From: "mattd" <mattd@useoz.com>

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=20043&group=webcast This is almost a classic... <<What happened in Russia? 2. There is only one answer to these questions. We Russians were never the real owners of our land and riches. In Russia it has always been government bureaucrats in the name of the State who distributed to us.>> Good. You'd say the author has a brain. (Then again, why would mattd point to the article in that case?) But no... <<The worst problem of the Russian government is not corruption, but its terrible ineffectiveness. In their efforts to earn a spare ruble for themselves, bureaucrats cost the State thousands of rubles.>> So, the problem is the government, but not because they're evil - no, that's ok; BECAUSE THEY'RE INEFFICIENT???? Hello? You wanted 99% - 1% instead of the 95% - 5% divide that you complain about now? <<In this surprising manner the colossal riches of Russian have been converted to poverty.>> Surprising only for those with no knowledge of economics. Without private property you can't have development. But wait! <<Only in our country is it possible for such an ineffective, talentless government to exist.>> Here we go again! I mean, I'm sure the Russian government is incompetent - but to decry that? Pray for more! The more incompetent they are, the more chances you have of developing an economy behind their backs. <<Therefore the right to use these resources must be returned to their natural owners -- the people.>> The people don't exist, so they can't be natural owners of anything. SOME people - certain people, Ivan and Natasha and Grigori - can own previously unowned natural resources, if they use them first. But you can't *return* unowned property - you can only be the first to claim it. So, go there and claim it! (No, they'll shoot you. You can fight the government with better weapons or better ideology. So far, the ideology sucks.) <<To open personal bank accounts for each Russian citizen into which annual payments will be made of his personal share of revenues from natural resources taken from Russian territory.>> Ok, so the problem is lack of private property (socialism), and the solution is? Correct! More socialism! Why the heck would I do anything with my resources, if almost all the revenue from it would be divided among the vodka-drinking idiots of the country? (Well, I know, the new man and stuff.) <<Russian land should be rented. Proceeds from these rentals should be paid monthly to every citizen into their personal accounts. (...) From such revenues every Russian citizen could become a millionaire.>> Ok, so russians don't have money to buy the land, but they have money to rent it. And the income from these rents? Why, it goes back to themselves! And so they'll get RICH, RICH, RICH!!! (Dammit, nobody figured this out before...) Of course, we could encourage the rich bastards to rent a lot of land, and so we'd take their money and redistribute it. Yes, but what happens if they subrent it, and then evict tenants for non-payment? We can't allow that! There are CHILDREN there! (There is a solution to this too - socialism is wonderful! We'll confiscate their land, vilify them for not being nice to people, and then ask them to rent it again, because we need their money.) [I just realized I use too many damn exclamation points. And profanity. Hmm... I must like this system.] <<The participation of each Russian resident in rental and natural resource revenues would restore fairness and return to the nation that which belongs to it by rights.>> Of course, who cares about the fact that Russia is just a small part of the Union? We're all one big family. (And now that I think about it, all those Eastern European satellites are just provinces in rebellion. They must join back or else.) <<For the creation of any riches three factors are necessary: capital, labor and natural resources.>> Actually, the three *basic* factors are labor, natural resources (aka land), and TIME. Capital is simply producers goods - wealth that was built not for consumption, but to make future production more efficient. <<Capital and labor are, in fact, the concrete people who must receive their fair and legal compensation based on what they invest in the creation of national wealth.>> Oops. Are you sure you want to go there? If you compensate people based on their investment, then you'll have CAPITALISM! You don't want that! You want to compensate them *equally*, so that everyone stays at home and becomes a millionaire from the rents that all the others are paying! Yeah! <<Land and natural resources do not belong to the creative hands of people. They were given to us by God.>> The second statement is true, but it actually negates the first. If they were given to you, then they belong to you. <<They were received as legacies by our forefathers whose efforts helped create our country and defend it from invaders.>> Actually, your forefathers pretty much killed everyone that dared to oppose the state, plus they invaded other countries. Nothing's as good as a healthy dose of nerve, is it? <<Revenue from the land and natural resources can not belong to individuals, nor to the government (which was "socialist," is now "capitalist" and will be who-knows-what tomorrow). The only legal owner is the nation in the person of each Russian citizen.>> Anyone close whack this guy over the head, will you? If revenue cannot belong to individuals, it can't belong to "the nation in the person of each Russian citizen". (Oh, wait a second, I might be wrong - Russian citizens might not be individuals, but parts of a super-organism. Who knows? I've never been there, it's too cold.) <<Returning legal revenues to the people from their land is not only fair but economically effective. It would contribute to Russia's dynamic economic growth.>> Definitely! Who needs work? We'll all sit and enjoy revenue from the land! (Thinking about who's going to pay those revenues is economics, and economic s is boring.) <<It is easy to explain the crash of the so called market reforms. The market only works when there are buyers and when the buyers have money.>> It is easy, but you failed. (Gee, how do you handle tough stuff?) The market works when there are buyers and sellers, period. Money is just an intermediary, one that gets developed by those buyers and sellers because it helps them find each other easier, and thus they make a better profit. (Oops! We can't use the p-word here!) <<We first destroyed the buyers, wiped out their savings, took their revenues away and now we wonder why the market reforms are failing.>> They're not failing. They simply don't exist. You need private property in order to HAVE anything to sell or buy. <<A system of personal bank accounts would restore purchasing power. Incomes from rentals and natural resources wouldn't go abroad, they would be spent here and create conditions for economic growth, especially in those areas that people really need.>> This so reminds me of "we don't sell our country"... (Very popular slogan right after our "revolution".) Right in line with "we work, not think". Of course, this isn't impossible - after all, the people of Earth have managed to get by even without the help of the Martian Trade Federation, so Russia can do it without any trade with other countries. But the issue here is: if *I* want to trade with a foreigner (and thus send my income from rentals and natural resources abroad), will I be forcefully prevented from doing so? If I will, then it's not private property anymore - it's not MY income, but the state's, to be used as it sees fit. If I won't, then you'll see a LOT of revenue going abroad - Russian electronics (to give just one example) might be solid, but they're horrible when it comes to quality and design. Also, notice the reference to "what people really need". This means "what the State wants" (or, in the case of an alleged anarchist, "what I want"). But they really need it, honest! <<We can only free ourselves if we free ourselves from the charity of the bureaucrats.>> Can't do that! Who will force the citizens to pay the rent that will make everyone rich??? Ok, I got bored. Mark