Stas Bush wrote: Argentina has utterly collapsed while trying to "restructure" itself to fit the whims of the Washington Consensus.
That's not so. Argentina brought most of its problems on itself. That's a very sad story indeed; the country was once well-run, exceptionally prosperous and in a good position to become the leading regional power. That was before Peron and the Peronista's. The problems Argentina faces are entirely internally generated; they have only themselves to blame.
The international market may be objective in causing these calamities upon my nation - Russia's labour is expensive, the climate is cold, investment is complicated and industry is dead, so there's little left to modernize - but sure as hell that resource-hungry approach has shit to do with human welfare. It's unintentional brutality at best, economic terror at worst.
Firstly, it's important to differentiate between the phrases "it's all for the best" and "it'll all work out in the end". Secondly, nobody would argue that could not have been handled a lot better or that the execution of the transition from an attempt at a self-contained economic system to participation in the world economic system was anything other than monumentally botched. On the other hand, it had a massive leap to make and it's not surprising that the leap fell short.
The comments about the world economic system don't really hold water. One of the initial steps to recovering from the mess Russia is in now is absorbing the concept of realism; the world is as it is, not the way we would like it to be. The economic system is the way it is because that's how it shakes down. The US didn't create it; it existed long before the US existed and will exist when the US is a barely-remembered memory. Accepting that is the first step out of the economic swamp; failing to do so dooms those who fail to remain there. Put bluntly, a nation can't make other countries buy its products by putting a gun to their head. That ends up as counter-productive. Nations have to produce what the world wants otherwise the world won't buy it. They'll buy from people who do produce what they want. It doesn't count for beans to go around asking people to buy a product they don't want "because we're poor and need the money". That's called begging and beggars rarely are anything of any account. Realism again, it may not be how we like things to be but its the way things are.
Russia's problem boils down to the fact that they have very little for sale that people want to buy. Basically oil gas, vodka and caviar. The intent of transition is to use sales of what can be sold to develop industry that can produce good that people want to buy. The problem Russia had was that didn't happen. People sold the oil and gas (and the rest) and, instead of investing the proceeds, looted them and stashed them away in Switzerland. That's the key to the present problem and the one Putin is trying to sort out. Russia's current difficulties are just about as home-grown as those that destroyed Argentina. The world economic system is not to blame for them; to allocate blame, Russia should look in a mirror and accept what it sees.
Also, complaining about the elimination of Russia's "high-tech" doesn't hold water. The truth is, Russia never had a high-tech industry by world standards. It had an illusion of one, a potemkin village of high technology, but the truth of the matter was that it lagged about five to ten years behind the rest of the developed world. It produced kit that was a generation behind and most of its development was facilitated by technology stolen from elsewhere. Russian "high tech" will not sell on the international market because other countries produce better, more reliable equipment that is also less expensive. Take an electronics store, put a Russian computer beside a Japanese one and see which one people buy. That's the international market at work.
There are areas where Russian technology was competitive. The Su-27 for example or some SAMs. They've sold quite well. The problem is they have no civilian equivalents. There should be, but the money was looted during the 1990s. That's set recovery back by decades.
You can't say paying $200 a month to teachers and doctors is part of 'the required transition to a modern economy', because no modern economy destroys its education and healthcare with such offensively low wages. Quite the opposite, in fact - even in China teachers get more than they get in Russia, despite China's GDP/capita being far lower. That's just awful no matter how you put it. Market, shmarket, 'invisible hand', 'rationalization'. If those hundreds of thousands of dead from privately produced bad alcohol, from inadequate care, from drug addiction are the 'price' of 'rationalization', maybe that's not good at all.
No, it isn't good. You mentioned China. Go back forty years and China then was in as equally bad a situation as Russia is today. Some areas still are; Chinese economic development is very patchy. However, China did two things that Russia didn't. It recognized the problem very early and did something to correct it. In fact, they managed their correction problem very well and the results are what you describe. They played to their strengths, minimized their weaknesses and picked product areas that they could sell. Then they exploited those for all they are worth. The result is today's talk of "The China Model" and China's undoubted economic success. Say again, Russia's problems are self-inflicted. The Russian administration refused to recognize the problems while they were still soluble (they actually booted the last leader who did recognize those problems) and did nothing to correct them. By the time the problems were recognized, stagnation was so well-established that getting out of it would have been a major achievement for any nation. For one that was broke, stagnant and crippled by the remnants of 70 years under an idiotic system (and at least three centuries of an equally idiotic system before that) it needed a miracle. That's what Russia didn't get.
Pain should lead to progress, which is manifested in a widening assortment of more and better goods. So far it only led to a regress. Economic diversification is a key to success (China modernized it's old industries for a very wide range of products, not destroyed all of them overnight, and now they can make anything from clothes to heavy machinery and good weapons). Primitivization never works. You go from resources TO modern industry (like Sweden and Finland), not from a modern industry to a resource-export model.
The problem is that Russia never had a really modern industry. Nor did China (in fact China was in a much worse position back then than Russia is today). Chinese economic development was a good example of bootstrapping. They selected what they could make and sell on the international market and sold that. Then they used the proceeds to develop another sector. Then they used the proceeds from those sectors to develop two more. And so on. That's what didn't happen in Russia. The proceeds form the sectors that did work were looted. Again, the problem isn't with the world market, it was something you Russians did to yourselves. Sorry, the blame falls entirely upon you.
Having said that, how does Russia get out of its problems? The answer is to follow the Chinese Model. Select something that can be done and produce something the world wants to buy. Use oil and gas revenues to do it. Once that sector is established, use the revenues to develop another - and then two more. use the revenues from those four to develop another four. And so on. railing against teh world economic system is very satisfying but it really doesn't get anybody anywhere. It is what it is; it isn't going to change so learn to live with it and make it work for you, not against you. It's the refusal to do that simple act of realism that has condemned Russia to its present state.
).
