Vladimir Putin is right (1 Viewer)

[Sinrman]

He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

What does he not want to be repeated? The Soviet Union or the mistakes it made?

 

[shining path]

Chavez want him to be more socialistic, Putin wants him to be more capitalistic. How on earth do you choose between the advice coming from such upstanding members of the global community.

 

[Ozymandias]

Chavez want him to be more socialistic, Putin wants him to be more capitalistic. How on earth do you choose between the advice coming from such upstanding members of the global community.

He has to go with his gut.And that's socialism all the way.

 

[Death Bytes]

Chavez want him to be more socialistic, Putin wants him to be more capitalistic. How on earth do you choose between the advice coming from such upstanding members of the global community.

True. But I think those that try to make the argument that Obama isn't heading the country towards socialism should finally just give up their case. When you've got Chavez cheering him on and Putin telling him to hit the breaks, it's pretty much established what the direction Obama is going in is.

 

[timschochet]

Chavez want him to be more socialistic, Putin wants him to be more capitalistic. How on earth do you choose between the advice coming from such upstanding members of the global community.

True. But I think those that try to make the argument that Obama isn't heading the country towards socialism should finally just give up their case. When you've got Chavez cheering him on and Putin telling him to hit the breaks, it's pretty much established what the direction Obama is going in is.

I honestly don't think we know yet. The real test is coming. If Obama listens to the left wingers in his party and places restrictions on free trade based upon environmental concerns, then we have a real problem on our hands. Even if he does not do this, but he fails to continue to push for the opening of trade, then we still got a problem. And if you start to hear more of this "Buy American" crap coming from the White House rather than from the AFL-CIO and populist senators, then the disaster is here.I believe that so long as America promotes free trade, our economy will be strong and it will pay for everything else. Even though I am scared to death of all this spending, I can live with it so long as trade is not hindered.

 

[flysack]

It is amazing that Putin is more of a capitalist than our own President is.

I don't have much admiration for Putin. But he does have experience with a failed state. Which is something that most of our academic world has long been unable to recognize; they just think that Communism was a little unlucky. And Obama is a creature of our academic world.

I don't know what academic world you're referring to, but the one I've been involved in thinks the Soviets failed because of two things -1. Inability to match capitalism's economic output in an arms race2. The lure of totalitarianism. If you follow American Neo-Socialist criticism, they believe that socialism's focus on the economic (at the expense of the cultural, racial, etc.) is what doomed Communism in both Russia and Maoist China. They call for a more horizontal way of looking at things, rather than a hierarchical (i.e. economy first, then all other considerations).

Like I said, they got a little unlucky. Reagan suckered them into an arms race, and they got Stalin and Mao, instead of a true revolutionary like Pol Pot.(that last was sarcasm, just in case you needed it spelled out).

Um, no. That isn't what I said at all. It's more about a structural flaw in Marxism itself: its obsession with the economic sphere at the sacrifice of all other considerations. This is the lure of totalitarianism. The Soviets and Maoist Chinese reorganized labor to fit a centrist need without any consideration of local culture, family traditions, racial issues, etc. That's why despite having vast natural resources, the Soviets had a terrible distribution system and much of the nation remained in poverty. Mao's Green Revolution was a massive failure because he tried to turn the sons of generations of farmers into factory workers, or forced them to grow crops both ill-suited to their land and of which they had no idea how to grow. The crops failed. The system failed. 50+ million people starved.ETA: The Chinese changed and adapted. The Soviets couldn't afford to (or were too stubborn) because of the Cold War. Neither got "unlucky" (which is a terribly simplistic way to characterize it).

 

[NCCommish]

Well, I'm glad that NC and the other Obama lovers got their chuckles out of deliberately misrepresenting the point of this thread. In the OP, I noted that Mr. Putin was a murderer and a dictator. I did not say that Russia was better off than we are. I did not suggest anywhere that we follow either Russia's example or Mr. Putin's example. I merely pointed out that the words quoted by Putin in this article:

Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence.In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

We should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them.

These words happen to be TRUE. It's astonishing to me that a man like Putin would say them, and our own President does not. That's what I wrote earlier.

In all of the ridicule that NC and everyone else gave me towards bringing up Putin, not once do they attempt to refute any of the points being made here.

I would like just one shred of proof that the following is true:

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

And I wouldn't mind some idea why we should listen to someone who wouldn't know a free market if it bit him in the ###.This isn't about Obama support. I call out Obama and have. This is about claiming that this dictatorial, kleptocrat knows anything about free enterprise and even more so than our president. I think perhaps you are the one letting your biases dictate your position. It's ridiculous on it's face.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Well, I'm glad that NC and the other Obama lovers got their chuckles out of deliberately misrepresenting the point of this thread. In the OP, I noted that Mr. Putin was a murderer and a dictator. I did not say that Russia was better off than we are. I did not suggest anywhere that we follow either Russia's example or Mr. Putin's example. I merely pointed out that the words quoted by Putin in this article:

Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence.In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

We should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them.

These words happen to be TRUE. It's astonishing to me that a man like Putin would say them, and our own President does not. That's what I wrote earlier.

In all of the ridicule that NC and everyone else gave me towards bringing up Putin, not once do they attempt to refute any of the points being made here.

Unreal. You have completely missed the point of every response in this thread.Putin SAYS these words, then does the opposite. So what is your point? Obama hasn't said these words, therefore he is a lesser leader than Putin? What is your point? There is nothing for any of us to refute!!! Few in here disagree that pure socialism is a bad thing. Most in here agree that elements of capitalism form the backbone of our historical success.

So again, what is your point?

His point is that he agrees with what Putin said. He said nothing of agreeing with what Putin does, there is a big difference. Also, the validity of someone's claim does not rest on someone not being a hypocrite. If Stalin said starving people to death is wrong, the fact that he did starve to death does not make the claim "starving people to death is wrong" any less valid.

 

[NCCommish]

Well, I'm glad that NC and the other Obama lovers got their chuckles out of deliberately misrepresenting the point of this thread. In the OP, I noted that Mr. Putin was a murderer and a dictator. I did not say that Russia was better off than we are. I did not suggest anywhere that we follow either Russia's example or Mr. Putin's example. I merely pointed out that the words quoted by Putin in this article:

Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence.In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

We should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them.

These words happen to be TRUE. It's astonishing to me that a man like Putin would say them, and our own President does not. That's what I wrote earlier.

In all of the ridicule that NC and everyone else gave me towards bringing up Putin, not once do they attempt to refute any of the points being made here.

Unreal. You have completely missed the point of every response in this thread.Putin SAYS these words, then does the opposite. So what is your point? Obama hasn't said these words, therefore he is a lesser leader than Putin? What is your point? There is nothing for any of us to refute!!! Few in here disagree that pure socialism is a bad thing. Most in here agree that elements of capitalism form the backbone of our historical success.

So again, what is your point?

His point is that he agrees with what Putin said. He said nothing of agreeing with what Putin does, there is a big difference. Also, the validity of someone's claim does not rest on someone not being a hypocrite. If Stalin said starving people to death is wrong, the fact that he did starve to death does not make the claim "starving people to death is wrong" any less valid.

Well let's make the analogy fit. If Stalin said things Tim liked about agricultural policy while our current president wasn't doing whatever it is Tim wants we would be expected to take Stalins opinion seriously. Never mind that Stalins agricultural policy was to STARVE his enemies. It is ridiculous.

 

[cstu]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or he could just be wrong as usual.

 

[bueno]

Just so I have this straight. The guy who leads the worlds biggest kleptocracy and has no problem de facto taking over companies if their leadership opposes him is who we turn to for advice on free markets? And there are so called conservatives that back him? You guys are ####### insane.

I don't see any conservatives backing Putin here NCC. If anything, I see people postualting that maybe Putin understands capitalism better than Obama. Doesn't even mean Putin practices capitalism, just that he understands it better than Obama. At least in the context of his remarks here.

 

[timschochet]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or he could just be wrong as usual.

Would you care to explain how he's wrong here?

 

[cstu]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or he could just be wrong as usual.

Would you care to explain how he's wrong here?

Because what the U.S. is doing is backed by proven economic theory. Listening to Putin lecture the U.S. on free enterprise is laughable. Putin is bitter because Russia's expected decline in GDP is expected to be worse than the U.S. in 2009 and there's nothing he can do about it.

 

[timschochet]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or he could just be wrong as usual.

Would you care to explain how he's wrong here?

Because what the U.S. is doing is backed by proven economic theory. Listening to Putin lecture the U.S. on free enterprise is laughable. Putin is bitter because Russia's expected decline in GDP is expected to be worse than the U.S. in 2009 and there's nothing he can do about it.

What "proven economic theory" backs what Obama is doing right now? Even his supporters argue that we have to do this because we've never been in this situation before.Even if you accept, as I do, the unfortunate necessity of a bailout, what "proven economic theory" backs the way the Democrats are going about it, with a bill full of earmarks, high taxes and proposed new spending on a host of issues, including universal healthcare? Please show us the "proven economic theory" that will see us go into debt by the amount we're talking about.

 

[FatMax]

Tim, not that I want to sound like a Richard here, but you should probably consider retiring from the FFA. And that doesn't mean retiring for a week and coming back with a different user name, like last time. I mean for good. I honestly can't think of one single maneuver that would better help this forum.

I'm not joking.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, not that I want to sound like a Richard here, but you should probably consider retiring from the FFA. And that doesn't mean retiring for a week and coming back with a different user name, like last time. I mean for good. I honestly can't think of one single maneuver that would better help this forum.I'm not joking.

Wow. I have frankly no idea what I have done to incur such a rude and wrathful response. People used to complain that I started too many threads; several months ago I cut that way down. I never insult anyone; and though I engage in serious debate, I always at least try to be thoughtful and respectful. When it comes to our current president, I have been supportive in some threads (particularly regarding foreign policy and stem cell research) and critical in others. I never start a thread simply to attack, like some people I know. If there are others who feel like FatMax, please let me know. I admit I'm rather taken aback by it at this point.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or he could just be wrong as usual.

Would you care to explain how he's wrong here?

Because what the U.S. is doing is backed by proven economic theory. Listening to Putin lecture the U.S. on free enterprise is laughable. Putin is bitter because Russia's expected decline in GDP is expected to be worse than the U.S. in 2009 and there's nothing he can do about it.

What "proven economic theory" backs what Obama is doing right now? Even his supporters argue that we have to do this because we've never been in this situation before.Even if you accept, as I do, the unfortunate necessity of a bailout, what "proven economic theory" backs the way the Democrats are going about it, with a bill full of earmarks, high taxes and proposed new spending on a host of issues, including universal healthcare? Please show us the "proven economic theory" that will see us go into debt by the amount we're talking about.

This is NOT correct.I don't know why all these right wingers keep saying Obama is raising taxes.

He is LOWERING taxes on all but individuals who make over 200K per year

and couples making over 250K per year. Which is 3% of the pop.

Tim, this thread really is ridiculous.

 

[FatMax]

Tim, not that I want to sound like a Richard here, but you should probably consider retiring from the FFA. And that doesn't mean retiring for a week and coming back with a different user name, like last time. I mean for good. I honestly can't think of one single maneuver that would better help this forum.I'm not joking.

Wow. I have frankly no idea what I have done to incur such a rude and wrathful response. People used to complain that I started too many threads; several months ago I cut that way down. I never insult anyone; and though I engage in serious debate, I always at least try to be thoughtful and respectful. When it comes to our current president, I have been supportive in some threads (particularly regarding foreign policy and stem cell research) and critical in others. I never start a thread simply to attack, like some people I know. If there are others who feel like FatMax, please let me know. I admit I'm rather taken aback by it at this point.

I'm not talking about Obama or anything else. You're a pseudo-intellectual who loves to read his own thoughts. Most of this time, they aren't worth reading. You're not the first, and you won't be the last. My apologies is this isn't thoughtful and respectful. Sometimes the truth isn't.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, not that I want to sound like a Richard here, but you should probably consider retiring from the FFA. And that doesn't mean retiring for a week and coming back with a different user name, like last time. I mean for good. I honestly can't think of one single maneuver that would better help this forum.

I'm not joking.

Wow. I have frankly no idea what I have done to incur such a rude and wrathful response. People used to complain that I started too many threads; several months ago I cut that way down. I never insult anyone; and though I engage in serious debate, I always at least try to be thoughtful and respectful. When it comes to our current president, I have been supportive in some threads (particularly regarding foreign policy and stem cell research) and critical in others. I never start a thread simply to attack, like some people I know. If there are others who feel like FatMax, please let me know. I admit I'm rather taken aback by it at this point.

I'm not talking about Obama or anything else. You're a pseudo-intellectual who loves to read his own thoughts. Most of this time, they aren't worth reading. You're not the first, and you won't be the last. My apologies is this isn't thoughtful and respectful. Sometimes the truth isn't.

Well, you said it: it certainly isn't thoughtful. It's not the truth either.I'm not a pseudo anything. I've never claimed to be an intellectual. The purpose of the threads I start is to engage in good discussion. Most of the time I get that, which is why I enjoy the FFA. You are of course welcome to avoid what I write; simply place me on ignore or just skip over my threads when you see them.

But so long as other people besides you, FatMax, are willing to engage in intelligent, respectful discussion, I have no plans on leaving anytime soon. Sorry to disappoint you. Well, not really.

 

[timschochet]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or he could just be wrong as usual.

Would you care to explain how he's wrong here?

Because what the U.S. is doing is backed by proven economic theory. Listening to Putin lecture the U.S. on free enterprise is laughable. Putin is bitter because Russia's expected decline in GDP is expected to be worse than the U.S. in 2009 and there's nothing he can do about it.

What "proven economic theory" backs what Obama is doing right now? Even his supporters argue that we have to do this because we've never been in this situation before.Even if you accept, as I do, the unfortunate necessity of a bailout, what "proven economic theory" backs the way the Democrats are going about it, with a bill full of earmarks, high taxes and proposed new spending on a host of issues, including universal healthcare? Please show us the "proven economic theory" that will see us go into debt by the amount we're talking about.

This is NOT correct.I don't know why all these right wingers keep saying Obama is raising taxes.

He is LOWERING taxes on all but individuals who make over 200K per year

and couples making over 250K per year. Which is 3% of the pop.

Tim, this thread really is ridiculous.

Of course that 3% you're talking about are already paying over 50% of all taxes. And of course that 3% includes corporations that are already being hit hard by the economy and are laying off people right and left. And now we're going to hit them some more? Taxes on the rich are always passed down to the consumer. You will be paying for it, wait and see; it will cost you more than the tax break you think you are getting.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or he could just be wrong as usual.

Would you care to explain how he's wrong here?

Because what the U.S. is doing is backed by proven economic theory. Listening to Putin lecture the U.S. on free enterprise is laughable. Putin is bitter because Russia's expected decline in GDP is expected to be worse than the U.S. in 2009 and there's nothing he can do about it.

What "proven economic theory" backs what Obama is doing right now? Even his supporters argue that we have to do this because we've never been in this situation before.Even if you accept, as I do, the unfortunate necessity of a bailout, what "proven economic theory" backs the way the Democrats are going about it, with a bill full of earmarks, high taxes and proposed new spending on a host of issues, including universal healthcare? Please show us the "proven economic theory" that will see us go into debt by the amount we're talking about.

This is NOT correct.I don't know why all these right wingers keep saying Obama is raising taxes.

He is LOWERING taxes on all but individuals who make over 200K per year

and couples making over 250K per year. Which is 3% of the pop.

Tim, this thread really is ridiculous.

Of course that 3% you're talking about are already paying over 50% of all taxes. And of course that 3% includes corporations that are already being hit hard by the economy and are laying off people right and left. And now we're going to hit them some more? Taxes on the rich are always passed down to the consumer. You will be paying for it, wait and see; it will cost you more than the tax break you think you are getting.

Wait, two questions: 1) corporations pay personal income tax? 2) corporations that are losing money pay high tax rates?These are both news to me.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or you could go and live in Mr. Putin's if you feel that strongly towards him.

Uh oh, we've questioned our government so send us off to Russia if we don't like it...does this vaguely sound like GOP war mongers in the earlier part of this decade?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or you could go and live in Mr. Putin's if you feel that strongly towards him.

Uh oh, we've questioned our government so send us off to Russia if we don't like it...does this vaguely sound like GOP war mongers in the earlier part of this decade?

It seems like a fairly logical leap, though admittedly the premise of the thread is both flawed and silly.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or you could go and live in Mr. Putin's if you feel that strongly towards him.

Uh oh, we've questioned our government so send us off to Russia if we don't like it...does this vaguely sound like GOP war mongers in the earlier part of this decade?

It seems like a fairly logical leap, though admittedly the premise of the thread is both flawed and silly.

MJ, what's logical about showcasing Putin's comments and reflecting on what he says. Obama is going into some uncharted waters here in the psending department and the track history for this type of operating system for a governement is not particularly encouraging. I hav ebeen a GOP apologist and very accepting of Obama and continue to remain open minded about where we are going as a country...but you have to take a step back and survey this thing a little bit, yes/no?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Well, I'm glad that NC and the other Obama lovers got their chuckles out of deliberately misrepresenting the point of this thread. In the OP, I noted that Mr. Putin was a murderer and a dictator. I did not say that Russia was better off than we are. I did not suggest anywhere that we follow either Russia's example or Mr. Putin's example. I merely pointed out that the words quoted by Putin in this article:

Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence.In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

We should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them.

These words happen to be TRUE. It's astonishing to me that a man like Putin would say them, and our own President does not. That's what I wrote earlier.

In all of the ridicule that NC and everyone else gave me towards bringing up Putin, not once do they attempt to refute any of the points being made here.

Unreal. You have completely missed the point of every response in this thread.Putin SAYS these words, then does the opposite. So what is your point? Obama hasn't said these words, therefore he is a lesser leader than Putin? What is your point? There is nothing for any of us to refute!!! Few in here disagree that pure socialism is a bad thing. Most in here agree that elements of capitalism form the backbone of our historical success.

So again, what is your point?

His point is that he agrees with what Putin said. He said nothing of agreeing with what Putin does, there is a big difference. Also, the validity of someone's claim does not rest on someone not being a hypocrite. If Stalin said starving people to death is wrong, the fact that he did starve to death does not make the claim "starving people to death is wrong" any less valid.

Ok, then what is the point in quoting Putin. Surely there are better examples of capitalist that would say the same or similar things. Why would you want to side with this world leader, especially when the advice of many world leaders to the USA is routinely mocked in these forums?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

From this morning's Orange County Register

Speaking at the Davos world economic conference in Switzerland last month, Putin warned the U.S. against "excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence." He noted that "In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

After watching the U.S. government bail out private companies, Putin said we should not "turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. … n the longer run, this won't solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them."

It is shocking to me that this man, who is both a murderer and a dictator, could know more about this subject than our own President. And yet this is the case. We need to listen to Mr. Putin.

Or he could just be wrong as usual.

Would you care to explain how he's wrong here?

Because what the U.S. is doing is backed by proven economic theory. Listening to Putin lecture the U.S. on free enterprise is laughable. Putin is bitter because Russia's expected decline in GDP is expected to be worse than the U.S. in 2009 and there's nothing he can do about it.

What "proven economic theory" backs what Obama is doing right now? Even his supporters argue that we have to do this because we've never been in this situation before.Even if you accept, as I do, the unfortunate necessity of a bailout, what "proven economic theory" backs the way the Democrats are going about it, with a bill full of earmarks, high taxes and proposed new spending on a host of issues, including universal healthcare? Please show us the "proven economic theory" that will see us go into debt by the amount we're talking about.

Link

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Tim, not that I want to sound like a Richard here, but you should probably consider retiring from the FFA. And that doesn't mean retiring for a week and coming back with a different user name, like last time. I mean for good. I honestly can't think of one single maneuver that would better help this forum.I'm not joking.

Wow. I have frankly no idea what I have done to incur such a rude and wrathful response. People used to complain that I started too many threads; several months ago I cut that way down.

It took a while to figure this out, but I think that the excessive thread starting was a result of your annoying tendencies rather than the cause of the annoyance. It's like when there's a really unattractive woman that tries to compensate by wearing flamboyant hats. Convincing her to stop wearing the hats doesn't really do anything to address the underlying problem.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Tim, not that I want to sound like a Richard here, but you should probably consider retiring from the FFA. And that doesn't mean retiring for a week and coming back with a different user name, like last time. I mean for good. I honestly can't think of one single maneuver that would better help this forum.I'm not joking.

Wow. I have frankly no idea what I have done to incur such a rude and wrathful response. People used to complain that I started too many threads; several months ago I cut that way down.

It took a while to figure this out, but I think that the excessive thread starting was a result of your annoying tendencies rather than the cause of the annoyance. It's like when there's a really unattractive woman that tries to compensate by wearing flamboyant hats. Convincing her to stop wearing the hats doesn't really do anything to address the underlying problem.

 

[bostonfred]

Tim I know you've been taken aback by posts like FatMax's before. Maybe I can shed some light on it. It's hard to put your finger on why you seem to bug people so much. It's not how many threads you've started - almost exactly one per day since you signed up, which is a lot, but not absurd. It's not how many posts you have - 29 per day, which is high, but there are other posters who have sustained that kind of rate before and not garnered so much ill will.

I guess part of it is your attitude, and maybe pseudo-intellectual is a good way of saying it. When there are ten threads on Obama and you start an eleventh because you think your unique way of looking at things deserves another thread, you make the board worse. And when you insist on bumping your own threads to keep the discussion going, but also respond in the other threads, you create the environment we have today - way too many political threads. There are certainly people who will engage in political discussion in as many threads as they can. But it's nice when we can keep that contained to just a few threads.

But the thing that bugs people the most about you is that you're never funny. Most people come to this board because it used to be this great place for discussion, sure, but people posted funny stories or off the wall topics and it helped you get through the work day a little bit quicker.

Take a look at this link.

Are any of those topics funny? Look through your 15,600 and counting posts. Are any of them fun? I know you like politics, but I don't come here to read about how foreign leaders believe we should be running the country. When I come to the FFA, a lot of the time I just scan the front page for topics that look like they might be funny. If it was posted by General Malaise, it's an automatic read. If it was posted by timschochet, it's harder.

I'm not saying you should quit the FFA. I think you have some good points here and there, when I feel like reading these threads. I'm just saying, take the stick out, and try to be a normal dude for a while. There's a whole world out there besides the whole world out there.

 

[NCCommish]

Just so I have this straight. The guy who leads the worlds biggest kleptocracy and has no problem de facto taking over companies if their leadership opposes him is who we turn to for advice on free markets? And there are so called conservatives that back him? You guys are ####### insane.

I don't see any conservatives backing Putin here NCC. If anything, I see people postualting that maybe Putin understands capitalism better than Obama. Doesn't even mean Putin practices capitalism, just that he understands it better than Obama. At least in the context of his remarks here.

He understands that he is not as a likely a favorite to lead unaligned nations as he was. He understands that there are many people in his country that would like a change. He understands that it is in his best interests to undermine the American presidents political capital in this instance. That's what Putin understands. And for you guys to quote someone that would never in a million years enact anything he supposedly knows here is ridiculous. And yeah every time you say he understands capitalism better than the American president you are backing him.

 

[NCCommish]

BTW I think the whole Tim should quit meme is silly as well. Argue he's wrong. Put him on ignore and don't click his threads all seem to be better responses to me. But he should no more quit than anyone else.

 

[timschochet]

BostonFred, not to defend myself too much, but go ahead and look at the Tonya Harding thread on page one of the link you offered. And then on the Greatest American Thread, go back a few pages and read the responses to the Jim Brown selection. I think if you do, you're in for a treat.

There's room on the board for light heartedness and for serious subjects. I am neither the cause nor even at this point one of the main participants in most of the political threads here, though I do enjoy participating.

Whatever. Seems like some people are going to be annoyed whatever I do. If I'm that irritating, just put me on ignore, people. Or avoid my posts, Not much more I can offer.

 

[timschochet]

It took a while to figure this out, but I think that the excessive thread starting was a result of your annoying tendencies rather than the cause of the annoyance. It's like when there's a really unattractive woman that tries to compensate by wearing flamboyant hats. Convincing her to stop wearing the hats doesn't really do anything to address the underlying problem.

Sure glad you spent time thinking about this. I'm happy to have helped you clarify your thought process.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Those that are attacking Tim are pretty pompous and arrogant...when did anyone become the judge and jury in the FFA? If you don't like Tim or his threads than you should put him on ignore and not go into his threads. I say the same for me and those that dislike my threads. I think I work in a little more humor than Tim does, a lot of it inadvertantly of course but Tim is simply trying to have some real discussion on soem serious topics that affect what is shaping the world.

Sometimes I like to read his threads and sometimes I skip right over them but I think TC is a good contributor on the boards.

 

[bostonfred]

BostonFred, not to defend myself too much, but go ahead and look at the Tonya Harding thread on page one of the link you offered. And then on the Greatest American Thread, go back a few pages and read the responses to the Jim Brown selection. I think if you do, you're in for a treat.There's room on the board for light heartedness and for serious subjects. I am neither the cause nor even at this point one of the main participants in most of the political threads here, though I do enjoy participating.Whatever. Seems like some people are going to be annoyed whatever I do. If I'm that irritating, just put me on ignore, people. Or avoid my posts, Not much more I can offer.

Maybe it has something to do with the kind of threads you're mentioning. Draft threads are like werewolf threads. Unless people make a real effort to be entertaining, they're only interesting to the people playing. Digging through someone else's draft of the greatest Americans ever so I can find something funny on one of the later pages just doesn't sound like fun. I'll admit I never read the Tonya Harding thread. You might see that as a whimsical thread. When I first saw it, I thought, well this might be interesting, then read the subtitle about Obama and the topic starter and just gave up.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Those that are attacking Tim are pretty pompous and arrogant.

I agree that FatMax and bostonfred are pompous and arrogant.

 

[timschochet]

BostonFred, not to defend myself too much, but go ahead and look at the Tonya Harding thread on page one of the link you offered. And then on the Greatest American Thread, go back a few pages and read the responses to the Jim Brown selection. I think if you do, you're in for a treat.There's room on the board for light heartedness and for serious subjects. I am neither the cause nor even at this point one of the main participants in most of the political threads here, though I do enjoy participating.Whatever. Seems like some people are going to be annoyed whatever I do. If I'm that irritating, just put me on ignore, people. Or avoid my posts, Not much more I can offer.

Maybe it has something to do with the kind of threads you're mentioning. Draft threads are like werewolf threads. Unless people make a real effort to be entertaining, they're only interesting to the people playing. Digging through someone else's draft of the greatest Americans ever so I can find something funny on one of the later pages just doesn't sound like fun. I'll admit I never read the Tonya Harding thread. You might see that as a whimsical thread. When I first saw it, I thought, well this might be interesting, then read the subtitle about Obama and the topic starter and just gave up.

I apologize for not making my humor more accessible to you. The next time I have a funny moment, I'll be sure to PM you so you can witness it. If you don't get a PM from me for several months, it's because I have decided to be deadly serious at all times.

 

[bostonfred]

Those that are attacking Tim are pretty pompous and arrogant.

I agree that FatMax and bostonfred are pompous and arrogant.

I'm not attacking Tim. I'm giving him feedback. He says he's taken feedback in the past and changed his behavior, so maybe this is helpful.

 

[bostonfred]

I apologize for not making my humor more accessible to you. The next time I have a funny moment, I'll be sure to PM you so you can witness it. If you don't get a PM from me for several months, it's because I have decided to be deadly serious at all times.

Not bad. You need to use your anger, Tim. Feel the power of the dark side of the FFA.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

Tim, not that I want to sound like a Richard here, but you should probably consider retiring from the FFA. And that doesn't mean retiring for a week and coming back with a different user name, like last time. I mean for good. I honestly can't think of one single maneuver that would better help this forum.I'm not joking.

No, that didn't sound at all like a Richard.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

 

[the hairy scotsman]

Those that are attacking Tim are pretty pompous and arrogant...when did anyone become the judge and jury in the FFA? If you don't like Tim or his threads than you should put him on ignore and not go into his threads. I say the same for me and those that dislike my threads. I think I work in a little more humor than Tim does, a lot of it inadvertantly of course but Tim is simply trying to have some real discussion on soem serious topics that affect what is shaping the world. Sometimes I like to read his threads and sometimes I skip right over them but I think TC is a good contributor on the boards.

Some of y'all need to chill.

 

[General Malaise]

Tim I know you've been taken aback by posts like FatMax's before. Maybe I can shed some light on it. It's hard to put your finger on why you seem to bug people so much. It's not how many threads you've started - almost exactly one per day since you signed up, which is a lot, but not absurd. It's not how many posts you have - 29 per day, which is high, but there are other posters who have sustained that kind of rate before and not garnered so much ill will.

I guess part of it is your attitude, and maybe pseudo-intellectual is a good way of saying it. When there are ten threads on Obama and you start an eleventh because you think your unique way of looking at things deserves another thread, you make the board worse. And when you insist on bumping your own threads to keep the discussion going, but also respond in the other threads, you create the environment we have today - way too many political threads. There are certainly people who will engage in political discussion in as many threads as they can. But it's nice when we can keep that contained to just a few threads.

But the thing that bugs people the most about you is that you're never funny. Most people come to this board because it used to be this great place for discussion, sure, but people posted funny stories or off the wall topics and it helped you get through the work day a little bit quicker.

Take a look at this link.

Are any of those topics funny? Look through your 15,600 and counting posts. Are any of them fun? I know you like politics, but I don't come here to read about how foreign leaders believe we should be running the country. When I come to the FFA, a lot of the time I just scan the front page for topics that look like they might be funny. If it was posted by General Malaise, it's an automatic read. If it was posted by timschochet, it's harder.

I'm not saying you should quit the FFA. I think you have some good points here and there, when I feel like reading these threads. I'm just saying, take the stick out, and try to be a normal dude for a while. There's a whole world out there besides the whole world out there.

Awwww, thanks GB.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As Ukraine truce holds, Russia vows economic painKIEV, Ukraine

Fighting in eastern Ukraine between government troops and Russian-backed separatist forces has ground almost to halt. That should be good news for Ukraine, but Russia looks intent to pile on the economic misery.

In a detailed op-ed piece Monday, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev painted a grim forecast of Russian economic blockades ahead as Ukraine embarks on closer integration with Europe.

"The Ukrainian government has made its choice. And even if our neighbors have a poor understanding of the ultimate price they will have to pay, that is their right," Medvedev said.

Those ominous words came as a renewed truce in east Ukraine called for by President Petro Poroshenko is holding — barring sporadic violations — since it began last week.

More than 4,700 people have been killed since the conflict broke out in mid-April, U.N. rights investigators estimate — and more than a quarter of those deaths came after a cease-fire in September that was routinely ignored.

Ukrainian authorities are hopeful, saying more peace talks are on the horizon.

The intensity of attacks on government-held areas has reduced notably and is now limited to mortar and small arms fire, military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said Monday. Separatists who have often accused government forces of breaking the truce agreed that violence has reduced dramatically.

Changes on the ground appear to reflect shifts on the diplomatic front.

While supporting the separatists, Moscow has said it accepts the rebellious east should remain part of Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the state news agency RIA-Novosti last week that pro-Russian separatists were prepared to re-enter a "common economic, humanitarian and political space" with Ukraine.

That position reflects the Kremlin's desire to maintain leverage over its neighbor as a means of keeping it from ever joining NATO.

Although the separatist leadership in Ukraine's eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions publicly deny that they taking orders from Moscow, rebel officials privately concede the Kremlin plays a direct role in their decision-making. Lavrov's comments suggest an easing of staunch secessionist positions.

A few weeks ago, rebel leaders were vowing to expand the territory under their control. But last week, separatists in Luhansk made a show of withdrawing heavy weaponry from the front line.

The next expected development is a prisoner exchange, which a senior rebel leader in Donetsk, Alexander Khodakovsky, suggested Monday could begin on Dec. 25.

Poroshenko has expressed satisfaction with the reduced carnage.

"I positively assess the cease-fire regime. This has enabled the strengthening of Ukrainian positions and resupply of servicemen on the line of defense," he said.

But peace on the military front may serve only as prelude to economic hostility.

In his 5,600-word opinion piece Monday in the Moscow-based newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Medvedev outlined a new "pragmatic" chapter in relations with Ukraine.

"In plain Russian, dealing with Ukraine 'pragmatically' means giving it no quarter. Russia's economic approach to Ukraine will get tougher," Dmitry Trenin, who heads the Carnegie Moscow Center, wrote in a Twitter post.

Medvedev wrote that Ukraine has been unhealthily reliant on Moscow for too long; adding that as of last spring, Russian orders from Ukrainian companies were valued at $15 billion, or 8.3 percent of Ukraine's Gross Domestic Product.

"Nobody in Ukraine has explained to us, or themselves, how these orders will be replaced," he wrote.

Ukraine remains heavily dependent on Russian natural gas and industries in eastern Ukraine are still tightly intertwined with those in western Russia. Ukraine has had to go cap in hand to Russia recently for electricity supplies, as its power plants lack enough coal.

Medvedev also said a closer eye will be paid to Ukrainian citizens traveling to Russia for work — an ominous suggestion that this economic lifeline could be drastically tightened.

Ukrainian officials have put a brave face on those veiled threats.

"Everything that was possible to cut off has already been cut off by Russia," said Valeriy Chaliy, deputy head of the Ukrainian presidential administration.

He said Ukraine has been pressing hard to diversify the markets for its exports.

"Not all roads lead to Russia," Chaliy said. "Ukraine has other neighbors with which collaboration is possible without fear of getting stabbed in the back at any moment."

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article4494922.html

So Putin continues to put the screws on the Ukraine.

I was told recently that Friday was the first day without bloodshed in the East Ukraine battle since it began.

Putin will continue to torture the Ukraine people and there is no end in sight to his reign, he will never be removed and he will rule as Tsar until he dies in "office". It would not surprise me if they install his child as heir apparent (if he has any).
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article4494922.html#storylink=cpy

 

[jonessed]

The Russian economy is failing apart. He's basically a caged gorilla at this point. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they are in the cage.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim I know you've been taken aback by posts like FatMax's before. Maybe I can shed some light on it. It's hard to put your finger on why you seem to bug people so much. It's not how many threads you've started - almost exactly one per day since you signed up, which is a lot, but not absurd. It's not how many posts you have - 29 per day, which is high, but there are other posters who have sustained that kind of rate before and not garnered so much ill will.

I guess part of it is your attitude, and maybe pseudo-intellectual is a good way of saying it. When there are ten threads on Obama and you start an eleventh because you think your unique way of looking at things deserves another thread, you make the board worse. And when you insist on bumping your own threads to keep the discussion going, but also respond in the other threads, you create the environment we have today - way too many political threads. There are certainly people who will engage in political discussion in as many threads as they can. But it's nice when we can keep that contained to just a few threads.

But the thing that bugs people the most about you is that you're never funny. Most people come to this board because it used to be this great place for discussion, sure, but people posted funny stories or off the wall topics and it helped you get through the work day a little bit quicker.

Take a look at this link.

Are any of those topics funny? Look through your 15,600 and counting posts. Are any of them fun? I know you like politics, but I don't come here to read about how foreign leaders believe we should be running the country. When I come to the FFA, a lot of the time I just scan the front page for topics that look like they might be funny. If it was posted by General Malaise, it's an automatic read. If it was posted by timschochet, it's harder.

I'm not saying you should quit the FFA. I think you have some good points here and there, when I feel like reading these threads. I'm just saying, take the stick out, and try to be a normal dude for a while. There's a whole world out there besides the whole world out there.

Awwww, thanks GB.

I remember there was a week back in '09 where Tim heeded this advice.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Russia heading for crash as ruble plummets Russia's economy is crashing and its currency appears to be in free fall.The ruble plunged by about 12% Monday, meaning it's lost nearly 50% against the dollar this year. Early Tuesday in Russia, the central bank hiked its key interest rate for a sixth time this year to 17% from 10.5%.

A double-whammy of collapsing oil prices and Western sanctions is driving up inflation. Cash is flooding out of the country and the risk that some Russian companies may default is increasing.

Russia's central bank has not only been raising interest rates, but has spent nearly $90 billion trying to defend the ruble and prevent prices spiraling out of control.

But investors are growing increasingly alarmed about the prospects for the Russian economy.

The Bank of Russia said Monday that the country could sink into a deep recession next year if oil prices remain at $60 a barrel. GDP could contract by as much as 4.7% in 2015, and then by a further 1.1% in 2016 unless oil prices pick up.

Related: Wall Street bets on Russia and Venezuela defaults

The falling ruble makes it harder for Russian companies and banks to repay their foreign creditors.

Russia has relatively low government debt and hefty international reserves of about $430 billion. Yet Wall Street has pushed up the yield on Russian government debt, betting on greater risk.

The cost of insuring Russia's five-year bonds have also risen, to their highest levels since 2009.

A collapse in oil income takes a bite out of government revenue, meaning it has less to spend.

President Vladimir Putin has already ordered government departments to cut their budgets by 5%, and more cuts could follow. Defense and national security has so far been spared the ax -- Russia is pumping trillions of rubles into modernizing its military.

Related: Could Russian economic turmoil lead to Putin's downfall?

Ordinary Russians are feeling the squeeze instead. Consumer price inflation is expected to hit 10% by the end of the year, in part due to the weakness of the ruble, but also due to a ban on imports of most food products from the West.

That was retaliation for U.S. and European sanctions imposed over Russia's actions in Ukraine.

Even the price of bread is rising, prompting some Russians to begin hoarding staples.

Putin's approval rating remains high but Russians are losing confidence in the future. Some opposition politicians say the economic storm will eventually sweep Putin from office.

"In three years the situation will change," Dmitry Stepanov of the liberal RPR-PARNAS Party said at an opposition conference in Moscow this week. "The country is in economic crisis and no one in the government knows how to solve that."

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/15/investing/russia-ruble-economy-crash/index.html