AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Russians are disappearing
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Green Wrote:I like Old Beeb's correctness in the expressions like "thriving economy", " developed agriculture" and so on. Aha-aha.
Actually, here is my mistake. Tatarstan is one of the three the most prosperous regions in Europe according to the UN.
Well, economically they suck. As to availability of education, culture and all, Tatarstan has really rivaling showing.
John L Wrote:Anon, you are not looking at the proper 'cause and effect' as you should. Russia's poverty and corruption is a Direct cause of it's 75 year life under Soviet Socialisim, called communism. The corruption was always there, as it always is under socialism. It has to exist, because that is the only means in which things get distributed to those who have the money and means of acquiring what the State is unable to ensure it's citizens.

And the dropping birth rate is NOT GOOD, as you indicate. Here is why. The only way that your hypothesis could work is if the lifespan of the citizens are increasing so as to take up the slack of the working population. The older the person can live, the more productive he/she can be over a lifespan.

Unfortunately, in Russia, the lifespan of the average citizen is declining, not lengthening. Thus your hope of decreasing population is not viable.
the 75 years of USSR weren't exactly unform throughout, there were different periods in whcih sometimes different economic models were tried out and then either accepted or dumped so your statement that Russia's poverty and corruption, well pardon me but do you mean that hte poverty and corruption of the pre -revolution Russia brought about the 75 years of socialism?
Quote:Russia's poverty and corruption is a Direct cause of it's 75 year life under Soviet Socialisim, called communism.
???

anyways , corruption as such is not unique to socialism, although it has to be said here that the economic system that existed in the USSR was a state capitalism rather than socialism with the state being the sole super monopoly in all sectors, except maybe for the agrarian sector where there were collective farms which in a way competed with the state owned socialist farms. In any case saying that corruption is alwasy there under socialism is missing the cause and effect connection by a long shot. I could also say that corruption is alwasy there under capitalism, because it certainly thrives in all modern capitalist countries, including the US. This doesn't mean it is caused by this particular socio economic system, does it?
Quote:It has to exist, because that is the only means in which things get distributed to those who have the money and means of acquiring what the State is unable to ensure it's citizens.
not necessarily even, basically there lots of ways for people with money and in priviliged positions to get things they wanted without bribing any officials. Real problems existed for those who made money in ways that were illegal under the soviet law, say if your official pay was 150 roobles a month and you went and bought a 10000 rooble house in the country you'd have the police after you in no time. Idea was that there existed a rather sophisticated system of distribution of goods, it was clumsy and often failed. for example certain kinds of sausage could only be found in Moscow, yet to get them you simply had to catch a train to Moscow, maybe spend an hour in line and you'd get that sausage, or whatever it was your were after without bribing anyone. And mind you train tickets were dirt cheap.

imho the main reason of the drop in birth rate is the drop in life quality for the majority of the population in russia. With all its drawbacks the conditions of life in the USSR were in many respects a lot better than what people are having to put up with now. reminds of the old joke where an american and a russian meet, the american says: inthe U life is way better than the USSR, we have freedom, I can go in front of the white house with a sign saying Nixon is an idiot, and can you Ivan go infront of the Kremlin with a sign that says Brezhnevis an idiot?"
the Russian says:"now way, they'd throw me in jail or in a mental asylum before a Iknew it, but tell, me John, can you come to work drunk?"
the american:"Well, I could but I'd have problems"
the russian: "and can you tell your boss to go to hell and still keep the job"
the american:"I really doubt it"
the Russian:"and can you go on a month long drinking bing then come back to work and collect the pay for the month that you were drinking?"
the american:"never"
the Russian:"so, John, keep marching with oyur Nixon is an idiot sign "

Now it's much worse than it was before in temrs of things like job security, pay etc. A large proportion of people have been thrown all the way to the very bottom of the Maslow pyramid, they're living hand to mouth and a child under such circumstances would mean another mouth to feed with no possibility to buy that extra food not on account of any breakdowns in the system of distribution which in the past could be fixed with a one day trip to a neighboring city, but because they simply have no means. These days there's even reported cases in Russia of mothers killing their children shortly after birth.
henrylee100 Wrote:economic system that existed in the USSR was a state capitalism rather than socialism with the state being the sole super monopoly in all sectors, except maybe for the agrarian sector where there were collective farms which in a way competed with the state owned socialist farms.
Do you mean socialism was a fake and we never experienced it in this country?
C'mon capitalism needs competition, competition was MAJORLY a fiction in the USSR. Who really needed those "challenge prize" banners?

P.S.
Welcome to the forum Mobtr Wink1
One of the dangers of capitilism is one major force taking everything over. We've seen it with Microsoft.
Green Wrote:
henrylee100 Wrote:economic system that existed in the USSR was a state capitalism rather than socialism with the state being the sole super monopoly in all sectors, except maybe for the agrarian sector where there were collective farms which in a way competed with the state owned socialist farms.
Do you mean socialism was a fake and we never experienced it in this country?
C'mon capitalism needs competition, competition was MAJORLY a fiction in the USSR. Who really needed those "challenge prize" banners?

P.S.
Welcome to the forum Mobtr Wink1
capitalism doesn't really need competition, look at today's market for operating systems which is dominated by Microsoft. In this market competition exists only potentially. In fact the majority of modern markets are classified as monopolistic competition because brand names make goods unique so that often times when people are considering whether to buy a Panasonic or a Sony device all sorts of things come into play in addition to the actual qualities of the products, like loyalty to one particular brand, which brand are the other appliances they already have at home etc.
What was called socialism in the USSR wasn't really socialism at all, in fact the model used by some companys in the west today under which every employee is given a small number of the company's shares when they're hired is closer to the socialistic model than what we had in the USSR where everything was owned and regulated by the state so that the workers/employees of a factory had practically no say in what it was making, everything was decided at the very top. The Yugoslavian model was sort of socialistic. The way I see the socialist model is where the means of production are jointly owned by the people who are using them to make stuff so that they share in the profits. Or if it's a joint providing services they basically just share the proceeds from their enterprise. The tricky bit is how to share them, the usual answer is in accordance to the effort put in by every participant but then it's not always clear how to determine who put in more effort.
So yeah, in the USSR socialism was proclaimed by never practiced, it was more like an absolute monarchy where everything belonged to the monarch, except that instead of a monarch we had comittees.
Anonymous24 Wrote:One of the dangers of capitilism is one major force taking everything over. We've seen it with Microsoft.

This is the one falacy that many on the Left fail to recognize. Free Enterprise is believed to be a system that allows a certain entity to take a lead and then assume a monopoly condition. Microsoft is a good example that is used.

But it is incorrect. Microsoft is not a monopoly, or an evil company that is breaking the rules and laws by killing competition. The system, in fact, encourages competition. there are more OSs out there, but Microsoft is the "preferred" OS by the majority, because of it's advantage in quantity of software applications throughout the world.

There Is Mac, Linux, BeOS, and other contenders. I currently use two OSs, including Xandros Linux, which is installed on a hard drive with a pull out tray. When I want to use it, I simply turn off my computer, remove the Microsoft hard drive from the slide out drawer, and insert the Linux tray. Turn it on, and away I go.

But I don't usually use it, because I prefer Windows XP Pro, warts and all. It is a choice thing.

Basic economics here. If another OS comes along that can compete with Microsoft, it will be accepted over time, and unless Microsoft is responsive to it's customers, it will lose market share. It is that, pure and simple.

Anon, let me recommend that you participate in my new "Economics" section, and volunteerily take the Supply-Side University course that I started yesterday. It is a Great course, and it will help you understand more about how macro economics works.

I'm not trying to be smart here. I'm serious! It is a great course, and it is free! S1
I think I found what you are reading, Henry.
Stalinism and state capitalism
Green Wrote:I think I found what you are reading, Henry.
Stalinism and state capitalism
no I wasn't reading that site, in fact thanx to your link I saw it for the first time today. There's another site out there somewhere, it's run by an obscure group of US communists and I'd say they're probably a bit more radical, I bumped across it while searching for info on Chechnya. But basically I agree with the contention that the USSR had a state capitalism, if you think about how it actually work this definition really makes sense.
Firing up the wayback machine on this thread ...

The Washington Times has an article on this very topic today and reports on a Russian Parliamentary hearing on "family policy," at which it was reported that nearly half of Russia's families have no children at all, and another 34% have only one, 15 percent have two children, and less than 3 percent have more than two children. Russia's current birthrate is 1.34 per woman, far below the rate needed for population equilibrium. At the current rate, Russia's population will be cut in half by the year 2050 to 101.5 million - smaller than Mexico today.

For a little perpective on what this means, this implies a rate of depopulation greater, on a percentage basis, than when the Black Death killed around one-third of Europe's residents. Villages, towns, and even cities will be deserted and cease to exist. If the trend holds for just another generation after this one, even Russia itself could cease to exist as we have known it if not literally disappear from the world altogether to become just another historical footnote.
Gary Wrote:Firing up the wayback machine on this thread ...

The Washington Times has an article on this very topic today and reports on a Russian Parliamentary hearing on "family policy," at which it was reported that nearly half of Russia's families have no children at all, and another 34% have only one, 15 percent have two children, and less than 3 percent have more than two children. Russia's current birthrate is 1.34 per woman, far below the rate needed for population equilibrium. At the current rate, Russia's population will be cut in half by the year 2050 to 101.5 million - smaller than Mexico today.

For a little perpective on what this means, this implies a rate of depopulation greater, on a percentage basis, than when the Black Death killed around one-third of Europe's residents. Villages, towns, and even cities will be deserted and cease to exist. If the trend holds for just another generation after this one, even Russia itself could cease to exist as we have known it if not literally disappear from the world altogether to become just another historical footnote.
I think if Russia disapears it will make a lot of the people in the west happier for a while, after all the evil empire will be gone forever, no need pass legislation to outlaw it and send planes. maybe even the poles and the baltics will finally sigh a sigh of relief. The reason why Russians aren't reproducing any more is twofold, first it's economic, they're so poor that every child puts so much extra strain on a familty that most families just can't cope, Russia's probably got the highest rate of abandoned children. Young women often giver birth and then just leave their babies behind in maternity hospitals. The second reason is thet nobody likes Russians, so why should they bother to carry on with their miserable existance anyone, why not just go and let more vibran nations such as the Chinese and the Arabs take over.
Quote:U.N. statistics say that at this rate Russia's population will be 101.5 million by 2050, shrinking by almost half from the over 143 million population of today.

While the demographic situation is still dire, nobody will accuse journalists of being very smart. "Almost half" of 143 million is about 71.5 million, not 101.5 million.

The percent decline figure should be 100 X (143-101.5)/143 = 29%, which is slightly less than a one third decline of the current population. It's still a bad situation, but there's no need to exaggerate bad news.

-S
I don't buy the "poor" cause of low live birth rates. Lots of people are far worse off than Russki,but they're birth rates are far higher.

Russians don't have anything to believe in anymore,so they don't have a good view of the future,who would desire to raise children in that atmosphere?

They left the Church so to speak over a century ago,their newfound religion of man proved a chimera for them. Other factors,IMO,corroborate this "spiritual vacuum" theory.


Alcoholic caused deaths are phenomenal. This is a terminal CULTURE.

Unless Russians convert to some faith based system,they're cooked.

Looking at demographic charts,we see a linear line from point A to point B. However,that doesn't factor in human response to the declines of Russki relative to Islamic in the nation. Factoring in human response to the situation,it is my opinion that the decline will become logrithmic at some point and hasten the demise of the nation called Russia.

Italy is dying even faster.

The view of agnostics and atheists that they are the enlightened of all folks on earth and the rest of us are ignorant star gazers might make them feel good,but they won't be around to enjoy themselves as they tend NOT to propagate into the future.
Palladin Wrote:The view of agnostics and atheists that they are the enlightened of all folks on earth and the rest of us are ignorant star gazers might make them feel good,but they won't be around to enjoy themselves as they tend NOT to propagate into the future.
that's because the "enlightened ones" know that those that propagate and stick around in hope to "enjoy" the future, aren't really going to enjoy it after all. You know there is the old saying,"hope dies last", people usually use it to encourage each other in diffucult times, but if you look closely at it, the key word is dies, even hope eventually dies.
Henry,

Given this view,mankind would have died say about 200 years after the beginning. For a nation,it is murder. Nothing less. Russki have decided to die,simple as that. I don't see the genius in national suicide myself,but then again,I'm just a goofball Christian from America,what do ignorant sow's ears like me know?
Actually, the murder didn't happen yet. But our goofball Christians have already dug a grave for us. Thanks.
Palladin Wrote:Henry,

Given this view,mankind would have died say about 200 years after the beginning. For a nation,it is murder. Nothing less. Russki have decided to die,simple as that. I don't see the genius in national suicide myself,but then again,I'm just a goofball Christian from America,what do ignorant sow's ears like me know?
it might have been good in the sense that if that had happened lots of other species might still be around today. It's not a suicide it's just a natural process, we all die, haven't you noticed and nations are no exception to this rule, even the Mona Lisa is falling apart.
Henry,

We as individuals do,but not until the last 100 years has a group of men in human history willingly seen themselves and their society die. It's a phenomenon of the 20th century only. Heretofore,it took the black plague to accomplish what some are voluntarily now doing or not doing.

Just 50 years ago we made sci fi movies about the "end of the world as we know it"! and now you're calmly discussing it's demise as a natural event.
Palladin Wrote:Henry,

We as individuals do,but not until the last 100 years has a group of men in human history willingly seen themselves and their society die. It's a phenomenon of the 20th century only. Heretofore,it took the black plague to accomplish what some are voluntarily now doing or not doing.

Just 50 years ago we made sci fi movies about the "end of the world as we know it"! and now you're calmly discussing it's demise as a natural event.
death is a natural thing, societies died before as well, merging with others, or getting wiped out by others, say the native americans are pretty much dead now, they might not have taken their own demise calmly but what good did that agitation do them? Little. Russians today at least have a good chance to go in peace, noone cane make them go as yet, with their nukes and all, but we are choosing to go, out of our own accord, possibly showing the way for the rest of humanity. Time our planet began to recover from the plague of human race.
Henry,

If you see humanity as a plague,why are you still alive? Or are others,but not you a problem for mother earth?
Actually, I find the future to be very positive, with science what it is going to be. Man and science will literally transform this planet, and I do not think that it will be for the worse.

Mastodon/Smilodon Park anyone?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5