We do not know what would be the outcome of this war, but we know that (unless we are all die in a nuclear war), Russia faces a significant shock to its GDP and also a very high inflation.
Whether that inflation would be 50%, 100% or 5,000% (on a yearly basis) we do not know, but Russia has many historical experiences with hyperinflation.
Raging hyperinflation between 1917 and 1922 when the gold-based chervonets was introduced as part of the NEP.
Preobrazhensky called the ability of the govt to print money, "the machine-gun in the hands of the proletariat."
Stalin was very conservative in fiscal and monetary matters.
So were Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
But with "transition" inflation came back.
In 1992, inflation was about 1,600% (prices increase by a factor of 17 within a year); in 1993, it was about 900%, in 1994, it was 320%, and then it gradually went down.
But with the Asian crisis and contagion in 1998-99, as Russia went into default, inflation went up to 100%.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Section 5.4 in "Capitalism, Alone" is called:
"The Two Scenarios: War and Peace"
The melancholy thought is that capitalism at its previous highest point of global spread and power generated the most devastating conflict in history up to that time; and there is a more than negligible chance that similar internal mechanisms might lead to another such conflict.
Under this gloomy scenario global capitalism would be both a cause of devastation and the savior of civilization. In other words, Einstein’s supposed quip that the Fourth World War would be fought with rocks would not be proven true.
We still do not know what's the political objective of the war. If you read Putin's yesterday speech it is never said clearly. There are at least 4 possible interpretations:
1 "Liberate" the newly recognized republics within their oblast borders. But then why attack the whole country?
2 "Denazify" Ukraine. This is a code word for regime-change. Impose a new govt.
3 "Our objective is freedom to let anyone decide" implies referendums
that may split UKR into a part that goes to RUS and one that stays.
4 But then P. says, we should be friends even "across borders". So should there be a pro-RUS govt in the rump Ukraine?
(Long thread)
The reasons why and how Balkan countries enter NATO are never discussed in the Western press. Even their membership is not mentioned.
Here are the reasons.
Montenegro has been run for 35y by the same (let's be polite) autocrat.He was first a Serbian nationalist but
in the past 20y has developed great affinity for democracy & the USA. Some people say that the affinity is due to his being involved in the smuggling of cigarettes and perhaps even of some more serious Colombian wares. Good businessman he has became very rich. If he does not do
what the US tells him to, he might end like Noriega or the former president of Honduras who was just arrested, by the USA, on similar charges, two days ago. So MNE president wants to be nice and join NATO. Much better to go to fancy conferences than to be in jail.
It seems that some people do not like to read what I wrote re. Canadian draconian punishment of protesters, but rather imagine things.
1 Protests whose objective is to make life for majority miserable cannot be allowed. Police normally disperses them and arrests the most violent.
2 But seizing money accounts of protesters imposes collective punishment on their families. It is an entirely unusual and very dangerous punishment. Children are not responsible for actions of parents; spouses for that of their partners.
3 Stating that the protest is illegal and hence that any measures are acceptable is wrong and ignorant. In most countries the protests that one would read about in Canadian newspapers are also "illegal"
Stalin's Russia and Maoist China are often considered "totalitarian". But in one insufficiently researched area they followed entirely different policies.
From the few data that we have, we know that Stalin's USSR (say, around 1935) had a fairly high degree of inequality.
Massive use of Taylorism & piecework rewards led to large wage differences. Stakhanovists were paid highly, so much so that Trotsky thought they might create a "workers' aristocracy". Govt and party top cadres had substantial perks. (Inequality decreased significantly after 1953)
But Maoist China went the other way: equalization of wages, abhorrence of material incentives. This was the very opposite from the practice of "payment according to output" & material incentive which is the essence of Taylorism.
"But the struggle between the first set of billionaires, many of whom Westerners, who enriched themselves under Yeltsin, and were unhappy from being excluded from the next division of the spoils, and the second set of billionaires, the Putin’s “team”,
continues to this day, not only in Russia but across the world. Many of the first group have used millions that they have stolen from Russia to set a number of political think-tanks whose main role is to fight Putin,
under the pretext of transparency and democracy, but in reality in the hope that they would again be able to exploit the mineral resources. Putin’s team in order to stay in power applied the same rules: