Soloviov's itinerary seems to conform to the following (common) pattern:
upper middle class family w/ good connection and ability to afford elite Soviet education,
readiness to join the Soviet elite, interest and love for the US,
[Gorbachev comes to power]
change of direction: unbounded love of democracy.
ideolization of the United States,
participation in the plunder of Russia w/ attendant contempt for the people (who are stupid and thus incapable to steal),
purchase of many properties in the West,
arrogance, born out of sudden wealth, for people in the West (now added to the contempt of "stupid" people in Russia),
beginning of dislike of things American (specifically; the rest of the West is not worth paying attention to);
Russian nationalism.
And it is wrong to believe that that evolution is at its end.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few thoughts on Beria.
I was for a long time puzzled by why US historians of the Cold War (and Gaddis in particular) have such a soft spot for Beria. I thought he was the worst criminal of all.
And indeed he was.
But he was the Soviet McNamara: efficiency (body count?) above all. Devoid of moral scruples. This is why Stalin put him in charge of delivering nuclear weapon; and Beria did it. On time. Nobody dared to touch the best scientists. He did not care what their political views were.
But being an immoral technocrat means also that you realize when the use of force becomes counter-productive. McNamara did so by 1967-8.
Similarly, Beria would have (according to all we know) closed the Gulag (as Khrushchev did too).
An excellent article which shows how hopeless is the migration situation and how (as my global inequality work indicates) it will get even worse. elmundo.es/internacional/…
EU does not want more migrants & it is closing itself off (Nordics were the first to do it). It pays Maghreb countries to stock migrants there. But Maghreb does not want Africans either. So the solution is: growth in Africa, But then EU goes against Chinese Belt and Road
because it wants to limit China's rise, and it cannot help growth in Africa itself b/c it does not have enough money and prefers "soft" investment (i.e. lectures on human rights) to "hard" investments.
1/6 Since @MaxCRoser and I are both using mostly World Bank and @lisdata we get similar results. There are however some differences depending e.g. on what Indian data to use, what PPPs to apply for China, India and Indonesia (to have rural and urban PPPs or not),
2/6 what years are chosen (data for all countries are not available annually), and what to do (if anything) with countries from which we do not have the data at all. There is also a problem of whether to adjust (increase) income at the of distributions in many countries.
3/6 So, there are many methodological choices.
Nevertheless, the basic results are v similar.
For 2018 (using PPPs from 2017 ICP) & covering 97% of global income & 91% of global population, I have for global median ~ $ PPPP 10 per person per day, and for the global mean $ PPP 21.
"The tyranny of merit" by Michael Sandel (a recent bestseller) is an excellent book that, for people working on income distribution, shows how thin are philosophical bases of what they/we study and measure.
Sandel does not even discuss utilitarianism which is (unfortunately) still used a lot in economics. He discusses, in order of economic/philosophical sophistication,(a) primitive neoclassical theories of marginal productivity a la Mankiw, (b) Hayek's "divorce" of value from merit,
(c) Rawls' "fairness of underlying institutions", and (d) Frank Knight's distinction between one's contribution and morality of that contribution.
Corruption is indeed systemic to political capitalism (as indeed I argued in "C,A") but the critique of extending the reach to capturing corrupt officials abroad is unfair b/c it is due to USA & Canada ignoring Chinese warrants.
The campaign is also a good example for other countries where catching "tigers" would be very popular and "healthy" too. Finally, the last point, "has anti-corruption campaign made China better" is a total mish-mash of everything that has nothing to do with the campaign.
Schumpeter on Roman imperialism:
“Here [Rome] is the classic example of that kind of insincerity in both foreign and domestic affairs which permeates not only avowed motives but also probably the conscious motives of the actors themselves—of that policy which pretends to aspire
to peace but unerringly generates war, the policy of continual preparation for war, the policy of meddlesome interventionism. There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman.
they were those of Roman allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space…