Red army to receive 250 new types of weaponry in 2006

About media censorship :

The TV channels that you were talking about were shut down due to financial reasons .....and was taken over by Gazpom(state has 60% stake in it ) .....the Western media made it a big political issue because its their habit to criticize anyone who is not following their footsteps ......they used to criticize China they used to criticize India when those countries were not playing by their rules,,,now they have stopped bcoz they have got them in track......though the criticism has stopped (to a large extent ) the conditions remain same ....alleast that's what I can say about India from my personal experience .....

The western media didnot criticise Russia from 1991 till 1998 because at that time we were playing by their rules ...Infact they praising us for our "free market " policies when we were selling our state properties to West backed oligraths at prices of peanuts...the Western and American business community were benefitted by that no there wasnt any criticism against Russia ...Today when we are looking at our own interests were are criticized .
But what ever they say our media is not like the one they are describing ....I admit that I dont have western sources to prove it ....but if you want to know the truth go to any Russian News website (Kommersant , Mosnews and even Pravda online ...)they are full of criticism against the Govt ....

Now about China : I frankly dont have huch info about the media of China all I know is that China is Officially still a communist country...and in Communist country media is generally state controlled (mind that I didnt say being state controlled is something bad ...i ll explain later why I think so ).

So after claiming to have been to all those places you still sticking to your line that russia has free press or US like media?. Please, your not in autherioty to judge what is free and what is not. It was a independent journalise which judged the situation based on his own knowledge of how questions should be asked.

I take it that your someone around your early 20s?. Been to university having done an economic course in some russian university. Have claimed to experience free media and having claimed to know otherwise.

Free media is the ability to ask questions that the people want to know and to joke or mock your elected leaders. Their questions had been already reviewed by the russian secret service and then had the go ahead from them to ask the questions. The Washington post is one of the most expressive media outlets out there. Its not CNN or pravada or any other "peoples" media.

Firstly I am not a student of economics I am a Medical Student(post graduate) and my knowledge of economics is limited to what I have learnt in my schooldays and by my personal experience.I have been to most of these countries under student exchange programmes.

Secondly I didnt say for a single time that the Press in Russia is free ...I said its not like what western media souces claim about it.

Thirdly American Media is not at all free ...Its totally manipulated and controlled by the Business Community (the same people who control the Government )....who will convey you just one Message that the Capitalist way is the best and "either you are with us or against us"....they will never tell you that most of their people still cant afford good medical care and Education because everything is for the rich.

Russia was also going in the same path during Yeltsin and It will take time for positive changes to take place ...compare the Gini index of USA and Russia and Scandinavian country you will discover USA has the greatest diffrence in wealth distridution between the Rich and the poor Scandenevia has the least .

I didnot find a single country that has what you pople call "free media" every where there is manipulation sometimes by the state some time by the other powerful groups.... ..The only region where the conditions are better are Norway Sweden Denmark and Finland. Statistics and datas will tell you that these countries have some of the best records when compared with others but our FREE western media never highlight on them as "ideal countries"


I said about Chinese immigrants bocoz St Petersburg Universities and Resturants are full of them. And from what I have heard from them going to China is meaningless for any Russian considering the comparatively poor conditions out there and considering that Russia has richer Europe as her neighbour.

Its good for Russia if China becomes strong but unfortunately China is turning to another Canada ... spineless enough to play a second fiddle to America.

The same holds true(and even to a more extent ) for India...

Developing nations must learn their lesson from Latin American countries following the American way will bring nothing other than prosperity of a few,empty glamor and a large hungry population .(all these are properties of USA )
They must understand that globalization is not Americanisation.

Acc to Dr Baboo Mathew (in BBC hard talk) Indian poverty level has deceased(as the Govt has changed the defn of poverty abiding to american principals ) but the umber of hungry people has increased since 1990 .......this is not development (i think the same holds true for China )

I have my exams soon and I really dont have much time/will find links and endlessly argue with you unconstructively ....all the best to China and I hope she soon starts looking after her own interests instead of looking to the interests of USA and the West and gets criticized by the West and their pimps in the developing world.

And to Northwolf about Electricity ......most probably you rented a flat and the Khazian (owner ) took money for Electricity ...that money which amounts to less than 2$ pm is paid NOT for electricity but for maintainance of the Electrical supply(Changing Fuse,renewing wires etc by technicians from Electricity dept ) similar is the situation with telephone connection (Education and Health care are free too).


[edit on 13-7-2006 by prelude]

Originally posted by zikan42
oil, health care and education (post highschool) are not free at all in russia. do you ever live there?

I didnot say oil is free (however its much cheaper than the rest of the world petrol(benzene) costs about 50 US cents a litre )

Yes Health Care is Free in Russia (unless you go to some Private clinics)....Patients sometimes unofficially asked to buy some of their medicines, bandages, syringes ..but the treatment(medical and surgical) , stay in hospital , food are completely free I am a Doctor in St Petersburg State Medical Academy named after II mechnikov, Dept of Therapy

Even post highschool education is free for most students (70 % of student population depending upon their merit) ...some are even paid stipend by the University for their good results.(I am a living example )


[edit on 13-7-2006 by prelude]

oh well i think we should end this. just face it, the russian military even now is great, any advance in the economy or the military is a great step. the oil driven booming economy of russia should soon allow it's people to live richly, it's military would become more advanced and they would have even more numbers. right now, as i said before, if the russian armed forces went head to head with the American Armed forces, i don't think the Pentagon would be too happy. 30k tanks of russia, against only a mere 8k american tanks, it would be a nice devastating battle, but i think russia would win. as for the ari war, as i said before russian overwhelming numbers can bring the battle to a tie.

both armies records aren't too impressive, both have equal ammounts of mistakes, losses, etc. neither the American or Russian military records are all too impressive. America basically lost Korea, lost Vietnam, retreated out of Somalia giving a defeated impression, Iraq and afghanistan aren't going too good, Iraq is on the brink of civil war, while the Al qaeda are still hiding in Afghanistan. while the russian military has lost Afghanistan, chechnya isn't going too well, the uprising weren't exactly handled softly, and i'm sure there are others. so both are equal in military records comparisons and ina comparison of there owwn respective imprressive militaries!

my cousin has to pay #loads of money for university in russia, same with everybody else i know there. My aunt resently got cancer and had to pay something like 42000 rubles for the surgery and will have to pay probably just as much for chemo. (alot of money if you're not living in moskow)

Also, could you please explain me what putin has done for the country that is so great (or give me a link) so far it seems that he is brainwashing the whole country and that the rising ecomony is only due to the price of oil (the rising economy that is not reflecting on population's quality of life in any way)

Prelude
Part of the money goes to electrical comppany = You're paying to the comppany
but the point is if Russia wants it's electrical and heating sectors to function people need to pay the real price, otherwise no one cares about consumption and wastage of power -> comppanies can not maintain the neccesary infrastructure.
As i said i researched these things for 3 months

Originally posted by prelude
Firstly I am not a student of economics I am a Medical Student(post graduate)

So i take it that your not that good at economics?

quote from yourself to me
""LOL Common give me a break.....a fifth standard student in Russia knows better economics than you do""

Apart from this, the rest was mostly ranting on about free media in comparison to the rest of the world, which is mostly your perception and china somehow becoming spineless..

I said about Chinese immigrants bocoz St Petersburg Universities and Resturants are full of them.

Then why were you talking if if you actually knew the situation in the far east?.

Originally posted by donwhite
China, OTOH, is one of the oldest and perhaps “best” of the large societies in history. This was accomplished under rules inspired by Confucius.

confucianism is totally overrated in the western worlds opinoin, same with karate and chinese people being good at maths. None of these are false but over exaggerated by people who are sterotypical and little bit ignorant in a way. If you meet a southern chinese from HK or guangdong you will find that they mostly practise their own religious principles called haggling, not much respect but a lot of business sense.

Chinese stability was built on confucianism, thats when china was peacful and their was not this do or die sense in chinese people and it was practical to behave that way. China at this point is not stable because it has not reached its goals and is in transition. Maybe a few more years of development and people will have more free time to think about things like government and freedom but as of now that is not possible considering that china is in a transitional phase

Confucius applies in chinese societ like the bible does in america or another christan country. You might be a christan ut you dont follow the bible all the time. Same thing with china and confucianism, you only use its principles when its beneficial to you. China survived on identiy and a common language, Confucius just wrote what was common sense matters down

C/W, what is “F D I?”

Foreign direct investment. The money a foriegn business puts into china

You are so correct, C/W. But already there are moral issues.

Moral issues in the short run only. People should look long term instead of short term. If the chinese textile workers manage to get these jobs and make profit over their poorer markets while delivering better products and such, that means the chinese economy will develop and move higher in the food chain. I dont expect the chinese just to be textile workers for the rest of the countries existant or will it be economically viable once chinese wages go up (already have higher wages than a lot of those other countries like cambodia, bangladesh and the continent of africa). the thing that is keeping them there is chinas superior supply chain which allows it to be cheaper overall and done mroe timely.

Once the chinese textile industry reaches a certain point it will have to more overseas to make benifit over cheaper workers and thus the workers which are missing out now will take over chinas position and then supply china and the world while chinese workers more on to where south korea and japan are now while they move on to a service based industry

Confucianism is totally overrated in the western worlds opinoin, same with Karate and chinese people being good at maths.

I've always thought that Karate Do is japanese martial art.
So maybe you meant Kung Fu.

posted by chinawhite
Confucianism is overrated in the western world. Chinese stability was built on Confucianism when China was peaceful and there was not this do or die sense in Chinese people and it was practical to behave that way.

China at this point is not stable because it has not reached its goals and is in transition. A few more years of development and people will have more free time to think about things like government and freedom but as of now that is not possible considering that China is in a transitional phase

Confucius applies in Chinese system like the Bible does in America or another Christian country. You might be a Christian but you don’t follow the Bible all the time. Same thing with China and Confucianism, you only use its principles when it’s beneficial to you. China survived on identity and a common language. Confucius just wrote what was common sense.

Once the Chinese textile industry reaches a certain point it will have to move overseas to take advantage of cheaper workers and thus the workers which are missing out now will take over China’s position and then supply China and the world while Chinese work more on where South Korea and Japan are now while China moves on to a service based industry [Edited by Don W]

Thank You, ChinaWhite. It seems to me you are projecting the growth and development of today’s China as one more example of the inexorable economic cycle that runs around the planet. From east to west. As the Sun traverses. The industrial revolution began in Britain in the 18th century with the adaption of the steam engine to mining and manufacturing. Then the process moved westward crossing first the Atlantic, and now the Pacific. You point to Africa as being the end of this almost natural progression.

I still have a problem with the service economy concept. I’m sure it is due to my age. I imagine wealth to be the product of creating something - tangible - that is, you must “make” or process - value added - something to generate wealth. Even in the case of agriculture, labor today results in harvest tomorrow. Harvest is produce that other people are willing to exchange goods or money to have. In the case of domestic animals, breeding can result in a “bonus” when a calf or a colt is born. Almost the ‘something for nothing’ the Middle Age alchemist was looking for. Gold from base metals.

Service industries began early. (Let’s exclude the priestly class.) One example often cited is the mutual risk sharing on early sea voyages across the Great Sea or Mediterranean Sea. Ship owners would sell a share of the profits to spread their risk of loss. Fast forward to Lloyd’s of London. Most of today’s professions create nothing tangible. They merely perform desirable services. Accountants. Lawyers. Consultants of every variety. Stock traders.

I am reminded of Michael Milken who is said to have invented junk bonds. He was associated with his brother, David. A traditional bond is most like a mortgage. A company wants to build a factory. To finance it, they offer bonds which are secured by the real estate and the improvements to be added. It will say that on the bond. If the company fails, the bond holders are first to be paid after the sale of the factory.

Junk bonds OTOH, were promises to pay out of future earnings. A lien on anticipated profits. Because of the inherent risk, junk bonds paid 2X or more the rate of interest of traditional bonds. The Milken’s violated some laws, and brother Michael took a fall. He was fined $500 million which the SEC boasted was the largest fine ever. What they did not tell us ordinary mortals was that Michael was left with $300 million. I dare say there would be no shortage of volunteers to pull 6 years in the pen for $50 million a year? But I digress.

Sure, there is an ‘economy’ when a stock broker buys car insurance and the insurance agent in turn hires a CPA to figure his taxes and the CPA hires a lawyer to give him advice on a part of the tax code. All of them chip in some money to send another guy to Washington to lobby Congress to change the tax code. Now I could keep this plot going several more steps, but I won’t. As you can see, nothing has been created. Yet the economic theorist says we are living in a service economy.

By trading different services with each other, we are “creating” wealth? Not in my view. The reason it works - temporarily - is that we are consuming our national worth. America is said to be worth $45 T. If you bought or sold everything, you’d get $45 T. We are consuming that, ever so slowly. It’s called “trade deficit.” Losing a half trillion a year is hard to notice because you still have so much left. Ultimately, the cupboard is bare.

Well, ChinaWhite, this is not the topic but I thank you for the good reply.

The thing that is keeping them [Bangladeshi] there is China’s superior supply chain which allows it to be cheaper overall and done more timely.

A very cogent observation, C/W. “On time” delivery of goods and services, to the point of further work. The shipping pipeline becomes your inventory. You save renting storage space and you save by not having excess inventory. It is such a vulnerable system, however. Israel is shutting down Lebanon as I write by closing its harbors, roads and its airports.

And keep in mind, the “you” I have used above is the rich and famous, the factory owner, not the factory worker. The “you” is the few, who have managed to organize, to coerce or to entice the many to come and perform a task for him. And etc. it is a “rule of thumb” that a product must retail at 10 times the cost to make. A successful product, that is. (Service economy aside.)



[edit on 7/16/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Im still shocked GLONASS is not fully operational. I think it should be clear to everyone by now the benefits of such systems are huge and proven thanks to GPS.

Unless you just borrow someone elses...

Russia was at 14 satellites in 2005 I think but now is at 12 right? and I think you need atleast 24 satellites for full global coverage.

They need 9 for global coverage ( as far as i recall ) but they are not interested in that and have since the mid 90's only bothered to keep enough in orbit to keek tabs on American Silo based weapons. They are apparently not worried about Tridents; probably due to their widely deployed ABM systems.

Even the European Galileo is not full operational so right now all countries must rely on the US military fully controlled system if they want full global positioning.

How much control do the US military still have of that system and why is seemingly everyone using it?

I dont know about everyone eles but I always thought that was strange that other global powers havent pushed harder for their own systems.

Mabye it's not the absolute requirement you imagine or that some countries ( notably Russia) has better ways of doing the same?

Stellar

Edit : I will let the mistake 'float' and i take the punishment i probably deserve.

First two posts ...

Originally posted by donwhite
CBS 60 Minutes had a blip showing Russian spending $19 B. on defense - American euphemism for war - which was less than Japan, Germany or Italy. This story said the US spends $455 B. On budget. Not counting “off” budget. Point? Sure, the Ruskies may get a new main battle tank, but so how many? I’d say a half dozen. 6. Six. Compared to the US stock of 8,000 M1A1s. Big deal. Same ratios in the new jet planes.

They still have a big enough air force to defend their borders ( ESPECIALLY true considering their absolutely massive Sam defense network) however well they decide to and tanks they have enough to go wherever they wanted in Europe had such been there intent at any point since the late 70's.

The Russian’s will be lucky to get enough to fill one squadron. Satellites? Most are “dead” and cannot be resurrected. Face it, only the US is fully committed to war and the weapons of war.

Interesting point of view but i think quite a few other nations are very much interested and that certainly includes Russia...

The"problem" with the US approach to the world, is that our presidential advisors have no other options open to them. It is war or it is our way. This is not their fault, altogether. We have been buffaloed since the 1979 Hostage thing. We're a one track mind-set and one track won't always take you to the best destination, or even to one you'd like yourself.

Maybe they perceive very real threats to American security but can not admit to the scale of them so instead ask for armaments to fight terror? Are they really just mindless ignorant fools who waste money just to impoverish America at breakneck speed or is the Russian threat alive and well in it's new and streamlined form? How's your weather been lately?

The US military intelligence industrial complex found it useful to bloat up the USSR’s military potential and inflate its industrial capacity.

They underestimated it and still do to this day. If one looks at the decline of American economic power this is pretty self evident.

Foreign governments knew this all along but could do nothing about it. If US leaders and the American people were so enamored with war and the weapons of war, who could/would dare stop them? Afghan? Iraq? NK? Iran? Hmm? True Cold Warriors!

The Us public like war no more than anyone else but since their media is so well controlled they have been bombarded with 'problems' that need 'solutions' in the form of various kinds of military spending. I for one think these weapons ARE needed but not to fight who the US government suggests. The cold war never stopped; even if most believe it did...

Meanwhile, around the world, a lot of ordinary people are improving their lot in life while in America, 80% of our population is worse off in 2006 than 20 years ago.

Actually it's getting worse in most parts of the third world just like it is in America. Have you ever stopped to ask why this is happening and who could force America into such a position? Do you really think the decline of America as a world power is only because of the social engineering conducted by the US government? Is that effort entirely focused on robbing Americans of their freedom or is it in part geared towards preparing America for defending itself against it's cold war enemies?

And sure as heck not safer despite the child-like “look’em in the eye” braggadocio of our Magnificent Leader.

It has been getting worse and worse since the early 70's and American presidents have all done much the same despite all their bravado.

Plus, the R&Fs are putting a half trillion dollar a year of the cost of our own bloated government - especially our military looking for an enemy - Gads! - scraping the bottom of the barrel with North Korea an Iran - onto our grand-children. Geez.

They know where the enemy is but they are also rather powerless to stop them without admitting who really runs the world at this time. The ' war on terror' is just the newest lie to extract money from the taxpayer for all the above noted reasons.

How low can you go? Talk about “no child left behind” most of our poorer kids won’t get out of the starting gate.

And while the American governments manages to hide their third world status from the average citizen ( by molesting smaller nations so brutally) things will get progressively worse as they have for three decades running.

Good luck ...

----------------

Originally posted by donwhite
Look, as I see it, the "Cold War" was over in 1991.

Well it was'nt ( the Russians did'nt 'buy' it) but many foreigners bought into the Russian stage play.....

Actually, it was over long before then, but it was over symbolically when Gen. Sec. Gorbachev ordered the Red Army to "stand down" in the Eastern European Velvet Revolution. That’s why he got the Nobel Peace Prize. And well worth it!

And they could have crushed those uprisings very easily had they any interest in keeping their empire in the way it was running at the time. No one predicted the so called 'fall' of the USSR because it did not. What it did do was stage a situations that would allow them some changes and a 'fall from power' that the truly powerful strategic players can well afford.

I don’t know about our country. I can’t accept that every president from Roosevelt to Bush 43 is a conspirator on some evil mission to take over the earth.

Chomsky calls them 'the masters of the world' and considering how they rather consistently choose 'class' interest over even profit ( which they profess to be their only aim ) it's obvious that their aim IS to control people for whatever purpose they collectively have in mind. Roosevelt was a Rockefeller puppet and nothing much has changed since but the fact that their now Rothschild puppets. Bloodlines stays the same thought....

But our people do look strange under the looking glass of history. Rhetoric is 180 degrees out of kelter with practice. Call it Machiavellian or call it high treason, it sure is strange.

Well when a government has to listen to it's foreign masters it's hardly possible to keep rhetoric in line with action.

Stellar


[edit on 16-7-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by donwhite
Well, Prelude, I’d offer it is not envy. I’d also say it is no longer fear although once it was. That leaves only “inferiority complex.” I’m not sure what it means, why we “worry” over Russian military expenditures when the US spends more every month than Russian spends in 2 years. In fact, we spend more than all other nations combined.

Because one can spend hundreds of billions ( doing nothing but bankrupting a society) but still field nothing but completely obsolete weapon systems when compared to your main rival. It's really the best way to explain current American spending habits imo beside the normal smashing-the-poor-worker-in-the-face with the massive tax that is military spending.

All these guns and bullets and no one to shoot?

What do you MEAN! They keep shooting people....

We've scrapped the barrel and all that's left is Iran and North Korea.

So why not attack them and finish them off? It logical leads, imo, that the arms were not meant to fight them in the first place.....

The danger is, “If you’ve got’em, you'll use’em.” It takes a lot more brains to accomplish your honorable goals without guns that it does to do what passes as honorable with guns.

Truer words are rarely spoken. I would add that American goals in world affairs have not been honourable for at least a century.

I mean, who else would have thought that with 10 supercarriers the US would build 2 more? Instead of decommissioning 6 of them? The world has been receptive to PEACE since 1991, but not the US.

Unless it was a amazingly smart ploy by the USSR and allies to break the propaganda back of their main rivals? How do you sell your population enemies that refuse to step up to the plate and act belligerent? Luckily for the USA it's population was so well indoctrinated that they could quickly manufacture new 'threats' without letting on that the old threat just changed shape into a far more menacing ( but friendlier looking) persona equipped with arms that the US apparently has no military defense against.

I don't know how long the window will remain open. Let's hope it’s still open after 2009. And we have someone here to look through it.

Nothing will change while the American government refuses to tell it's citizens that it essentially lost the cold war in late 1976 and that it's been disarming itself on foreign orders ever since. The world is a far stranger place than people think.....

Stellar

Originally posted by northwolf
Electrisity in Russia is not free, it has a price, just that it's currently paid along with the rent just a heating is. Russian Government is paying 90% of the energy costs of homes.

That is what a government is supposed to do with the taxes it collects. If your government is NOT doing this sort of thing it is completely failing you.

This situation cannot continue like this for very long, since it supports wasting of energy and it doesn't allow free competition in electrical or heating sectors. Lack of free competition then leads to deteriorating tranfer networks and powerplants.

Why do you need competition when it's for profit while state run power plants simply use your money ( possibly inefficiently but there is only so much you can waste when that is not your intent) to provide you with power? Why can the Russian government not continue doing this till the end of days and why should the government decide how people use energy? Whatever the case you should check out ZPE and related areas and decide if this is not how the Russians can afford all of this....

Russian energy sector will need 40–70 Billion dollars in investments before 2020... This cannot be accieved unless domestic energy prices rise to international levels.

Russia apparently has no intent ripping off it's citizens any more than it has to. Why do they need so much investment in your opinion?

I spent 3 months last summer studying Russian Energy sector as a part of EU-Funded research project.

I am a great listener...

As for China many of the same issues apply, but the domestic consumption is more moderate and cotrollable

Because the Chinese economy is very much state run which is obvious considering how effective it is. Free market forces have very much the opposite effect.

Stellar

StellarX

Russia needs the investments in Energy sector:
1)Electrical and heat networks are nearing the end of their lifetime
2)Large amount of Nuclear plants are getting too old and expensive to maintain
3)Gas and Coal fired plants are so inefficient that russia looses Billions of dollars each year to heat and power losses (Efficiency of a Russian CHP plant is about 50%, when in finland it's about 85%)

Russia needs to revise prising into a market based full price:
1)oil price for domestic use is 1/3 of market price, Natural Gas price 1/4th
2)efficiency of for example Domestic Heating in Russia is about 50% lower than what it is in Finland (Similar Climate)
3)Without Market based revenues, a Energy comppany in russia is unable to maintain it's production and distripution systems. That leads to a disaster in a long run.

Russian Energy comppanies are private corporations, but goverment has restricted their pricing in domestic business to a level that cannot sustain maintenance, upkeep, fuel and improvement costs. Thus leading to a old, inefficient and environmentally poor system that has bad service and low reliability.

If the government owns, runs and maintains the energy system, then the fixed pricing and subsidiaries are not a problem. But in the current situation it leads to the deterotiating systems and to a situation where 50% of the produced energy is wasted.

Questions?

Northwolf I accept your views to some extent
I accept that
such subsidies lead to a lot of wastage of energy ...and the Russian Govt is still able to support such a situation...thanks to her immense energy production

same thing goes with telophone connection ...in Russia there is no extra cost for long duration calls ...so Russia dont care going on speaking

Same with health care system ....primary health care is free...this leads to a state in which the hospitals are in totally dependent on state financing

At the same time taxes in Russia are far less(by percentage) than most of the countries in the West .

At the same time I think you must admit that Finland needs to be more efficient than Russia because its a net energy inporter while Russia is a Net exporter of Energy Gas and Petrolium .

But what acccording to you may be the solution ?

On one way the State may charge people for energy ....but in the long run it will lead to a state in which USA is today...Form my personal experience I can the conditions are worse there ....when the state is taking so much in Taxes the Govt must provide something in return ......Its impossible for Russians to accept such a cruel form capitalism ....Russians will never accept that

another option is
the State can take over these and offer subsidies ...but that will make these systems more inefficient due to lack of competition.

I love most systems that run in Finland Norway and Denmark ...a perfect balance between capitalism and socialism .....how are such problems tackeled in Finland?

Do you think a system is applicable to Russia ....considering Russia is a net Energy Exporter (I think the largest exporter in Europe)...
In other words what do you think may be the solution to such a condition?
I was just Interested to know your unbaised view since you have researched the in this field.

What Reforms in Electricity sector are prtesently undergoing in Russia.
(please be honest and dont misinform )


[edit on 18-7-2006 by prelude]

Current reforms going on in Russia
- Free Electricity market has been started, but there are still some problems with the fair competition and access to transfer networks.
- New Nuclear plants are under planning and some are under construction
- New Pricing and Tariffing system is under developement
-Probably lot more that i don't know about

Russian system needs to be reformed into a state where comppanies get a fair price for their products (heat, steam, electricity, gas) so that they can improve their networks and production up to modern standards. (this would for example save Billion $ a year in reduced heat losses within district heating systems)

Best solution would probably be a free energy markets, under some government guidance. Government can subsidice the private sector, but not too heavily in order to promote energy savings (Russia has the potential to save 5 Billion $ a year)

Current plans are to increase Gas prices for Russian customer by 50%, this would allow comppanies to priduce networks that allow reliable distripution of gas into northern areas, where it's common that lack of fuel closes down district heating networks in winter, causing severe problems to local population.

you see in the US the government takes about 35%-40% of the income of the average american, and gives absolutly nothing back, it doesn't give anything free, not electricity, not heat, not water, nothing. while the rich upper class in America are barely taxed, and if they happen to run enregy companies, heat companies, water companies, heat companies, that keep draining the Middle and and poor class, ultimatly you would have a very rich class and a very 'poor' middle class, and the comparison between the rich and the middle class would be indescepable, and you would ultimatly lose your democracy. the governement has to keep it's hands in the basic needs of the average citizens, like heat, water, energy, communiations, etc. in order to preserve it's democracy. America right now is consuming itself and it's economy and positioning itself to be in the hands of multi-trillion dollar companies, and that surely would not be a good thing.

America didn't lose the cold war since 1979 or 1974, it went all the way to 1991 and the cold war is really still going, however America is starting to lose. you see the 19billion dollar russian military budget is actually producing something, while the American military budget is only draining the tax payer and barely producing anything much, it's only used to maintain and fund an already aging military. if a sane president would come into office that would not be a puppet for the military-industrial complex, he would surely recognize the fact that downsizing the US military to a manageable military that would be cost efficient would be better for the US economy, instead of draining the American tax payers, then there would really be improvement and at last there would be a balanced budget like there was in 1990 and the 1950s. but nevertheless the military-industrial complex is right now seriously controlling the American government, and that isn't going to lead to good at all.

Originally posted by donwhite


Meanwhile, around the world, a lot of ordinary people are improving their lot in life while in America, 80% of our population is worse off in 2006 than 20 years ago. And sure as heck not safer despite the child-like “look’em in the eye” braggadocio of our Magnificent Leader.





[edit on 6/21/2006 by donwhite]

In what way is any portion of the US population worse off than 20 years ago?


[edit on 18-7-2006 by White Chapel]

[edit on 18-7-2006 by White Chapel]

Originally posted by INc2006
you see in the US the government takes about 35%-40% of the income of the average american, and gives absolutly nothing back, it doesn't give anything free, not electricity, not heat, not water, nothing. while the rich upper class in America are barely taxed, and if they happen to run enregy companies, heat companies, water companies, heat companies, that keep draining the Middle and and poor class, ultimatly you would have a very rich class and a very 'poor' middle class, and the comparison between the rich and the middle class would be indescepable, and you would ultimatly lose your democracy. the governement has to keep it's hands in the basic needs of the average citizens, like heat, water, energy, communiations, etc. in order to preserve it's democracy. America right now is consuming itself and it's economy and positioning itself to be in the hands of multi-trillion dollar companies, and that surely would not be a good thing.

Are you from the United States because it doesn't really sound like you know what you're talking about. There are plenty of things given to the US population that comes from taxes: defense, roads, business subsidies, and educational grants just to start. Besides the homeless (which will happen in any society no matter how efficient it is), there aren't a lot of suffering people here. I'd rather be poor in the US than in almost any other country, it's a very different to be poor in the US than anywhere else.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by White Chapel]

Originally posted by White Chapel
In what way is any portion of the US population worse off than 20 years ago?

One among many of the Issues of the critics of US development since 20 years is the increasing income inequality .

(However I dont object that a poor in US leads a better life than a poor/even lower middle class in developing countries ...hovever a poor in US ,I think,leads a worse life than a poor/below poverty line in the Scandinavian countries )

Income inequality is generally measured on the basis of Gini Index ....More the Gini index more is the income inequality ...follow the increase of Income inequality of US sinnce 1980 in the Pic (and also follow that of China...still officially a communist country )


Source

Now you can conclude that the Rich has become richer and the poor poorer

Following is the Gini index of selected countries(greater the Index more is the Inequality)-I have highlited the main economies (takes a lot of time to edit all)
Rank /Country/ Gini index /Richest 10%to poorest 10%/ Richest 20%to poorest20%/ Survey year
1 Denmark 24.7 / 8.1/ 4.3/ 1997
2 Japan 24.9 / 4.5 3. / 4 / 1993
3 Sweden 25 / 6.2 / 4 / 2000
4 Belgium 25 /7.8 / 4.5 / 1996
5 C Republic 25.4 / 5.2/ 3.5 / 1996
6 Norway 25.8 /6.1/ 3.9/ 2000
7 Slovakia 25.8 /6.7/ 4 /1996
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina 26.2/ 5.4/ 3.8/ 2001
9 Uzbekistan 26.8 /6.1/ 4/ 2000
10 Finland 26.9 /5.6/ 3.8/ 2000
11 Hungary 26.9/ 5.5/ 3.8/ 2002
12 Republic of Macedonia 28.2/ 6.8/ 4.4/ 1998
13 Albania 28.2 /5.9/ 4.1/ 2002
14 Germany 28.3 /6.9/ 4.3/ 2000
15 Slovenia 28.4 /5.9/ 3.9/ 1998
16 Rwanda 28.9 /5.8/ 4 /1983
17 Croatia 29 /7.3/ 4.8/ 2001
18 Ukraine 29 /6.4/ 4.3/ 1999
19 Austria 30 /7.6/ 4.7/ 1997
20 Ethiopia 30 /6.6/ 4.3/ 1999
21 Romania 30.3 /8.1/ 5.2/ 2002
22 Mongolia 30.3 /17.8/ 9.1 /1998
23 Belarus 30.4 /6.9/ 4.6/ 2000
24 Netherlands 30.9/ 9.2/ 5.1 /1999
25 Russia 31 / 7.1 /4.8 / 2002
26 South Korea 31.6/ 7.8/ 4.7 /1998
27 Bangladesh 31.8 /6.8/ 4.6/ 2000
28 Lithuania 31.9 7.9 5.1 2000
29 Bulgaria 31.9 9.9 5.8 2001
30 Kazakhstan 32.3 7.5 5.1 2003
31 Spain 32.5 9 5.4 1990
32 India 32.5 / 7.3 / 4.9/ 1999
33 Tajikistan 32.6 7.8 5.2 2003
34 France 32.7 /9.1/ 5.6/ 1995
35 Pakistan 33 7.6 4.8 1998
36 Canada 33.1 /10.1 / 5.8/ 1998
37 Switzerland 33.1 9.9 5.8 1992
38 Sri Lanka 33.2 8.1 5.1 1999
39 Burundi 33.3 19.3 9.5 1998
40 Yemen 33.4 8.6 5.6 1998
41 Latvia 33.6 9.2 5.6 1998
42 Poland 34.1 8.6 5.5 2002
43 Indonesia 34.3 7.8 5.2 2002
44 Egypt 34.4 8 5.1 1999
45 Kyrgyzstan 34.8 8.6 5.5 2002
46 Australia 35.2 / 12.5 / 7/ 1994
47 Algeria 35.3 9.6 6.1 1995
48 Greece 35.4 10 6.2 1998
49 Israel 35.5 11.7 6.4 1997
50 Ireland 35.9 9.7 6.1 1996
51 United Kingdom 36 / 13.8/ 7.2/ 1999
52 Italy 36 11.6 6.5 2000
53 New Zealand 36.2 12.5 6.8 1997
54 Jordan 36.4 9.1 5.9 1997
55 Azerbaijan 36.5 9.7 6 2001
56 Nepal 36.7 9.3 5.9 1995
57 Georgia 36.9 12 6.8 2001
58 Moldova 36.9 10.3 6.5 2002
59 Vietnam 37 9.4 6 2002
60 Laos 37 9.7 6 1997
61 Estonia 37.2 14.9 7.2 2000
62 Armenia 37.9 11.5 6.8 1998
63 Jamaica 37.9 11.4 6.9 2000
64 Tanzania 38.2 10.8 6.7 1993
65 Portugal 38.5 15 8 1997
66 Mauritania 39 12 7.4 2000
67 Morocco 39.5 11.7 7.2 1998
68 Mozambique 39.6 12.5 7.2 1996
69 Tunisia 39.8 13.4 7.9 2000
70 Turkey 40 13.3 7.7 2000
71 Trinidad and Tobago 40.3 14.4 8.3 1992
72 Guinea 40.3 12.3 7.3 1994
73 Cambodia 40.4 11.6 6.9 1997
74 Turkmenistan 40.8 12.3 7.7 1998
75 Ghana 40.8 14.1 8.4 1998
76 Senegal 41.3 12.8 7.5 1995
77 Singapore 42.5 17.7 9.7 1998
78 Kenya 42.5 13.6 8.2 1997
79 Iran 43 17.2 9.7 1998
80 Uganda 43 14.9 8.4 1999
81 Nicaragua 43.1 15.5 8.8 2001
82 Thailand 43.2 13.4 8.3 2000
83 Hong Kong, China (SAR) 43.4 17.8 9.7 1996
84 Ecuador 43.7 44.9 17.3 1998
85 Uruguay 44.6 18.9 10.4 2000
86 Cameroon 44.6 15.7 9.1 2001
87 Côte d’Ivoire 44.6 16.6 9.7 2002
88 People's Republic of China (mainland only) 44.7/ 18.4/ 10.7/ 2001
89 Bolivia 44.7 24.6 12.3 1999
90 Philippines 46.1 16.5 9.7 2000
91 Costa Rica 46.5 25.1 12.3 2000
92 United States 46.6/ 15.9/ 8.4/ 2000
93 Guinea-Bissau 47 19 10.3 1993
94 Dominican Republic 47.4 17.7 10.5 1998
95 Madagascar 47.5 19.2 11 2001
96 The Gambia 47.5 20.2 11.2 1998
97 Burkina Faso 48.2 26.2 13.6 1998
98 Venezuela 49.1 62.9 17.9 1998
99 Malaysia 49.2 22.1 12.4 1997
100 Peru 49.8 49.9 18.4 2000
101 Malawi 50.3 22.7 11.6 1997
102 Mali 50.5 23.1 12.2 1994
103 Niger 50.5 46 20.7 1995
104 Nigeria 50.6 24.9 12.8 1996
105 Papua New Guinea 50.9 23.8 12.6 1996
106 Argentina 52.2/39.1 /18.1 / 2001
107 Zambia 52.6 41.8 17.2 1998
108 El Salvador 53.2 47.4 19.8 2000
109 Mexico 54.6 45 19.3 2000
110 Honduras 55 49.1 21.5 1999
111 Panama 56.4 62.3 24.7 2000
112 Zimbabwe 56.8 22 12 1995
113 Chile 57.1 40.6 18.7 2000
114 Colombia 57.6 57.8 22.9 1999
115 Paraguay 57.8 73.4 27.8 2002
116 South Africa 57.8 / 33.1/ 17.9 / 2000
117 Brazil 59.3 / 68/ 26.4/ 2001
(I have deleted countries ranking below Brazil to save space)
source:en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 18-7-2006 by prelude]