Original Message: ----------------- From: Wayne Eddy [email protected] Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:59:18 +1000 To: [email protected] Subject: Russia (Was What is wealth?)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan M" <[email protected]> To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:34 AM Subject: RE: What is wealth? >I didn't see a lot of >drunks wandering the streets, but there were a few indications that >alcoholism could be a bit of a problem. Well, on average they drink a lot. Averaging over the whole population, we have from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1647475.ece >A report by Gennadi Onishenko, head of the consumer protection agency, found that >Russians drink 15 litres (26 pints) of pure alcohol per year >I was last in Russia was in 2004 and the ecconomy seemed to have picked up a >lot since when I was first there in 2000, whcih is why I question your >assertion that Russia was on the slide. The majority of Russians I've met >are very well educated and I definitely got the impression that Russia was >recovering nicely from the admittedly rather large hiccup caused by the fall >of the Soviet Union. >Another few years and oil prices will be higher than ever surely? The last time this happened, it took 20 years until the next oil boom. Again, look at the countries where the ecconomy is all oil. Those with decent sized populations (Venezuala, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria) have not seen the immense foreign currency generated by this wealth trickle down to the average person. The recovery was caused by two things: Putin controlling the mob so businessmen knew who to bribe, and the rise in fuel costs. But, the last 4 years, as he consolidated his power, he also concentrated the wealth....I don't think anyone would argue that Russia is not a more autocratic country than it was even 4 years ago. These types of countries rarely have well off citizens. >I never saw any indications of massive child neglect - quite the opposite. OK, then the quesiton becomes why do NGOs report it as massive, and even the government report it as quite large. >Lets hope the US doesn't attack any else for a while then. Surely with >George Bush out it becomes a bit less likely? :-) It depends on the security needs of the US. Obama was clear that he would raise the troop levels in Afganistan. Gates seems to have his head on straight, arguing for soft forces to follow troops in because the US otherwise lost the ground it won as soon as the troops left. I, among many others, argued against going into Iraq, because I thought we would bumble it.....although even I didn't guess the magnitude of the incompetence of those involved. But, with Gates and Petreus, we have had very competent leadership, and things are far better now than they were in '06, or '02 in Iraq. Whether they will stay that way after we leave is a good question the answer to which no-one knows, but right now there are far fewer violent deaths than there were 7 years ago. >I wonder if Afganistan will have that effect on anyone else? Very unlikely. If you look at 'Nam for the US and Afganistan for the USSR, both were quagmires, but the US managed to grow its GDP 30% in the '70s and the USSR GDP fell like a rock in the '80s. Right now, the US is spending a fraction of the GDP it spent on arms in the '60s, our biggest growth years. >I would have thought that a low birth rate is very very good evidence of >being part of the first world. It does have that in common with the first world. But, the life expectancy of both men and women in every age catagory is less than it was 40 years ago. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3439671.html Now, I know the Hoover institute is quite conservative, but from what I've heard from knowledgeable sources in the field, the basic demographics are not disputed.... >Things can turn around quickly - look at China - Which took 25 years to turn around, but go ahead. >perhaps global warming is >just what Russia needs to become a major world power again? With no people? It's not just that the birth rate is low, it's that the death rate is higher than 40 years ago. Germany has a lower birth rate, and it's birth and death rate are close to even. Russia's death rate is about 50% higher than it's birth rate. For a number of reasons, the average, say, 40 year old man has a high hill to climb before he can achieve his father's life expectancy. Something is wrong there. The life expectency for a Russian male is 3 years less than for a male from Bangladesh. Something is terribly wrong there. Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
