Ho Much Xanax Should You Take

Yeltsin and Gorbachev

Originally posted by dobrokhotov at Yeltsin

Today, in honor of the anniversary of Yeltsin on us again, come down the shaft of articles, broadcasts and posts about what "really" was the first Russian president. Most of them is, frankly, a boring, because people who appears to be much more interesting to expose the myths of each other than to try to genuinely understand but what actually happened. Of course, exposing some myths, in this case, leads inevitably to the emergence of other myths. Often, for example, from a liberal You can hear: "Yeltsin sold off Russia oligarchs."

Let's order. Yeltsin became president of the RSFSR June 12, 1991. What the situation was at that time in the country? As a result, the ruin of the Soviet economy that followed the fall in oil prices, even in 1989, industrial production has ceased to grow, and in 1990 became fall. In 1990 (before Yeltsin!) In many parts of the population lacks food coupons and feverishly snapping up anything that might get in anticipation of emergency disaster. In May, the 90-year government Ryzhkov proposes to force prices up several times to be able to provide the country with at least some food. Then VTsIOM receives the results of the survey: 56% of the market transition , and just as many people consider the critical situation in the country. Among the main problems respondents mentioned "survival" and "software product family." And yet the myth of innocence Russians: 46% of respondents believe that Russia will come out of crisis by 2000, yet 12% believe that ever before. Trade Minister Terekhov in December 1990, Ryzhkov wrote that because of the "non-payment of bills and the lack of hard currency" ministry "does not guarantee delivery in January of food." Nizhny Novgorod city council wrote to Gorbachev that there was no money to provide a minimum food, even "children, pregnant and lactating women. Oil production for the year falling by 20%. Minister of Foreign Economic Relations Katushev complains that "in connection insolvency "Aeroflot does not sell tickets for employees of the Ministry, who is flying to different countries, trying to knock out new loans. Power aware that the country - bankrupt and turn to the west with a request for humanitarian assistance. German Bundeswehr (!) Sends 8 million dry rations for the Soviet troops and their families. In the queue for bread in many cities, people stand at 5-6. In May 1991, the chairman of the State Committee for the purchase of food says that flour left for 15 days. Assistant Gorbachev Chernyaev at the same time in his diary writes that "Moscow has not seen this, probably, ever - even in the lean years." Let me remind you it all up to Yeltsin.

Equally important is the financial side of the issue. For the first 9 months of 1991 money supply increased by half (and it's a sharp reduction of production!) at auction for a dollar given for more than a hundred rubles. Thus, the actual inflation (and with it, and depreciation of the contributions of Soviet citizens) - it is also clearly not the handiwork of Yeltsin's press started much earlier.
liberalization of prices, the terms of which Yeltsin announced in the autumn of 1991, essentially led to the money regained its economic function. Prior to this money like there were any, but to buy them all the same inning. Of course, in terms когда кредиты уже никто не дает и оплачивать старые кредиты нечем, никаких перспектив у экономики без либерализации цен не было. Только вернув деньгам их функцию, could return the products on the shelves, and it was done.

Of course, it would be much more effective would be to privatize up to the liberalization of prices, but then it should have been done at the beginning of perestroika in 1991 for potential foreign investors already in what could not be persuaded. And at the beginning of perestroika political situation has been such that to admit the necessity of foreign investment and offered to sell a stake in the ownership of the Soviet businesses would be simply unthinkable. Privatization is among the Soviet citizens would not solve the financial problems of the country - that is, in fact, no alternative the way the Soviet Union and Russia in this period, unfortunately, was not. Anyway, there was no way better.

Well, after the liberalization of prices led to a rapid and inevitable their growth, while oil prices hovered around $ 12 a barrel, the favorable investment climate to think there was nothing. The country was ravaged, the state did not have enough resources to effectively ensure their social responsibilities - including law enforcement, so the criminals to oppose There was nothing. In the poor state an immediate order can be set only terror, but the example of the farce, which resulted in the coup Emergency Committee, see army and special services to subdue this situation was simply impossible.

Since the state-owned enterprises have been destroyed, effectively Managing imagine it was impossible, and privatization was the only option here. But what could be expected from privatization in an environment where people was poor? For what these billions and who might sell the curving Soviet enterprises? Probably the right move would be, for example, the decision to how to fix 30% of the shares of privatized enterprises by foreign investors, which would, firstly, to sell from the more expensive, and secondly, the possible would subsequently reduce the impact of corruption (big Western companies still are on average less likely to resolve issues in a bath under a bottle of vodka). You can also could determine that the other 30% of the shares are assigned to company employees, and only the remainder of the package is sold at an auction open to all. About такая же схема использовалась при реприватизации в Японии после Второй мировой войны и она могла бы помочь решить проблему «красных директоров». Одним словом admittedly, the privatization would be more effective and Yeltsin is responsible for this part of his responsibility.

Yet the myth of "predatory" nature of the Privatization - a myth. Usually cheated represent normal workaholic with the plant, which went for a pittance moneybags. But laborors themselves fled to change vouchers for money, because they do not have any idea about how to manage production, and no dividends at first shares of most companies in the first initially did not bring. But in the MMM money bear happily - this really was the people the level of economic scholarship and can not be in this blame. If we are to complain about someone, then those enterprising people who know how to manage property, but did not want or could not communicate with the criminals. Here are sorry for them, although the majority and they somehow settled into a new life. As for the loans for shares - there is a very interesting study recently published Daniel Treisman University of California, which clearly shows that the cost of selling companies at that time if there was less than the market, the discount rate generally fit into the standard framework for placing such a large stake.

power of the Yeltsin era, many now ( Belkovsky such ) describe as the power of money. But we can not accept, and equity words Valentin Yumashev , who besieged the journalist in a recent interview, "there were no billionaires in Yeltsin, under Yeltsin have not yet happened. " And not only in the amount of capital, and in that so-called oligarchs then there were certainly no closer to power than now. Then, at least, between them although there were competition, what we see today. When Yumashev said that under Yeltsin leadership of the country was left to the mercy of the oligarchs, he asked for examples of specific policy decisions. And this is a strong argument, because everyone who ever knows anything of Yeltsin, acknowledged that it was impossible to bend. Still, Yeltsin, unlike Putin, for all its shortcomings, the classical strong-willed leader, and (again also, unlike Putin), he was not a cynic and a supporter of opportunistic intrigues. The only possibility to influence on Yeltsin was in the manipulation provided his information, than trying to actively use Berezovsky, but this opportunity came at the end of the 90's, when Yeltsin was already pretty sick man. Incidentally, contrary to popular myth, alcohol abuse, he never suffered a bizarre and slow his appearance was the result of several history of myocardial and action of drugs.

no less popular among the general public the myth that democracy is beginning to fold under Yeltsin, and with the active his participation.
Yes, Yeltsin's constitution gave the president too much power. But we remember that at the first election was the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, then the largest faction were communists. See how the Ukrainians are now blamed Yushchenko for the fact that he did not hold on to power, it is likely that now also be abused to Yeltsin if it came to power Zhirinovsky or Zyuganov. And certainly no one would make life did not seem to raspberries, if in 1993, came to power red-korichnivye, in the wake of favorable after the crisis of the populist rhetoric of the left. Touching speech today sounded bellicose jingoistic patriots who paint themselves fluffy rabbits who have been in 1993 the victims of the bloody executioner Yeltsin. As if we do not remember that in 1993 the tanks were firing at a well-armed men who tried to force to seize City Hall and Ostankino.

Just as absurd to claim that it was under Yeltsin administration is "bent" the media. Yes I find at least one prominent journalist of NTV or ORT, who would in 1996 would sincerely like to agitate for Zyuganov. Or this way: Imagine that the U.S. now appears active left-populist, for some reason popular among some segments of the population. Is highly probable that the commentators main TV channels will make fun of him and the serious press was not support - but whether this is censorship? Yes, Yeltsin in 1996 was extremely low rating, but won not by manipulation, but because black advertising against Zyuganov in the style of "Buy food last time!" from the viewpoint of most voters had under a real basis.

only act Yeltsin which is really a blow to democracy in Russia - a choice of Putin as his successor. One can go to discuss why the choice fell on Putin but certainly not because Yeltsin was counting on the crackdown. In contrast, Yeltsin only once publicly commented on Putin's reforms and this applies to election of governors. Yeltsin criticized the reform.

course, Yeltsin was to criticize and have criticized him in the 90's be healthy without any censorship. That's just something strange happens - most of all critics of the Russian leaders went to Gorbachev, who gave us publicity, and Yeltsin, who managed to defend this publicity. It turns out that most people would abuse those leaders who allow this to him. Current leaders, I think it is well understood.

Predyav not Yeltsin? And about Chechnya why no word?
And about the election the 96th. "Buy food for the last time" and the strategy did not vote for Yeltsin, but against Zyuganov - that's right. But this is not the whole true.

Still art student's record.
More about Gorbachev saw ... schA ...

not, okay. It describes the situation: a bus with Russian tourists arrived in Carlsbad Vary and the guide told them that there is now resting and Gorbachev that he easily can be found on the street. All immediately started screaming that Gorbachev had sold the country and that Gorbachev should urgently face to fill the streets of Carlsbad, and the author of the post said then, in Carlsbad without Gorbachev before Gorbachev and none of the screaming did not get No matter in zhizt.

Runet I thought the whole communist, and I have a picture of friends in the couple solid liberal positions. This is my picture of friends as well-matched or people simply rushes from outrageous to shocking - when "all" were the Liberals it was fashionable to be a communist, and all the trolls, and when "all" have become fashionable Communists was to stay liberal and potrollit Communists?:)