China has benefitted greatly from the market principles they began implementing in 1978.
nate33 wrote:I came across this article today. It was really an eye-opener:There’s more than just jingoistic hysteria behind the many accusations that Trump is “Putin’s agent.” In a poetic way, this is true. The international interests that financially wrecked Russia in the ’90s are doing the same to the United States now. Putin stopped them in Russia and Trump is promising to stop them in America. They recognize Trump as the enemy and slander in the only style they know—the paranoid style.
Trump was once blamed for praising Putin’s performance. But he was right. Pensions, salaries, GDP, and the value of gold reserves in Russia have risen greatly since 1999—in some cases tenfold or more. This was while both inflation and the debt-to-GDP ratio declined by orders of magnitude. The rise in living standard under Putin is reflected in longer life expectancy: It had dropped to a third-world level during the 1990s, to around 55–57, and has now risen back up to 70 by most measures. Birthrates have normalized and recently overtaken the United States. Visit Moscow and you will see infrastructure, buildings, and development that are more impressive than those found in any American city—though the same could be said, of course, for many other countries now.
By contrast, Russians remember the liberal and globalist experiment of the ’90s as a time of great suffering. The early death of literally millions of people from economic deprivation, the utter ruin of many of Russia’s formerly world-class industries: This is the legacy of economic liberalization in Russia. How did it happen?
Putin has somehow become known as the incarnation of evil in the world today. This is because globalists run the media and they want to discredit nationalism. In reality, Putin's nationalist regime has done a remarkable job in turning Russia around - at least economically. I did some personal research to verify this article. Here's what I found. (Note that Putin took over in 1999):
(Lower is more corrupt. Higher is less corrupt.)
Life Expectancy at Year of Birth
Sometimes you need to research these issues before believing everything the media has spoon-fed you. The media is dishonest and they have an agenda. Don't ever forget it.
The actual data pretty clearly shows that Putin's nationalist regime has been very good for Russia. Certainly, the situation in Russia in 1999 is different than the situation in America in 2016; but clearly, this idea that nationalism is universally a failed economic strategy is hogwash. It might not be good for international bankers, but it has proven to be quite effective for at least one nation in recent history. There is reason to believe that it could be good for the U.S.
closg00 wrote:closg00 wrote:Trump is such a emotionally stunted man-child, his main concern last night was to implore his followers not watch HRC speech. DNV viewership was about 15% higher than the Repubs convention through Wednesday.
Trump got his wish, 2 million more people watched his speech than Clintons...of-course he is crowing about it as-if it means something.
DCZards wrote:closg00 wrote:closg00 wrote:Trump is such a emotionally stunted man-child, his main concern last night was to implore his followers not watch HRC speech. DNV viewership was about 15% higher than the Repubs convention through Wednesday.
Trump got his wish, 2 million more people watched his speech than Clintons...of-course he is crowing about it as-if it means something.
From what I've seen and read, Clinton's speech got a much more positive response than Trump's. So while Donald may crow about winning the "quantity" battle he loss the "quality" battle.
cammac wrote:bsilver wrote:FAH1223 wrote:
I posted this in September, its still true. This is their perspective:
The nationalists in Russia have wet dreams about the sanctions, being removed from the financial system as well.
It's a declaration of economic war, and the opportunity to get rid of the straight jacket of rules and regulations forced on Russia in 1991 during the Yeltsin years.
Putin as a lawyer likes to do things by the book methodically so he has been slow to move even though he is clearly sympathetic to the nationalist camp. He hadn't nationalized the central bank and if he does that, then things get really interesting.
Advisor Sergie Glazyev is one such nationalist and he holds the West in utter contempt, has zero respect for them and would love a full blown economic war not the current scuffle we have today. He was one of the first people put under U.S. sanctions during the Ukraine crisis by the Obama administration.
The Kommersant National Security Committee had a debate about the budget for 2016 and to troll the West they invited Glazyev to the debate to present his ideas.
Russia's Budget Debate Takes an Unexpected Turn
THIS is basically the message.
Russia welcomes a full scale economic war, because its in its long term interest to free itself from western rules and regulations and control over its currency and banking system. The sanctions fit in with their long term plan because they are actively looking for alternatives and partnerships. The Eurasian strategists are giddy about the China being Russia's BFF and the Iran Deal is a huge victory because it is at the heart of it all.
Also because the damage done to the EU will be far greater than Russia.
It will kill the EU, give the US a bloody nose, and Russia will be bruised and battered with black eye, but will be free to grow at very high rates in the future.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2014/eirv41n18-20140502/21_4118.pdf
Half of this plan have already been put into action. The alternative to SWIFT is online, and a new credit card issuer payment system from Visa and Mastercard is coming online and will work with Chinapay.
The Ruble has stabilized and the government did not waste its hard currency trying to prop up the Ruble, but let it slide.
They even raised interest rates sharply to 17%. A lot of Pro-Western politicians have even started to pretend to be more nationalistic and produce MORE anti-Western rhetoric than Putin but these are the same oligarchs that benefitted from the Yeltsin years. Examples of these people are Navalny, Liminov and Kasparof.
I don't put a lot of faith in economic statistics supplied by Russia. Here is another point of view:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11810209/Russia-masks-unemployment-with-Soviet-era-tactics.html
Also take into account Russia is currently in an economic down turn. Who knows where they'll end up.
I really don't know how much time any of the posters have spent with Russian while in China I had many Russian friends who believed China was a paradise compared to their homeland. The reality is in a totalitarian society any statistics coming from the government are highly suspicious.
Even if you take them as factual the GDP of Russia is in the same range as Canada which is 6 times smaller in population.
montestewart wrote:The article and analysis leave a few things out: 1) Russia makes a huge amount of money off its oil, and its economic success under Putin generally parallels the price of oil,
montestewart wrote:2) The transition from the state controlled economy of the Soviet Union was bound to have many problems, no matter who was in charge. If Putin had taken charge when Yeltsin took charge, he might not look so good now, 3) I'm not an economic expert (that's zonker) but from what I've read, some of the key measures that eventually contributed to Putin's economic turnaround were in fact being put in place prior to his taking power, and 4) Putin's Russia has nationalized many Russian businesses, has greatly suppressed free press, and has rigged democracy and the judicial system in ways that probably wouldn't go over very well in the U.S. I know you weren't saying the two were perfectly comparable, but these things seem worth mentioning.
