HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2014, 5:27 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,725
Pretty much all those "facts" are not true.

Russia does have population decline and rampant alchoholism (though not population decline for decades like claimed), Russia does have vast control over the economy (though there are nominally "independent" companies), Russia has vast income inequality (Gini coefficient doesn't really represent income inequality directly but rather frequencies along an income distribution), and whether or not Russia is "European", other than a reference to continental boundaries, is highly debatable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2014, 5:39 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
A lot of people forget that Russia should be considered the heir to the culture of the Greek Eastern Roman Empire, with many characteristics transferring from Byzantium. The Greek east after Constantine the Great was autocratic, with a strong state discarding the democratic/republican elements inherited by the western Empire's successor states. Rather than Cicero, Cato, Brutus, Augustus, the eastern empire's philosophical starting point was guys like Diocletian, Constantine, Heraclius. Anyone approaching the emperor had to crawl on their knees. you addressed the rule as 'dominus et deus' (lord and God), while Augustus or Trajan were considered 'first citizen' (princeps). The emperor, as the head of the church, did not tolerate religious divergence as the iconoclast contreversy and others show.

As a partial heir to Rome, Russia is very central to Europe--it inherited most of latter Rome's autocratic tendencies and post-Christianization religious conservatism.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2014, 5:54 PM
Gantz Gantz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Pretty much all those "facts" are not true.

Russia does have population decline and rampant alchoholism (though not population decline for decades like claimed), Russia does have vast control over the economy (though there are nominally "independent" companies), Russia has vast income inequality (Gini coefficient doesn't really represent income inequality directly but rather frequencies along an income distribution), and whether or not Russia is "European", other than a reference to continental boundaries, is highly debatable.
English Wiki list of Russian banks, this list is incomplete of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_in_Russia


Again, all my facts are true. You can check for yourself. Here is a good Forbes article with 2013 data on Russian demographics, I can tell you that 2014 is gonna be even better numbers, with an even bigger natural increase in population, since the birth rate from Jan-Oct 2014 increased to 13.4 (US birth rate is 12.5 as of 2013 for comparison). Russian TFR will also go up even more.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadom...an-demography/

Here is how Russian total fertility rates (TFR) fare against some other Euro nations:

Russia 1.71
Czech Republic 1.46
Italy 1.39
Germany 1.38
Spain 1.26
Poland 1.26

Edit just for you: Brazil 1.79 http://www.indexmundi.com/brazil/tot...lity_rate.html (wiki doesn't have current Brazil TFR). Only 0.08 away from Russia, I wouldn't be surprised if by 2020 both countries have the same TFR.

Wiki links for each country in order I put them in, if you're too lazy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...tal_statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...tal_statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...istorical_data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...ermany#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...tal_statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...nd#After_WW_II

^Just as a litmus test, how many times did you hear about much worse, abysmal demographic situation in say Spain or Italy as opposed to Russia in mainstream western media? What about the general opinion of people on the streets? Heck, even on this board, which is supposed to consist of "knowledgeable" people this same fallacy persists.

Last edited by Gantz; Dec 1, 2014 at 6:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2014, 9:30 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Nick View Post
I am by no means making any kind of apologies for the sorry state of affairs in Russia, but I take issue with the black-and-white view many here and elsewhere have on Russia and America. Your belief that anyone who "comes up with the right business plan" can make millions or billions of dollars is a perfect example, and that American wealth came through some kind of "healthy" business practices. It's a nice thought, but it's all built upon decades of propaganda and lies, it's a reality that never existed other than in the minds of the privileged who deny their own privelege.
Is everything in America perfect? No, but the vast majority of Americans who are wealthy got that way through hard work and/or ingenuity. Do some people in America get rewarded through corruption or some other bullshit? Yes, but it's the exception rather than the rule (as it is in places like Russia). If you look at the top ten richest Americans, they are much more often than not self made and usually did something to radically change the world in the process. There really isn't anyone on the entire Forbes 500 list that made their money off government contracts or through unethical means. The worst you can say is the Kochs or Waltons have made their money as economic bottomfeeders. Now is that perfect? Of course not, because we have our Wal Marts and our Koch Industries who go around paying people shit wages or polluting things, but, even then, their wealth is legitimate even if their business practices are less than generous. Even in those cases, the onus is on the American public for not supporting laws like higher minimum wages or stricter environmental regulations that would corral people like the Waltons or Kochs. If our laws were written that way, you bet your ass the Waltons and Kochs would be forced to comply. In Russia, a billionaire is often above the law, that doesn't happen very much here, our laws just tend to be lenient in ways that some people find less than fair.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 12:22 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
If you look at the top ten richest Americans, they are much more often than not self made and usually did something to radically change the world in the process.
Actually, no, it's the opposite--when we look at the top ten richest Americans, they are much more likely to have inherited their fortunes than to be "self-made;" 6 in 10 inherited their fortunes.

Bill Gates was born into an upper-middle class family who could afford to send him to an elite prep school (which granted him access to a rare early computer), and to Harvard. He made his fortune on his own talents, but if he had been born poor he'd never have touched a computer in high school. I'd say he's mostly self-made.

Warren Buffet's father was a successful business owner and four-term US Congressman, so Warren started out his adult life with an Ivy League education and a high-paying job from Daddy. He is tremendously talented and most certainly leveraged the wealth and access he was gifted, but at best I'd say he's only 50% "self-made". Most all of us would be quite successful in life if we inherited that kind of fortunate upbringing.

Larry Ellison is obviously self-made. Interesting life story, too.

Charles Koch inherited half of his father's fortune.

David Koch inherited the other half of his father's fortune.

Christy Walton inherited her wealth.

Jim Walton inherited his wealth.

Alice Walton inherited her wealth.

S. Robson Walton inherited his wealth.

Michael Bloomberg rounds out the top ten. I'm not finding sufficient information on just how he found his way to Harvard Business School and then became a partner at Salomon Brothers shortly thereafter, but I'm guessing he didn't start out life in poverty.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 3:17 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Michael Bloomberg rounds out the top ten. I'm not finding sufficient information on just how he found his way to Harvard Business School and then became a partner at Salomon Brothers shortly thereafter, but I'm guessing he didn't start out life in poverty.
Poverty, no, but certainly not wealthy and can easily be called "self-made". Same with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Their parents were able to buy them a computer or get them their first job, but so are hundreds of thousands of American kids' parents every year.

This is a pretty decent breakdown of inherited vs. self-made wealth amongst the richest Americans. It's mostly the Koch's and Walton's that inherited their wealth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...the_Forbes_400
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 3:24 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
the Kochs were wealthy, but their business is now something like 100x bigger than what they inherited.

Steve Jobs was self-made. Really, all of the silicon valley pioneers were self made.

And shareholder democracy, is far more advanced in the US than in any other country. the median 401k balance is 30k; the average retiree has around 100k in their 401k.

Mutual fund ownership is very common compared to most of Europe where the government handles retirement provision.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 3:40 PM
Qubert Qubert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Actually, no, it's the opposite--when we look at the top ten richest Americans, they are much more likely to have inherited their fortunes than to be "self-made;" 6 in 10 inherited their fortunes.

Bill Gates was born into an upper-middle class family who could afford to send him to an elite prep school (which granted him access to a rare early computer), and to Harvard. He made his fortune on his own talents, but if he had been born poor he'd never have touched a computer in high school. I'd say he's mostly self-made.

Warren Buffet's father was a successful business owner and four-term US Congressman, so Warren started out his adult life with an Ivy League education and a high-paying job from Daddy. He is tremendously talented and most certainly leveraged the wealth and access he was gifted, but at best I'd say he's only 50% "self-made". Most all of us would be quite successful in life if we inherited that kind of fortunate upbringing.

Larry Ellison is obviously self-made. Interesting life story, too.

Charles Koch inherited half of his father's fortune.

David Koch inherited the other half of his father's fortune.

Christy Walton inherited her wealth.

Jim Walton inherited his wealth.

Alice Walton inherited her wealth.

S. Robson Walton inherited his wealth.

Michael Bloomberg rounds out the top ten. I'm not finding sufficient information on just how he found his way to Harvard Business School and then became a partner at Salomon Brothers shortly thereafter, but I'm guessing he didn't start out life in poverty.
While this post is 100% true, the US has never said "Everyone who comes here is going to become a millionaire", in fact most immigrants, whither 100/200 years ago or today, would be overjoyed just to reach middle class. Most wealth creation is a multi-generational process, and that's not a bad thing.

From the economically conservative viewpoint, the premise of American capitalism has never been "Rags to Riches", but a real chance to improve one's lot in life and live an economically secure lifestyle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 4:55 PM
Double L's Avatar
Double L Double L is offline
Houston:Considered Good
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,846
In Russia, the financial district names you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 11:19 PM
JG573 JG573 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Wow so much hate on Russia in this thread, many good posts, but a lot of people are clouded by mainstream media and can't discern reality from propaganda. As a disclaimer I am not a Putin apologist, I am just here listing some facts:

Claim #1: Moscow/Russia is not a European country.
Fact: It is self-evident that the central Russian region is decidedly European. If you ever go to Moscow/Russia and travel around the world, you'll know it right away. St. Petersburg in particular is one of the most beautiful cities in Europe hands down.

Claim #2: Russia has huge income inequality.
Fact: Russia is around average when it comes to income inequality. Other big developing nations have much bigger income inequality compared to Russia such as Mexico, Brazil, or Chile. Oddly enough for many members on this board, under Putin Russian income inequality went down. Putin main support base are the poor/uneducated and minorities (ethnic Russians have lower support for Putin compared to other ethnicities), not oligarchs or the rich.

Claim #3: Russia is not part of global financial system/everything is state-owned.
Fact: There are roughly 6,000 banks currently operating in Russia, a vast majority of them are private banks and have no connection to Russian government whatsoever and are not in western media eye for sanctions. Russia is a member of all major economic global organizations such as WTO, APEC, SCO, OSCE, etc. Russian stock market, banks, and publicly traded companies follow international accounting standards. Moscow stock exchange is a member of Euroclear and Clearstream. It is also in the top10 exchanges in the world when it comes to derivatives trades.

Claim #4: Russian population has been falling for decades, everyone is an alcoholic/drunk and drug addict.
Fact: This is propaganda in 2 parts:
Part 1: Population
Russia, unlike other European countries has natural increase in population. Also, Russia has one of the highest birth rates in Central or Eastern Europe. There are only a handful of European countries with higher rates and the difference between US and Russian TFR is around 0.1-0.2 now. In addition, Russia accepts more immigrants than any other nation, only behind the United States I believe. As a result, most Russian cities are at their historic highs population wise.
Part 2: Alcoholism
Actually Russian per capita alcohol consumption is lower than some other European countries such as Czech Republic, Finland, UK, and is comparable to many others. Overall, Russian alcohol consumption statistics are not outstanding at all, and are not *orders of magnitude* higher that some claim. Of course, Russia is the largest alcohol market in Europe, but this is all due to the size of the population. Oh and they also make vodka...
From my personal tourist experience: I've seen more drunks on the streets in South Korea than in Russia. I'd guess anyone else on this board who have been to Seoul/both countries will concur.

Not sure if I missed anything.
Saying there are 6,000 banks means nothing in regards to how state owned the financial industry or that they are on the stock market.

Top 5 Russia banks by Assets
Sberbank - Mostly government owned
VTB - Mostly government owned
Gazprombank- Mostly government owned
VTB-24 Mostly government owned
Rosselkhozbank- Government owned

All of Russia's biggest banks that hold most all of the banking assets are government owned whether flat out owned or most of their shares are owned by the government. As many of these companies say their public companies but the shares are owned by the Russian government and most all of there leadership are ex-Russian Politicians. Pretty much any bank in Russia with significant holdings are Russian owned such as Sberbank which is the largest and owns a whooping 30 percent of the amount of banking assets in Russia and has it's shares owned by the Russian Government and German Gref is the chairman and look at the surprise in that he was Minister of Economics and Trade of Russia for Putin for 7 years. Sberbank also receives preferential treatment from the state and holds 73% of all bank deposits.

You can say all you want about the number of banks but when it comes down to it the Russia Government owns or owns majority stake in most all major players and the leadership of these companies are made up of mostly politicians under Putin. Russia is not part of a global financial system for the most part and mostly only does business or influence in ex-soviet influenced countries. The Russian economy is overall far to invested in the government and the state owned energy industry and the little "global" sense they have is being shut out by sanctions.

As for your population quip Russia does have a serious problem with population growth and from 1992-2013 had not seen a natural birth increase which is a serious problem. Even with immigration Russia saw population decline for almost two decades and only last year did it see a very small increase in population. Your tip toeing around the issue by saying they have a higher fertility rate than other central and eastern european countries but it does not change the fact they are barely growing in population with immigration and the UN forecasts population decline overall for many years to come. The article on forbes is right in the situation has been getting better but it still bad overall. It is like saying a company is now doing great because they are slightly profitable after 20 years of decline and loss! It is still a bad situation and the forecasts are not looking good overall again.

I will keep this last part short but while Russians wealth has risen under Putin inequality has not gotten better and the Russians face horrible inequality here is a link to articles that talk about the recent Credit Sussie report which says

"Russia, the bank says, has the highest rate of inequality in the world – barring some small Caribbean islands.

Just how bad is it? Thirty-five percent of household wealth in the country is in the hands of 110 people (Yes, that's right — 110.)."

The article also gives charts comparing the US and Russian and if you do not believe business insider Russia today also reported on it the Russian owned state media. Now while I agree the poor are better off and have more wealth than in the 1990s the inequality has not gotten better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/putti...ective-2013-10
http://rt.com/business/russia-househ...ditsuisse-169/

Claiming people are influenced by the main stream media is foolish when it seems your heavily influenced by Russian propaganda. I realize everything the media says is not true about Russia and other countries face problems also but Russia overall faces serious problems that your trying to brush over like they are not a big deal.

Population, Inequality, Corruption and Government control are four major problems that are not seeming to budge much and are seriously threatening Russia and its stability in the long run.

Last edited by JG573; Dec 2, 2014 at 11:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2014, 4:13 AM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,253
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...next-year.html

Russia’s economic crisis deepened as the government acknowledged it’s heading for recession and a former central banker spoke of “some panic” in the financial system as oil prices plunged.

Speaking a day after President Vladimir Putin said Russia is scrapping a proposed $45 billion pipeline to Europe, the government predicted the economy will contract next year and canceled a bond auction. It was also forced to pledge 39.95 billion rubles ($740 million) to support OAO Gazprombank, at least the third lender to secure a capital injection since U.S. and European Union sanctions curbed their ability to borrow.

The economy is succumbing to penalties imposed over the conflict in Ukraine as the plummeting ruble stokes inflation and a 30 percent drop in oil prices erodes export revenue. Russia may enter its first recession since 2009 in the first quarter, according to Deputy Economy Minister Alexei Vedev.

Oil Prices

“The elements of instability” afflicting Russia’s economy range from structural to geopolitical, Vedev told reporters in Moscow today. “One of the key factors is the lower price of oil.”

Urals, Russia’s chief export oil blend, will probably average $99 a barrel in 2014, a downgrade from an earlier forecast for $104, he said. Its price is forecast to drop to an average of $80 next year, according to Vedev.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:28 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.