corporations bring the country into the situation when the rulling top of the country is having/sharing a huge amount (can't bring any number) of all the profits, while the rest of population (especially pensioners in russia (people of age of 50 and above, who are brought up in post-socialist environment and are totally incapable to adopt to new environment)) are thrown and maintained in poverty.
I understand that, but I thought having *incompetent* corrupt people is better than having *competent* ones! Who said "let's be happy that we don't
The difference is: those people are incompetent in performing the roles which they were elected for (i.g. being governors of country's wealth, building laws and rules in the country to assist economy development and such), but those people are very *competent* in ripping the other people off. That is the primary reason why they went for the game to be elected in government and that's the primary reason why they got power to do so.
have all the government that we're paying for" (or something like that)? The flaw here is the idea that the government COULD be a good thing, provided that the governors are competent. I disagree with that.
Indeed. "Don't give power to those who desire it. Those who do, desire it for their own profits".
not all are vodka drinking idiots. but your statement makes sense. :-)
I'm not saying that all russians are such. (Not that I love them, being from an ex-satellite...) Only that a significant number are (just like a
What is ex-satellite? ;-)
significant number of Americans are "couch potatoes"), and having to share my earnings with them is a big disincentive.
I doubt that a significant number is either. There could be certain percentage that is higher than in other countries, which might be the reason of such image of a nation to exist.
Yep. As Ian Clarke (the initiator of Freenet) said, Americans look at the big mansion on the hill and say "one day I'll have one of those", while Irish (or Romanians, or Russians...) say "one day we'll burn that sonofabitch".
:-)
That's what I was objecting to :) The solution is obvious: capitalism. The real one, not the fascist version.
Well, hard to say which 'real version' of capitalism is good. I would strongly vote against american model for sure, which turns people and people's relationships into mostly money-based relations. IMHO relationships in eastern europe and asia are more human and less money dependent than in US pretty much because of such reason.
Union? Which Union? I doubt russia is welcomed to European Union (update me if I am wrong) and there's no former Soviet Union either. More over the Union of Idependent Countries, seems to be getting gone piece by piece, at least now you need to proper visa if you want to visit Russia from one of the 'former' republics.
Really? I didn't know that. Anyway, being old people and so on, I am sure they are nostalgic about the One Big Union.
It was a good thing (tm). That's what european union is coming too. Easier econimics relationship between parts of the union. Easier traveling. Centralised model of control of such union is a bit flawed though, but definetely is better than heaps of small countries with its own barriers.
Well, at least there's two of us <g>
:-p -- http://www.notlsd.net PGP fingerprint = 56DD 1511 DDDA 56D7 99C7 B288 5CE5 A713 0969 A4D1