Russia, the IMF, and Reform

Top 4. Jan 29, 1999 7:48 AM

» BJohnson - Pseudo Mill Strikes Again

Hiya JSM:

Missed ya.

Of course, your assertion that Russia has tried anything remotely like "free market" reform is a bit laughable. I'd challenge anyone to demonstrate how Russia has tried any true market reforms. Please! they're too busy laughing their way to the bank with billions in IMF loans to be bothered with implementing reforms.

Seriously, Russia have never openned their economy to trade and investment, never established the rule of law, never rooted out corruption within the judiciary, never eliminated government influence over the allocation of credit, never adopted a progrowth fiscal policy, never protected private property, etc., etc., etc. That why Russia remains one of the most economically unfree countries on the face of the Earth. What "shock therepy?"

Come on JSM, you have to come up with something better than this. Even the Russians don't believe what you seem to believe.

Also, you are giving Heritage far too much credit aren't you JSM?

-- posted by BJohnson

Top 5. Jan 29, 1999 8:06 AM

» JS_Mill - you mistake my point?

The Harvard Institute in the early 90s were of the opinion that wholesale overnight privatisation and the withdrawal of state planning would in and of itself cement democratic reform, ensure the rule of law and allow Russia to become an economically free democracy. This was due to (pretty much equal parts) good theoretical economics, excessive faith in the power of markets, and the kind of Whiggish "End of History" sentiment which suggested that the free-market orthodoxy was always and everywhere the true path. I'm not actually aware of what Heritage said at the time, but I somehow doubt that you disagreed. It was this kind of thinking that led the West to support Yeltsin over Gorbachev -- he was regarded as being in favour of quicker reform. With, of course, disastrous results. Since then, the Russians have been forced to live in that libertarian utopia, a land where the state has virtually no power. What say we agree to scratch "free-market" from my post above and replace it with "libertarian"? I often forget, when not exposed to your good self, that there is a difference.

We can agree, certainly, that Russia desperately needs to re-establish the rule of law. After that, yes, the various components of "economic freedom" should be brought in. But slowly, please, and with a bit of caution. The theoretically literature on timing of reforms has advanced a good bit since those days.

jsm

-- posted by JS_Mill

Top 6. Jan 29, 1999 9:09 AM

» BJohnson - JSM:

JSM:

Yes, a much more agreeable post than the previous. Except, the problem with labels is that they often are meaningless. When they do have meanings, they often have different meanings to different folks.

Some would describe the current Russian situation as "libertarian" I suppose. Although in my own definition it is more libertine. Surely, it is closer to anarchy.

If by libertarian, however, you mean "classical liberalism", then of course I must disagree here as well. For classical liberalism is based on the premise of "rule of law." For no civil society can exist without it. (Although, Russian strip clubs are much closer to libertarian than the dull drivel we have here in the states).

We agree that Russia has no rule of law, thus, I doubt it can be described as a "classical liberal" regime.

Bryan

-- posted by BJohnson

Top 7. Jan 29, 1999 9:33 AM

» JS_Mill - hmmm yeah not much to disagree with there

Although, frankly, I'm inclined to give up the semantic battle over "liberalism" and leave the word to refer to the American equivalent of European social democrats (folk like Steve Kangas). "Classical liberal" is a useful term when discussing 17th and 18th century political theory, but not really when trying to apply things these days. I'd propose simply retreating to the specific single philosopher -- thus I'm happy to be a Millian, while you're happy to be a Smithite.

But enough of this philosophy -- what's going down at Heritage at the mo'? I take it your sand &surf beak went well? (Vietnam was lovely)

jsm

BTW, best not to mention "strip clubs" in my presence unless you really want to listen to an amazingly humourless tirade about sexism and the position of women.

-- posted by JS_Mill

Top 8. Feb 1, 1999 11:57 AM

» BJohnson - <<Although, frankly, I'm inclined to give up the semantic battl

I'll accept this. Although I have heard others categorize Steve other ways....

<<"Classical liberal" is a useful term when discussing 17th and 18th century political theory, but not really when trying to apply things these days.>>

I agree and disagree. I certainly expect to make no headway in convincing the layman on the street of the efficacy of classical liberalism and its meaning today. I do, however, expect more informed and philosophically inclined people to permit its use.

I loathe the person unable to understand why "conservatism" is not a political philosophy label (although many have tried to use it as such). The fact remains, both Stalin and Pat Robertson are "conservatives", although they share little in common in regard to political and economic philosophy. For that matter, even Ted Kennedy could be classified as a "conservative" in the sense that he is trying to conserve much of FDR's domestic policy agenda.

In any regard, people forget that "American Liberalism" started with people like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. These guys had way more in common with European liberalism (i.e. Adam Smith and John Locke) than with FDR or any of "today's self-proclaimed" liberals. I prefer the "New Left" which emerged in the 1960s, except that today, it would have to be called something like, the psychedelic left, or the old left, or something like that.

Anyway, why digress.

Or Lockean

<> I am working on several studies: 1) dealing with the Satellite Home Viewer Act; 2) one dealing with the Clinton emergency foreign aid request, and 3) one dealing with Bretton Woods.

<< I take it your sand &surf beak went well? (Vietnam was lovely)>>

It wasn't long enough. When will we take back Da Nang?

Hmmmmmm. Okay. I don't think Mill would have this dilemma though. I take it you didn't like my Ally McBeal's Lesbian Kiss article then either huh?

-- posted by BJohnson

Top 9. Feb 1, 1999 11:44 PM

» JS_Mill - I don't have a TV

So the references just passed over my head. I've vaguely heard of Ally McBeal because there are posters up on the Tube. But Howard Stern? No, completely blank.

Check out Barry Eichengreen's article in today's FT on Bretton Woods -- looks quite good. Although BE is somewhat to the left of your usual academic consultants.

You'll never take Da Nang back unfortunately; it was the only place in Viet Nam where it was possible to find a bottle of Moet for the beloved's birthday. But yes, the country has really come on in leaps and bounds -- more Hondas, fewer bicycles, more meat in the diet. How do they stack up on the old Index, especially since the beginning of the doi moi programme? Asiaweek had Ha Noi and HCMC as 23rd and 24th best cities to live in SE Asia, ahead of Bankgok, Mumbai and Jakarta!

jsm

-- posted by JS_Mill

Top 10. Feb 4, 1999 6:49 AM

» JS_Mill - btw -- cleo_rules

An alternative view of what happened in Russia, and whose fault it was, is at http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/willi... Be careful, though. In its own way, its just as politically biased as Bryan's stuff, and in a way which has the potential to get you into infinitely more trouble at school.

jsm

PS Bryan's comment re strip clubs and Mill. Touche, I suppose; certainly your view is in line with the "harm" formulation of On Liberty. Mill would also be against the use of social taboos to achieve the same end as legal coercion, so there's no way out for me there. However, serious Mill-heads would point out that he certainly was a feminist and early supporter of the rights of women. I like to think he'd have done the same as me -- expressed disapproval while defending the right of such places to exist.

-- posted by JS_Mill

Top 11. Feb 5, 1999 8:16 AM

» BJohnson - Millian:

Millian:

Not to pursue a topic you may want to avoid, but what about a women's right to do with her body as she pleases? Nothing is more anti-feminist in many womens' minds (especially the exotic dancers I have talked to) than people telling them they can't dance with their clothes off and get paid for it. I think this more represents the position Mill would take, but that is just my Lockean interpretation of Mill.

Now, who said I was politically biased?

Bryan

-- posted by BJohnson

Top 12. Feb 5, 1999 8:36 AM

» JS_Mill - Happy to discuss the topic

Yes, it's a Lockean interpretation of liberalism. Mill was deeply in with the feminists, an early proponent of Mary Wollstonecraft, and credited Harriet Taylor with half of his philosophical works. He was a powerful defendant of the rights of women, and had some choice words on the political economy of prostitution (I seem to remember) which went rather beyond the "if it's what they choose to do" formulation.

As I say, I wouldn't be in favour of banning strip clubs, or preventing women from taking their clothes off if they want to. After all, we are liberals. But (here they come):

I'd take the testimony of strippers obtained from a strip club with a pinch of salt. Next time you're in a restaurant, ask a waiter whether he's happy to be waiting on you that night. If he's a smart lad (his income is dependent on your tips) he'll tell you that he's delighted to do it.

Also, the existence of the strip club culture makes it that more difficult for women who are not strippers to be taken seriously. When you and the lads decide to take in a show after a hard day's Heritage, what about your female colleagues?

Many of my other objections have Marxist elements, so I won't bring them up here; suffice to say I just don't like the whole thing. (I have one of these places at the end of my road, and it's a complete pain. I sincerely hope the place goes out of business).

jsm

-- posted by JS_Mill