Putin Time Magaine's Man of the Year

putin donWell, I know I have been neglecting my shows and my blog, and have not posted anything since August. And for that I am profoundly sorry.

 This one turned out to be quite good even by my own demanding standards. In the midst of the brouhaha about Putin being made Time's man of the year, I thought I need to make my point as well. And I did devote 2 hours to it. Here are some basic highlights, but as usual, the podcast has more stuff in it:

  • The initial assertion by Time's Managing Editor: "He (Putin) stands, above all, for stability—stability before freedom, stability before choice, stability in a country that has hardly seen it for a hundred years" is so inane, it could have been uttered by a Santa Cruz City council member. Stability is not a goal, it is a tool to achieve other goals.
  • Time Magazine and its managing editor completely missed what are Putin's goals.
  • Stability of Putin's personal power, stability of his clans, these are his goals, not stability of the country.
  • If it is economic stability, then, Putin has little to do with it. I would claim otherwise - the current economic prosperity of Russia happened despite Putin, not because of him. It was caused by oil prices and if it had not been for Putin's nationalization policies, it would have been better.
  • In a sense Time completely missed why is it they made Putin "man of the Year". Does Putin deserve it more them other runners up? Yes he does. But not because of what Times thought.
  • Putin deserves to be the Person of the Year because of his personal achievements - not many can usurp a huge country, nip a small bud of democracy, turn it into a fief for himself and his minions and make people love him for that even more. That is no small feat.
  • It does seem that unlike its managing editor, Time's photographer saw it clearly. Putin does look like a Don. Very appropriate. 

Happy podcasting. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year,

Economic forecasts and claims by Putin and others at the St. Petersburg economic forum.

After three days of grandiose forecasts and pompous back slapping at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, some sober and colder analyses of what had been said and claimed appeared in Kommersant Business Daily. The article by Andrei Illarionov {link in Russian only} former Putin's economic adviser starts off with a satirical title "Bananotechnology" - a reference to recently touted government investment in nano technology in Russia that is gradually acquiring the shape of Nikita Khrushchev's corn cob with a hint at a banana republic status. Some serious real successes (like reviving of the Aeroflot Boeing contract, and the total $14 billion worth of signed contracts) of the forum aside, "pink glasses" metaphor would do no justice to verbal and virtual gongs, incense, crystal balls and other Al Gore-like obscurantism in economic forecasting oozing from VIP participants of the forum like former World Bank head James Wolfenson, Russian President Putin, and his two minions - come democratically appointed heirs -Servey Ivanov and Dmitry Medvedev. As Financial Times noted sourly , the economic forum was reminiscent of old Soviet style gatherings

"where the only speakers were chosen by the ruling bureaucracy."

Here are some excerpts from Illarionov's article, mixed in with my comments. The article strikes hard by its uncompromising pro-capitalist drive. Not surprisingly, the discussion thread at Kommersant web site is full of nasty attacks by rabid nationalists calling the author a deserter, a traitor, a Yankee lap dog, a paid CIA stooge and what not. It was also quite interesting to read what some of them think of the US and how strong the fruits of the USSR propaganda still are.

James Wolfenson, a senile retiree from World Bank claimed Russian GDP increased five fold since 1995. Illarionov sardonically suggested Wolfenson should have consulted any number of acquaintances from his rolodex or maybe just try a simple Internet search to get a 55% figure instead.

In retrospect, both World Bank and Citigroup could probably do better then employ him in any intellectual capacity. I remember commenting about his senility some years back when he could not figure out why anarcho-antiglobalists were opposing his favourite Davos get together.

Mr. Putin's speech has been mentioned before and by this blog among others . Russian President proudly proclaimed that direct foreign investment in Russian economy grew by two and a half times. The following sentence mentioned accumulated foreign investment to have surpassed $150B.

Listeners might have had an impression that the latter number relates to the direct foreign investments mentioned in the first sentence. This however is not true.

As of April 1 2007 $151B is the total for foreign investment, including indirect, i.e. mutual, portfolio, bonds, and other instruments. According to Illarionov the main investment appeal indicator is direct private foreign investments. As of April 1 2007 Russia accumulated $73B. However serious this absolute figure might look, as a percentage of GDP this looks very modest - only about 7% GDP. Deduct direct investment in upstream oil and gas and the number gets even smaller: 4.5% of GDP.  Compare this to direct foreign investment is Ukraine that exceed 19% of GDP, 25% of GDP in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, 42% in Georgia and 59% in Estonia.

I already mentioned Mr. Putin's macroeconomic claim regarding G-7 countries' share of World economic output drop from 60 to 40 . I have to admit, I took the former number for granted without double checking. I have forgotten the predictable ease former Soviet apparatchiks show while dealing with numbers. Mr. Putin it appears had outright lied.

That in 2007 G-7's share of world economic output was 41% was true. But it is also true that G-7's share was not 60% but 51%.

But even these claims paled in comparison with forecasts. Mr. Wolfenson "promised" that Russian economy and economies of developed nations will grow 20 fold by 2050...But nobody seemed to have time to stop and think in St. Petersbourg, comments Illarionov.

For a country whose population declines so rapidly, a 20 fold GDP grows would translate into a 25 fold GDP per capita growth. History does not know anything even close among economic miracles of the past: in 43 years Japan's GDP per capita grew 10 times, 12 times in Korea, 13 times in Taiwan, and 17 times in China.

Someone is smoking something. This smacks of return to absurd and laughable gigantomania of USSR forecasting. One of Putin's potential democratically appointed heirs Sergei Ivanov advanced even more futurama claiming that by 2020 Russian GDP will be among the top 5 in the world and per capita GDP by purchasing power parity (PPP) would be $30,000 in 2005 prices. Another candidate for democratically appointed heir Mr. Medvedev agreed. That was the same Medvedev that lamented the death of capitalism when UK frowned at his Gasprom buying a UK energy supplier to create a vertical monopoly. No wonder they can spout any nonsense while they think that monopolistic capitalism is the true capitalism.

These two clowns do not understand what smart people elsewhere understand perfectly well: you can not reach 50% of per capita GDP of the most economically advanced nation. To reach such a level means to transcend the developing economy status that can drive economic growth simply by sheer power of expansion. At higher levels of development economic growth requires a completely different environment.

Growth rates depend more on social and state institutions like protections of private property, separation of powers, free mass media, independent judiciary, civil liberties, political rights, and law.

I had to do a double take when I read this next figure Illarionov mentions.

Russian economy could have experienced fast economic growth in the oil industry, but looting of Yukos by the state and other swindles {possible translations also include: fraud, shady deal, racket, and hustle} annual oil production rates have tumbled from 13% to 2%. Russian economy could have experienced fast growth in natural gas industry, but Gasprom is squeezing independent producers, while increasing its own production by 0.6% in 8 years.

These are horrendous numbers for a country so dependent on oil and gas sectors for almost everything, for a country where according to some figures up to 60% of Government Budget is derived from oil and gas revenues. Illarionov was one of the few on record predicting the 1998 default that crippled Russia big time. This time he is calling for a complete reversal of the current direction that Putin and both his heirs apparent represent.

 

Moscow Court Rules Against Yukos Capital - Who Would Have Guessed...

When Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned in London last year, the expected and understandable reaction for many was to point fingers at Vladimir Putin as the main culprit. Not that details were known or there has been any direct evidence of the Russian President playing professor Moriarty. It did not matter because the context of Mr. Putin's behavior, his rule, his policies and his past made is so very believable and probable that he had something to do with the murder.

When Mikhail Khodorkovsky of Yukos, was arrested, I, like many others believed that Putin - The President of Russian Federation, not some oil shark or a corporate raider after all - was crushing his potential political opponent. Feudalism for sure but at least he had some interests of the country in mind like any autocratic leader would. They do have these interests at heard, don't they?

That impression gradually subsided and was completely reversed when I learned of appointment of one Igor Sechin, Putin's long time confidant and an errand boy to become a top dog in Rosneft, a quasi private-state oil company, and when subsequently Rosneft became the primary beneficiary of the state instituted shameless devouring of what promised at one time to be the first real Western type Russian corporation - Khodorkovsky's Yukos. At that time, facts just lined up so well that a simple conclusion could not have been avoided - the whole kabuki theater has been set up for personal gain of Mr. Putin and his coterie. A very shallow behavior for a president of any country, except maybe Nigeria or Zimbabwe.

So, it is not a surprise that red flags came up right away while reading a Kommersant account [link in Russian] of The Moscow City Court of Arbitration decision to nullify the previous ruling by The International Court of Arbitration in favor of Yukos Capital and against Rosfneft. Previous action of Russian power structure related to Yukos were so blatantly in your face that the first thought that comes to mind is "Yeah, right, I wonder why." A state branch of some kind makes a decision in favor of Rosneft and against some entity related to Yukos. Now, how strange is that?!

Unfortunately Kommersant Daily did not have the article on its English side of the web site. I sometimes wonder why are there two distinctly different faces to Kommersant? So here is my quick translation of one of the paragraphs with my comments in square brackets:

The Law on International Business Arbitration [presumably a Russian Federation statute] allows nullification of rulings only in extreme cases, specifically when Arbiters had made grave procedural violations. Rosneft [which filed a motion to reverse the previous ruling] found [read - claimed] two [procedural] violations: the company did not have enough time to study documents and that Arbiters had a conflict of interest. Rosneft claimed that the conflict of interest resulted from participation of two of the three Arbiters in Arbitrage Conferences in Moscow and in Vienna, while a Law firm by the name of Nomos was on the list of conference organizers, and that same law firm later represented Yukos Capital before the International Court of Arbitration... 

Further in the article, Kommersant refers to a Rosneft legal counsel as claiming that no quid pro quo was necessary to establish a conflict of interest, but a simple contact between Arbiters [as conference participants] with conference organizers [of while Nomos was one]. An obvious conflict of interest if you ask me, exacerbated by both parties actually having a gall to be in the same city at the same time.

It appears that Russia has finally discovered the rule of law, doesn't it? Unfortunately, just like in the case of Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzkov, the rule of law is used to take a letter of the law to defeat the purpose of the law. When a court has been politicized, how (un)ruly is the law?

It is not clear, states Kommersant if the nullification was a result of the court agreeing with Rosneft's claim or not, but previous legalese frivolity of Russian officialdom makes it irrelevant. Just like it was with the Litvinenko affair.

One just has to ask if power structures of Russian officialdom understand how much mistrust do they generate both internally and externally by that in your face thuggish attitude? Or is it the case when lack of critical media contributes to degradation of critical thinking among the rulers themselves, making them sanitized to awkwardness of their own authoritarian actions. This is the road to eventual downfall of any authoritarian structure. Crushing dissent and cutting off critical media will eventually detach state decision makers from reality and they will start making clumsy laughable and dangerous mistakes.

This applies to all levels of state power where Tolstoy's "Puny Napoleons" will mimic their big bosses with eagerness and glee. Look up Siberian Light's account of Kasparov's travel problems: a farcical example of completely unnecessary knee jerk reaction of petty policy enforcers.

Bookmarks:
Add to Technorati FavoritesAdd to Google Reader or HomepageSubscribe in NewsGator OnlineSubscribe in BloglinesAdd to My AOL
BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.5.1.