Who here is with me and thinks....the guy will do another 8 years as president (from 2012-2020).

That would make 20 years of Putin dominance in Russia. Quite scary.

he is liked by Russians far and wide, I can see it.

Likely. Putin has served Russia well; I don't see enough opposition to prevent his return.

[

democracy

[

Thomas Jefferson's illegitimate grandson.

People should take a longer-term historical view of democracy. Almost no poor countries become affluent by being democracies. Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Singapore, most of Europe -- they all started out as authoritarian states with the political will to instigate necessary reforms and economic development. Imagine Russia as "democratic" as more-corrupt-than-China India... nothing would get done.

Also don't forget that democracy does not always yield a result that favors foreign observers. Look at Palestinians electing Hamas, against Western will. Look at Americans reelecting Bush, against international will.

[

Nothing I said contradicted your statement.

Needs evolve. One cannot predict when or if Russia will "need" a liberal democracy any more than whether China will ever have more than one political party. As I said, democracy tends to fail when the basic infrastructure for a civil society is not present; Russia suffered great economic collapse during the 1990s. The point is to leave countries alone to decide for themselves, while it's equally unrealistic to assume that a nation will never become a liberal-democratic state.

[

Most liberal democracies operate on a parliamentary or pluralistic system. America and its two-party, presidential state is the odd one out. I never mentioned the American model.

You don't need to ask me that, I've been to China many times over the years. I know businesspeople in China. But let's not fool ourselves here -- while Deng Xiaoping and Vladimir Putin have done wonders to move their respective countries forward, it's not accurate to call that "democracy". Economic systems and political systems are not synonymous. There can be capitalistic authoritarianism (China, Singapore), socialistic democracy (Denmark, Norway), socialistic authoritarianism (Cuba, North Korea), or capitalistic democracy (America, Britain).

There is no such thing as a "democratic model" of economics. The economic collapse is an economic phenomenon. I suspect some of your anger confuses political failure with economic failure; while in Russia they coincided, this is not always the case. You'll have to get that straight to debate this issue cogently. China succeeded because they instated gradual economic reforms while keeping a one-party political system.

[

What on earth is a "democratic economic reform"? Do you agree that the conflation of democracy and liberal economics is a common fallacy? China is proving Western idealists wrong by the day.

You sure get awfully defensive talking to someone that agrees with you.

-

That's textbook economic liberalization. It's very effective when done right, and has nothing to do with democratic politics.

I am under the impression that Russia's biggest problem was the abrupt privatization of government assets, where a small number of questionable private individuals were able to obtain those assets at far below market value. That's not a failure of capitalism, that's a failure to gradually establish a market before undertaking such an action -- which is what the Chinese did, to great effect. Basically, a bunch of corrupt bastards ransacked Russia after the USSR collapsed.

Of course, you're free to disagree if you believe communism is a viable economic system, though I doubt anybody would be so mad these days.

Why is China so ahead of India.

Its simple the govt has control in China and in India the democratic system has lead to rampant corruption which is keeping the country back.


China and Russian are growing and imo are not stable enough for a liberal democracy.

Imo only a few countries can handle a liberal democracy and trying to turn a former communist superpower into the US, did not work so well.


Imo in lawless, corrput countries you have to some sort of authoritarian democracy.

God.

It's like PoliSci 101 threw up all over this thread.

Here's my two cents: Putin is a very charismatic leader, who is wrong for Russia long-term, but short-term makes ordinary Russians feel like their country has a big dick. It doesn't yet (watch those oil revenues fall), but it makes them feel good anyway.

For those who think it's impossible in the U.S., look at the Obama cult.

The best thing for Russia would be to stop worrying so much about periphery and try to transform the economy away from dependence on natural resources. The education levels are there, so it shouldn't be that hard.

[=

I appreciate your concern for my well being; I wish more Russians (or at least Russian expatriates) would be as compassionate you - maybe then they wouldn't need czars to make them feel good about themselves.

=

We're talking a pretty low baseline here: Yeltsin didn't have a dick. Putin has his problems, but I don't see a viable alternative among opposition leaders right now. They smell too much like "I'm the opposition because I am opposed".

There's a hut in Alaska for professional cynics like you. Todd Palin could hook you up.

I definitely agree with you here. Isn't it true that Russian hydrocarbon reserves are fairly low relative to production capacity? Russia should invest its surplus revenues in infrastructure, and develop more tertiary industries before it's too late. China did a fairly good job in putting its surplus to good use.

[

What Putin can't produce is a Tolstoy or a Dostoevsky. Money is nothing in comparison with literary genius. That's why America, despite all its wealth, never produced a Tolstoy. And that's why China isn't giving us one either.



Wake me up when either of those countries actually gets there.

Don't you think that in a country of 150 million people there would be ONE opposition leader that is viable? Putin has managed to silence most of the opposition, but he didn't do that by being "OMG AMAZING" for Russia.
Truth hurts, doesn't it? Look, I support Obama for president, but this cult of personality shit frightens me.
I don't know much about its oil and gas reserves, but being dependent on a commodity for your economic prosperity is not a good thing.

Outside of Norway I am not aware of any developed economy whose trade balance is driven in large by exports of raw materials.

Canada's raw materials are the only reason it has a trade surplus...