Russia in the 1990s was probably the greatest economic and societal collapse of a sizable nation in the modern era. The collapse was far bigger than the Great Depression and it happened during a time when virtually every Russian had a recent memory of being a respected and feared superpower.
With hindsight, I am not sure that there was a strategy that had a high chance of avoiding this outcome.
The Soviet economy was so command-driven and there were no people who had a living memory of anything else. No one other than black marketeers had any idea how to run a business. In Eastern Europe older people still had some knowledge of how markets worked and the Soviet occupation never had real moral legitimacy.
Also the Soviet economy was largely based on military production that was no longer needed, and as you stated the massive oil, gas and minerals made it easy for political leaders to scoop up soon-to-be valuable natural resources. Plus oil prices were very low in the 1990s, so there was little revenue there.
China does not offer a model as it was largely an agricultural economy. Farmers know how to farm, if you just leave them alone. The Soviet economy was an industrial economy and that industry was largely not sustainable.
And any Western aid would have been wasted. Western experts had no better idea how to transform a Communist economy into a capitalist economy than the Russian people. Nothing like it had ever happened.
Great article, I also did an assignment on Russian oligarchs (just extended it to today) and came up with similar conclusions. However, I will disagree with the definition of the oligarch; an oligarch for me is a wealthy individual who is tied to a government, as at least shown in Moscow. Considering that in DC we see similar phenomena; big business lobbying for friendly regulations, corporations spending unlimited amounts to influence election results, and an increasing gap between the rich and the poor, I would argue the States are indeed an oligarchy to an extent. And I am not saying every US tycoon is an oligarch like not every Russian businessman is an oligarch (there are many of them living in Cyprus after 2022 for instance), I am only explaining that many US billionaires aren’t different from their Russian counterparts (Musk could be also viewed as a recent example).
Finally, I’d be curious about your perspective on some related questions. For instance, what are you implying that Larry Fink says elections don't matter for markets? Are you saying you want Democrats or politicians in general to punish financial markets?
#4: The relationship between election results and spending is a weaker link than you think.
There's a significant amount of other qualifiers like:
1. Marginal Returns on spend - beyond a certain threshold additional campaign spending as diminish effects, especially if the candidate is well known, they would get less out of it than an underfunded challenger.
2. Partisan loyalty - in districts with polarized electorates, its hard to spend to shift entrenched partisan loyalties. Spending really helps for the swing voters or the people who are unlikely to vote. Depending on the type of the election that is either make or break or a waste of time.
3. Effectiveness of spending - some campaign managers don't know what they are doing tbh. Kamala's ads weren't moving needles, while Trump's ads were way more effective, even though Kamala had way more money.
4. Role of Free Media - Because Trump grabs so much attention he generated more free media coverage than someone who has to pay to get media attention.
Famous examples are:
1. Bloomberg massively outspent the other democrats and still lost
2. Hilary and Kamala had way more massive warchests than Trump, yet they lost. (Hilary: $1.2B to Trump's $0.65B, and Kamala's $1.39B to Trump's 1,09B)
3. Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay spent $144M on the California race in 2010, but got crushed by Jerry Brown who spent $36M
4. Steve Forbes - Spent $69M to win in 1996 and 2000 Republic primaries, he massively outspent Bob Dole and Bush but lost
5. Linda McMahon - The WWE CEO spent $100M of her own fortune to win races in Connecticiut in 2010 and 2012, he got crushed by Rich Blumenthal and Chris Murphy in both campaigns and they spent way less than her.
I could go on, but if you looked at a dataset and tried to get the R^2 based on spending and victory for any race since 2008 to look at modern politics, for Congressional Races for incumbents you would see a low R^2 because they already enjoy name recognition, party support, and voter bases so they can actually not spend that much money and win easily.
Meanwhile for a challenger, the R^2 would be much higher (maybe like 50% or 60%) because the extra spending for a challenger helps them gain visibility and compete against incumbents.
For Presidential elections, R^2 would be awfully low since Trump won twice and spent less.
For state and local races the R^2 would have a much larger impact if people are unfamiliar with both candidates.
The idea that lobbying is bad doesn’t come only from the left but also from the right; Mises Institute contributors have written plenty of essays about how big business prefers to lobby for regulations, as this serves as a pillar of their view on a limited government:
I already answered on how I define oligarchy, so let me go to the topic of lobbying. Lobbying itself is indeed not problematic and I agree everyone has the right to do it. However, it gets bad when the most wealthy individuals have a bigger say in the government than ordinary citizens, which can lead to unfair laws and advantages. You may argue that this is normal as they have gained competitive advantages through the market, however it doesn’t mean they will remain contingent on the market to achieve their goals; once someone reaches a stage of competitiveness he will definitely use every means available to safeguard his position.
Regarding Europe, I agree it’s also a problem; it’s a problem in Greece as well and I recommend you to read on the story of Evangelos Marinakis (he is a friend of the current PM, who has now turned more hostile). You will find it quite interesting. About Europe as a whole, here is a report I found:
I will also agree that tools like OpenSecrets are a goldmine, I have used it in academic research. Transparency is indeed something the United States has made a lot of progress compared to other states, although, in my opinion, it doesn’t mean that this is enough to make the government more accountable to every citizen. I could extend this reasoning to political contributions, as the examples of PACs and the case of Citizens United in 2010 are a clear sign that businessmen have a strong say in politics, that can turn into an unfair advantage.
3: Larry Fink’s statements
I don’t support any punishments for the markets, I actually don’t see any solutions from the government either. My perception is that the media cultivate a false dichotomy between the presidential candidates, calling one of them an extremist and another one “saviour of democracy”. In the meantime for a significant financial professional it’s a choice between a more and a less economic interventionist, not between liberalism and fascism; they might disagree on social issues and some economic methods, however they will generally not shake up the foundations of the economic system of the country.
4: Relationship between election results and spending
This is a bit far from my original point but I will agree that not everyone who spends the most automatically wins the elections. Trump is a visible example.
I appreciate the response and will be frank to admit I haven’t anticipated this detail. I will try to answer to your points step by step:
1: Oligarch definition
Our disagreement is indeed pretty clear; you mainly focus on the economic part, which is accurate, while I also focus on the political part, which gives a more spherical perspective of the image. Yes, Russian oligarchs did what you said; they got their “properties” through sham privatisations at below-the-market prices, which is a clear difference from US businessmen. These oligarchs tried to consolidate their share by expressing their support for Yeltsin. Here is where the things change.
An oligarch is a person with tremendous wealth and political influence — two qualities that often go hand in hand.
The article continues with a comparison of Russia and the United States, focusing on the political part, not how they just emerged:
Since the 90s, the word has chiefly been associated with Russia: used to describe the billionaires who surround Vladimir Putin, propping up his power, shaping policy and protecting their own fortunes.
"But it goes far beyond that," Professor Winters says. "We're in a moment in the United States where that floodgate has been completely thrown open.
"There are now almost no limitations on the use of wealth in American democracy, and that means that what we have in the United States is a combination of democracy and oligarchy."
According to a report from Americans for Tax Fairness, almost half of the $190 million raised by the House and Senate Republican SuperPACs in the first 16 months of the 2022 campaign cycle came from just 27 billionaires. (Democratic SuperPACs raised far less from billionaires – $26 million out of $154 million total – in the same time frame.)
This isn’t only a recent viewpoint and definitely not only my opinion, it has been voiced by many media and studies as well, including from before 2020:
Plus many of the Russian oligarchs were either former Communist apparatchiki or former KGB like Putin. There is no comparison to billionaires in the West who made their money via innovation and market transactions.
When I was younger I used to think all lobbying was bad back when I was an avid subscriber to left wing shows like Young Turks, Dave Packman, and Majority Report. But then when I got more real life & global exposure my mind evolved.
If we define oligarchy as simply "big business lobbying for favorable regulations," then nearly all advanced democracies could be labeled oligarchies. Lobbying, in itself, is not inherently problematic—it’s a normal part of balancing competing interests in policymaking. Just as police unions, teachers' unions, or retirees have representation, so do industries like oil, tech, real estate, and pharmaceuticals.
For instance, consider the Affordable Care Act under President Obama. It expanded health insurance coverage from 84% of Americans to 93% while balancing subsidies for private insurers like UnitedHealth with funding mechanisms like additional taxes on high earners and investment income. Lobbying played a role in shaping that legislation, ensuring it improved public outcomes while remaining viable for businesses. Similar balancing acts occur with financial reforms like Obama's Dodd-Frank, which increased oversight without crippling the banking sector.
Moreover, lobbying exists in other advanced democracies like the UK, EU, Canada, and Japan. Brussels, for example, is a global hub for lobbying. In some countries, lobbying is far less transparent than in the US. Japan’s Amakudari system, where retired bureaucrats transition into high-level corporate roles, exemplifies how informal and opaque lobbying can be. South Korea, too, has a more opaque system often linked to corruption scandals.
In contrast, the US has mechanisms like the Lobbying Disclosure Act and tools like OpenSecrets that allow anyone to track lobbying activities, spending, and clients. Transparency is an area where the US often performs better than its peers.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment! I appreciate the engagement and wanted to share my perspective, shaped by both research and personal experience building businesses and interacting with lobbying groups. While we might not fully agree, I hope this clarifies my stance:
1. Defining an Oligarch
I believe our disagreement stems from differing definitions of "oligarch." To me, there's a key distinction between creating a business from scratch (0 → 1, then scaling) and acquiring wealth by exploiting state-owned assets at steep discounts, as seen in post-Soviet Russia.
For example, Elon Musk built SpaceX by innovating cutting-edge technology, securing funding, hiring talent, and competing for NASA contracts against incumbents like Boeing (where I worked as an aerospace engineer), Lockheed, and Northrop Grumman. By contrast, a "Russian oligarch" scenario would resemble Musk buying NASA at a fraction of its value during a recession—leveraging existing infrastructure and talent rather than innovating or taking substantial risk.
Having tried to build tech companies myself, I deeply respect the persistence and ingenuity required to compete with politically connected incumbents (e.g., at Boeing, government officials often visited our facilities). Acquiring a pre-existing monopoly is fundamentally different from the challenges of building something new. (I'll continue responding more as part 2).
> Ironically, the lack of significant natural resources in these countries may have shielded them from the rent-seeking behavior that plagued resource-rich nations like Russia.
Probably. Although if the natural resources didn't exist perhaps communism would have failed waay earlier since the Russians couldn't have imported food and technology without developing a vibrant private sector like Asia had to. The OPEC oil crisis definitely extended the USSR existence by at least another decade.
> Gradual Sequencing: China pursued a gradual, experimental approach to reform, prioritizing controlled economic liberalization under strong state guidance. This incremental strategy allowed China to test policies and adapt to challenges before fully embracing market forces.
I'm very skeptical of this gradualist approach. Sounds like something leftists say to save face since their economic system has been so thoroughly discredited.
Bangladesh is technically a post communist country. Outside of the late 70s and then the early 90s we haven't been able to get privatisation going.
A bunch of status quo losers will make an infinite number of excuses to keep useless SOEs. As soon they are privatised the public rarely want the decision to be reversed. One of my classmates even said that the government is so corrupt it's better to a government monopoly than a free market. You lose brain cells every time you talk to these people.
"In the 1980s, collapsing oil prices dealt a severe blow to the Soviet Union, which heavily depended on oil exports." This explains why the Obama admin thought they could destroy Russia by crashing oil prices in 2014
Africa is a big continent, where different countries have different geopolitics(Morocco vs Algeria, Ethiopia vs Egypt, Ivory Coast vs Burkina Faso) with different levels of internet access across countries. There are many Africans who have never even given thought to this before or wouldn't care even if he were.
Frankly even in America, there are tens of millions of Americans who completely disagree on whether Trump was a Russia agent.
Thank you, Yaw. I just found out about it. Yes, I know how large Africa is. And the voters certainly are unaware (give them time). Still, there might be something in the literature that indicates knowledge or opinions, especially with Russian activities especially in the Sahel. I wish I could afford to subscribe and appreciate your reports. Jill
From surveys it seems that some African countries think that Russia is the aggressor, but Russia and Ukraine are victims of this war. From what I have seen across the young educated, activist political class in countries like Ghana, Togo, and Ivory Coast, some think that America forced Russia to invade Ukraine to stop it from joining NATO. That's where I would get the logic that "Russia and Ukraine are both victims"
I can say for certain that there's a really loud group of political elites in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Central African Republic, Eritrea and increasingly Equatorial Guinea & Algeria are categorically anti-Western/pro-Russia.
Yes, that makes sense. I've seen the posters and signs supporting Russia and especially against France. I will point out that Russia's invasion of Ukraine strengthened tired NATO by scaring other countries into joining it. I'll read the literature you've sent with gratitude.
It could be that if indeed Mr. Trump is controlled by Russia; America will implode fairly quickly. We're divided now, and Trump's attacks on our military may weaken our remaining asset. It would be a triumph for Mr. Putin, who mourned the loss of the KGB's power. His revenge would be sweet, but as someone who cares about Africa--big as it is--I want the peoples' opinions.
Considering that Africa will be populating the world--that's where the youth are--it will be up to the continent to provide leadership as well as citizenship. I wonder what form of government Africans will choose, whether autocracy or an egalitarian, open society or societies. Again, many thanks, Yaw.
It seems to me that Trump, with his appointments, is set on destroying the institutions of the US, and the absence of institutions may have the same impact to the US as Yaw is describing to the development in Russia. Putin will only need to quietly applaud what Trump is doing by himself, like a Pavlov's dog, to establish our new world of oligarchs.
South Africa has just demonstrated its position, not only by not arresting Putin and send him to the ICC, but also shipping weapons to Russia, even if only on a symbolic scale.
Plus there's discrimination against Nigerians. The beauty queen had to give up her Miss South Africa crown (or sash--I don't know, they never offered me one) because although she was born in Soweto, she's not really South African because her father was from Nigeria. And there's other discrimination against Nigerians, who are migrant workers in the country. And after there was such a struggle against Apartheid. I remember the ANC and "Amandle!" Probably misspelled, shouted at Congress Mbata, a party member's, funeral in New York.
Yes, Pavlov's dog, or Putin's agent. The Tea Party movement tried to cut government back, and it's part of Trump's purpose. But belittling the army (veterans as "suckers") and planning to fire or demote top generals in favor of those who won't hesitate to shoot protesters is an early example of attacks on the armed forces. Also, using the army to round up and imprison immigrants is another example. That's an attack on our Constitution. It all fits. But thanks for your comment, Olof. I did think that people in other countries could see what's happening in the U.S. better than most Americans can.
Nice overview of a terrible saga.
Russia in the 1990s was probably the greatest economic and societal collapse of a sizable nation in the modern era. The collapse was far bigger than the Great Depression and it happened during a time when virtually every Russian had a recent memory of being a respected and feared superpower.
With hindsight, I am not sure that there was a strategy that had a high chance of avoiding this outcome.
The Soviet economy was so command-driven and there were no people who had a living memory of anything else. No one other than black marketeers had any idea how to run a business. In Eastern Europe older people still had some knowledge of how markets worked and the Soviet occupation never had real moral legitimacy.
Also the Soviet economy was largely based on military production that was no longer needed, and as you stated the massive oil, gas and minerals made it easy for political leaders to scoop up soon-to-be valuable natural resources. Plus oil prices were very low in the 1990s, so there was little revenue there.
China does not offer a model as it was largely an agricultural economy. Farmers know how to farm, if you just leave them alone. The Soviet economy was an industrial economy and that industry was largely not sustainable.
And any Western aid would have been wasted. Western experts had no better idea how to transform a Communist economy into a capitalist economy than the Russian people. Nothing like it had ever happened.
Sadly, I just don’t see an alternative outcome.
Great article, I also did an assignment on Russian oligarchs (just extended it to today) and came up with similar conclusions. However, I will disagree with the definition of the oligarch; an oligarch for me is a wealthy individual who is tied to a government, as at least shown in Moscow. Considering that in DC we see similar phenomena; big business lobbying for friendly regulations, corporations spending unlimited amounts to influence election results, and an increasing gap between the rich and the poor, I would argue the States are indeed an oligarchy to an extent. And I am not saying every US tycoon is an oligarch like not every Russian businessman is an oligarch (there are many of them living in Cyprus after 2022 for instance), I am only explaining that many US billionaires aren’t different from their Russian counterparts (Musk could be also viewed as a recent example).
Another great reminder is Larry Fink’s recent remarks that the election outcomes don’t matter: https://www.businessinsider.com/larry-fink-us-election-no-impact-markets-long-term-2024-10
#3:
Finally, I’d be curious about your perspective on some related questions. For instance, what are you implying that Larry Fink says elections don't matter for markets? Are you saying you want Democrats or politicians in general to punish financial markets?
#4: The relationship between election results and spending is a weaker link than you think.
There's a significant amount of other qualifiers like:
1. Marginal Returns on spend - beyond a certain threshold additional campaign spending as diminish effects, especially if the candidate is well known, they would get less out of it than an underfunded challenger.
2. Partisan loyalty - in districts with polarized electorates, its hard to spend to shift entrenched partisan loyalties. Spending really helps for the swing voters or the people who are unlikely to vote. Depending on the type of the election that is either make or break or a waste of time.
3. Effectiveness of spending - some campaign managers don't know what they are doing tbh. Kamala's ads weren't moving needles, while Trump's ads were way more effective, even though Kamala had way more money.
4. Role of Free Media - Because Trump grabs so much attention he generated more free media coverage than someone who has to pay to get media attention.
Famous examples are:
1. Bloomberg massively outspent the other democrats and still lost
2. Hilary and Kamala had way more massive warchests than Trump, yet they lost. (Hilary: $1.2B to Trump's $0.65B, and Kamala's $1.39B to Trump's 1,09B)
3. Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay spent $144M on the California race in 2010, but got crushed by Jerry Brown who spent $36M
4. Steve Forbes - Spent $69M to win in 1996 and 2000 Republic primaries, he massively outspent Bob Dole and Bush but lost
5. Linda McMahon - The WWE CEO spent $100M of her own fortune to win races in Connecticiut in 2010 and 2012, he got crushed by Rich Blumenthal and Chris Murphy in both campaigns and they spent way less than her.
I could go on, but if you looked at a dataset and tried to get the R^2 based on spending and victory for any race since 2008 to look at modern politics, for Congressional Races for incumbents you would see a low R^2 because they already enjoy name recognition, party support, and voter bases so they can actually not spend that much money and win easily.
Meanwhile for a challenger, the R^2 would be much higher (maybe like 50% or 60%) because the extra spending for a challenger helps them gain visibility and compete against incumbents.
For Presidential elections, R^2 would be awfully low since Trump won twice and spent less.
For state and local races the R^2 would have a much larger impact if people are unfamiliar with both candidates.
2: Lobbying and Oligarchy
The idea that lobbying is bad doesn’t come only from the left but also from the right; Mises Institute contributors have written plenty of essays about how big business prefers to lobby for regulations, as this serves as a pillar of their view on a limited government:
https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-big-business-prefers-lobbying-government-competing-marketplace
https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-corporate-lobbyists-and-special-interest-groups-wont-go-away
I already answered on how I define oligarchy, so let me go to the topic of lobbying. Lobbying itself is indeed not problematic and I agree everyone has the right to do it. However, it gets bad when the most wealthy individuals have a bigger say in the government than ordinary citizens, which can lead to unfair laws and advantages. You may argue that this is normal as they have gained competitive advantages through the market, however it doesn’t mean they will remain contingent on the market to achieve their goals; once someone reaches a stage of competitiveness he will definitely use every means available to safeguard his position.
Regarding Europe, I agree it’s also a problem; it’s a problem in Greece as well and I recommend you to read on the story of Evangelos Marinakis (he is a friend of the current PM, who has now turned more hostile). You will find it quite interesting. About Europe as a whole, here is a report I found:
https://www.europeancorrespondent.com/europes-richest-investigation
I will also agree that tools like OpenSecrets are a goldmine, I have used it in academic research. Transparency is indeed something the United States has made a lot of progress compared to other states, although, in my opinion, it doesn’t mean that this is enough to make the government more accountable to every citizen. I could extend this reasoning to political contributions, as the examples of PACs and the case of Citizens United in 2010 are a clear sign that businessmen have a strong say in politics, that can turn into an unfair advantage.
3: Larry Fink’s statements
I don’t support any punishments for the markets, I actually don’t see any solutions from the government either. My perception is that the media cultivate a false dichotomy between the presidential candidates, calling one of them an extremist and another one “saviour of democracy”. In the meantime for a significant financial professional it’s a choice between a more and a less economic interventionist, not between liberalism and fascism; they might disagree on social issues and some economic methods, however they will generally not shake up the foundations of the economic system of the country.
4: Relationship between election results and spending
This is a bit far from my original point but I will agree that not everyone who spends the most automatically wins the elections. Trump is a visible example.
Hey Yaw,
I appreciate the response and will be frank to admit I haven’t anticipated this detail. I will try to answer to your points step by step:
1: Oligarch definition
Our disagreement is indeed pretty clear; you mainly focus on the economic part, which is accurate, while I also focus on the political part, which gives a more spherical perspective of the image. Yes, Russian oligarchs did what you said; they got their “properties” through sham privatisations at below-the-market prices, which is a clear difference from US businessmen. These oligarchs tried to consolidate their share by expressing their support for Yeltsin. Here is where the things change.
The definition of an oligarch as given by ABC Australia (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-21/inside-the-rise-of-us-oligarchs/104622344) is this:
An oligarch is a person with tremendous wealth and political influence — two qualities that often go hand in hand.
The article continues with a comparison of Russia and the United States, focusing on the political part, not how they just emerged:
Since the 90s, the word has chiefly been associated with Russia: used to describe the billionaires who surround Vladimir Putin, propping up his power, shaping policy and protecting their own fortunes.
"But it goes far beyond that," Professor Winters says. "We're in a moment in the United States where that floodgate has been completely thrown open.
"There are now almost no limitations on the use of wealth in American democracy, and that means that what we have in the United States is a combination of democracy and oligarchy."
Another article from Patriotic Millionaires (https://patrioticmillionaires.org/perspectives/are-americas-billionaires-oligarchs/) shows how billionaires influence US politics and thus fit the political spectrum of oligarchs, although it might be more politically biased:
According to a report from Americans for Tax Fairness, almost half of the $190 million raised by the House and Senate Republican SuperPACs in the first 16 months of the 2022 campaign cycle came from just 27 billionaires. (Democratic SuperPACs raised far less from billionaires – $26 million out of $154 million total – in the same time frame.)
This isn’t only a recent viewpoint and definitely not only my opinion, it has been voiced by many media and studies as well, including from before 2020:
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Plus many of the Russian oligarchs were either former Communist apparatchiki or former KGB like Putin. There is no comparison to billionaires in the West who made their money via innovation and market transactions.
2:
Lobbying and Oligarchy
When I was younger I used to think all lobbying was bad back when I was an avid subscriber to left wing shows like Young Turks, Dave Packman, and Majority Report. But then when I got more real life & global exposure my mind evolved.
If we define oligarchy as simply "big business lobbying for favorable regulations," then nearly all advanced democracies could be labeled oligarchies. Lobbying, in itself, is not inherently problematic—it’s a normal part of balancing competing interests in policymaking. Just as police unions, teachers' unions, or retirees have representation, so do industries like oil, tech, real estate, and pharmaceuticals.
For instance, consider the Affordable Care Act under President Obama. It expanded health insurance coverage from 84% of Americans to 93% while balancing subsidies for private insurers like UnitedHealth with funding mechanisms like additional taxes on high earners and investment income. Lobbying played a role in shaping that legislation, ensuring it improved public outcomes while remaining viable for businesses. Similar balancing acts occur with financial reforms like Obama's Dodd-Frank, which increased oversight without crippling the banking sector.
Moreover, lobbying exists in other advanced democracies like the UK, EU, Canada, and Japan. Brussels, for example, is a global hub for lobbying. In some countries, lobbying is far less transparent than in the US. Japan’s Amakudari system, where retired bureaucrats transition into high-level corporate roles, exemplifies how informal and opaque lobbying can be. South Korea, too, has a more opaque system often linked to corruption scandals.
More on Amakudari: https://thediplomat.com/2011/05/the-problem-with-amakudari/
In contrast, the US has mechanisms like the Lobbying Disclosure Act and tools like OpenSecrets that allow anyone to track lobbying activities, spending, and clients. Transparency is an area where the US often performs better than its peers.
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup
Hey Petros,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment! I appreciate the engagement and wanted to share my perspective, shaped by both research and personal experience building businesses and interacting with lobbying groups. While we might not fully agree, I hope this clarifies my stance:
1. Defining an Oligarch
I believe our disagreement stems from differing definitions of "oligarch." To me, there's a key distinction between creating a business from scratch (0 → 1, then scaling) and acquiring wealth by exploiting state-owned assets at steep discounts, as seen in post-Soviet Russia.
For example, Elon Musk built SpaceX by innovating cutting-edge technology, securing funding, hiring talent, and competing for NASA contracts against incumbents like Boeing (where I worked as an aerospace engineer), Lockheed, and Northrop Grumman. By contrast, a "Russian oligarch" scenario would resemble Musk buying NASA at a fraction of its value during a recession—leveraging existing infrastructure and talent rather than innovating or taking substantial risk.
Having tried to build tech companies myself, I deeply respect the persistence and ingenuity required to compete with politically connected incumbents (e.g., at Boeing, government officials often visited our facilities). Acquiring a pre-existing monopoly is fundamentally different from the challenges of building something new. (I'll continue responding more as part 2).
> Ironically, the lack of significant natural resources in these countries may have shielded them from the rent-seeking behavior that plagued resource-rich nations like Russia.
Probably. Although if the natural resources didn't exist perhaps communism would have failed waay earlier since the Russians couldn't have imported food and technology without developing a vibrant private sector like Asia had to. The OPEC oil crisis definitely extended the USSR existence by at least another decade.
> Gradual Sequencing: China pursued a gradual, experimental approach to reform, prioritizing controlled economic liberalization under strong state guidance. This incremental strategy allowed China to test policies and adapt to challenges before fully embracing market forces.
I'm very skeptical of this gradualist approach. Sounds like something leftists say to save face since their economic system has been so thoroughly discredited.
Bangladesh is technically a post communist country. Outside of the late 70s and then the early 90s we haven't been able to get privatisation going.
A bunch of status quo losers will make an infinite number of excuses to keep useless SOEs. As soon they are privatised the public rarely want the decision to be reversed. One of my classmates even said that the government is so corrupt it's better to a government monopoly than a free market. You lose brain cells every time you talk to these people.
"In the 1980s, collapsing oil prices dealt a severe blow to the Soviet Union, which heavily depended on oil exports." This explains why the Obama admin thought they could destroy Russia by crashing oil prices in 2014
Question: Is it known in Africa that Donald J. Trump is a Russian agent?
Africa is a big continent, where different countries have different geopolitics(Morocco vs Algeria, Ethiopia vs Egypt, Ivory Coast vs Burkina Faso) with different levels of internet access across countries. There are many Africans who have never even given thought to this before or wouldn't care even if he were.
Frankly even in America, there are tens of millions of Americans who completely disagree on whether Trump was a Russia agent.
Thank you, Yaw. I just found out about it. Yes, I know how large Africa is. And the voters certainly are unaware (give them time). Still, there might be something in the literature that indicates knowledge or opinions, especially with Russian activities especially in the Sahel. I wish I could afford to subscribe and appreciate your reports. Jill
Here's some interesting literature on how African countries view Russia:
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-06/IpsosSSA_June%202023%20PEACE%20UKRAINE.pdf
From surveys it seems that some African countries think that Russia is the aggressor, but Russia and Ukraine are victims of this war. From what I have seen across the young educated, activist political class in countries like Ghana, Togo, and Ivory Coast, some think that America forced Russia to invade Ukraine to stop it from joining NATO. That's where I would get the logic that "Russia and Ukraine are both victims"
I can say for certain that there's a really loud group of political elites in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Central African Republic, Eritrea and increasingly Equatorial Guinea & Algeria are categorically anti-Western/pro-Russia.
Yes, that makes sense. I've seen the posters and signs supporting Russia and especially against France. I will point out that Russia's invasion of Ukraine strengthened tired NATO by scaring other countries into joining it. I'll read the literature you've sent with gratitude.
It could be that if indeed Mr. Trump is controlled by Russia; America will implode fairly quickly. We're divided now, and Trump's attacks on our military may weaken our remaining asset. It would be a triumph for Mr. Putin, who mourned the loss of the KGB's power. His revenge would be sweet, but as someone who cares about Africa--big as it is--I want the peoples' opinions.
Considering that Africa will be populating the world--that's where the youth are--it will be up to the continent to provide leadership as well as citizenship. I wonder what form of government Africans will choose, whether autocracy or an egalitarian, open society or societies. Again, many thanks, Yaw.
It seems to me that Trump, with his appointments, is set on destroying the institutions of the US, and the absence of institutions may have the same impact to the US as Yaw is describing to the development in Russia. Putin will only need to quietly applaud what Trump is doing by himself, like a Pavlov's dog, to establish our new world of oligarchs.
South Africa has just demonstrated its position, not only by not arresting Putin and send him to the ICC, but also shipping weapons to Russia, even if only on a symbolic scale.
Plus there's discrimination against Nigerians. The beauty queen had to give up her Miss South Africa crown (or sash--I don't know, they never offered me one) because although she was born in Soweto, she's not really South African because her father was from Nigeria. And there's other discrimination against Nigerians, who are migrant workers in the country. And after there was such a struggle against Apartheid. I remember the ANC and "Amandle!" Probably misspelled, shouted at Congress Mbata, a party member's, funeral in New York.
Yes, Pavlov's dog, or Putin's agent. The Tea Party movement tried to cut government back, and it's part of Trump's purpose. But belittling the army (veterans as "suckers") and planning to fire or demote top generals in favor of those who won't hesitate to shoot protesters is an early example of attacks on the armed forces. Also, using the army to round up and imprison immigrants is another example. That's an attack on our Constitution. It all fits. But thanks for your comment, Olof. I did think that people in other countries could see what's happening in the U.S. better than most Americans can.