this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
28 points (83.3% liked)

World News

33657 readers
594 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

No he typically tries to stabilize economies, thats his expertise. He tried to argue that the US should have helped russia economically. His advice was mostly ignored by soviets and later by Yelstin during the horrendous privatization.

But he is diplomatic, so yes he filters what he says.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

In 1989, Sachs advised Poland's anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland's reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Sachs was the main architect of Poland's debt reduction operation. Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised on the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership. Closure of many uncompetitive factories ensued.[33] In Poland, Sachs was firmly on the side of rapid transition to capitalism. At first, he proposed American-style corporate structures, with professional managers answering to many shareholders and a large economic role for stock markets. That did not bode well with the Polish authorities, but he then proposed that large blocks of the shares of privatized companies be placed in the hands of private banks.[34] As a result, there were some economic shortages and inflation, but prices in Poland eventually stabilized.[35][independent source needed] The government of Poland awarded Sachs one of its highest honors in 1999, the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit.[36] He also received an honorary doctorate from the Kraków University of Economics.[21] Based on Poland's success, his advice was sought first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and by his successor, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, on the transition of the USSR/Russia to a market economy.[37]

Sachs' methods for stabilizing economies became known as shock therapy and were similar to successful approaches used in Germany after the two world wars.[31] He faced criticism for his role after the Russian economy faced significant struggles after adopting the market-based shock therapy in the early 1990s.[38][39][40]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult. The soviet privatization is not representative because his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies. From your paste is also Ukraine missing.

But I partially agree that he talks diplomatically, so he wont always say exactly what he thinks.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult.

Many people respond to criticism with negativity...

his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies.

Says who?

From your paste is also Ukraine missing.

The whole thing about quoting something is you don't control what is left in or out, but yes Ukraine is a former Soviet state.

Why exactly is this supposed socialist sub defending the honor of a capitalist economist who participated in the parting out of the Soviet economy?

Is campism so strong that we are now cheerleading capitalists economists just because they support Russian nationalist?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Calling something by the wrong "name" is not exactly criticism.

The fact that his ideas were mostly not implemented is a matter of observation.

Quite a stretch of the word quote, is this wikipedia?

Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist, we can reject dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Calling something by the wrong "name" is not exactly criticism.

So he's just upset at the name, not the implied criticism behind it?

is a matter of observation.

Ahh, so because you said so. Got it

Quite a stretch of the word quote

Literally is a quote from Wikipedia, yes.

Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist we can reject only dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis

And what is that rational bias of defending his views other than Russia supposedly standing up to western imperialism by doing western styled imperialism?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I dont think that he is particularly upset.

No see if one was to compare his advice take the one to the us planners that they should provide for example loans to the soviets it was completely rejected, as the us chauvinistically did not want to help.

Quote of whom?

First where does security concern equal "standing up to something". Secondly what exactly do you mean by the concept of rational bias?

edit: do you know that some bolsheviks pragmatically supported capitalist policies as means to help the national economy and as transitional to communism. Your argument crumbles even in this respect.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

"all he wanted was to spread a bit of democracy to the savages" 😩

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

At least he has the decency to openly admit that what was done in the 90s was absolutely wrong, and I think he's been an important voice denouncing US imperialism precisely because he's seen how it works from the inside.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

sure, that doesnt mean he can be trusted. the "now a fighter for democracy" bar is very high for people who did what he did, and are what he is.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

I don't think we have to trust him, but when he says things that are obviously correct then it's worth sharing that. Also, the people that need convincing are more likely to listen to somebody like Sachs.