| Kasz216 said: For the rest, economic growth was at least caused by it. |
You and Aslund seem to repeat multiple times like mantra, but give some argumantation for christsake! Your "oild production has stagnated after nationalization" seems not work (see above) :D
And again define economic growth, I do have suspicion you're talking about GDP or smth macro-economical. Not necessarily it means economic growth.
| Kasz216 said: As for baking... it's pretty obvious. The investment ratios. |
Oh, investment :D I did investigate that question a while ago, the average investor interest is about 3 months, no? It's purely speculative capital - again a shitload of numerous reasons for them to be up or down, most of which aren't connected in no way to nationalization or Putin (again see world oil trend above).
| Kasz216 said: For new article, which one? |
Especially part about privatization:
http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1488145/o_nashih_ekonomicheskih_zadachah (in Russian, duh!)
|
Kasz216 said: You seem to be missing the point. Which was, yes, the previous governments were corrupt, but at least they were corrupt in a way that facilitated growth. Why Putin is corrupt in a stagnating controlling way. The Russian economy could do so much more if he let the economy do so. |
Oh my, *facepalm* not this again, the TI article wasn't enough for you? First, define corruption, then give some argumentation... and then it could be a fair point. Why I'm writing these walls of text if the best I get in return is this bollocks? :D
