• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Putin US is a parasite on world economy

Pretty much expected from Putin, although not completely unfair. We'll be paying for it sooner or later though, and probably sooner.
 
Parasite! How much do we owe? Do we suck that money from other Nations? Reserve currency status? Do you think Putin realizes that the Federal Reserve Corp is a private corporation? Russia has big financial reserves after some tough sledding in the 1990's. Does that indicate better management than the USA? Did keeping the big Energy players Exxon/Mobil and David Rockefeller out of the Russian oil ownership loop help the Russian economy?
 
Pretty much expected from Putin, although not completely unfair. We'll be paying for it sooner or later though, and probably sooner.

How are we going to pay it?
 
I agree with Putin... we arn't only parasites in the global economy but also on our own.
 
Prime Minister Putin views the world in almost neo-mercantilistic terms. Hence, he sees chronic negative imbalances as generally unhealthy. Moreover, given the size of the U.S. imbalances, he recognizes that they have global implications. He is not completely off the mark, even if he engages in hyperbole that detracts from a more realistic point. The large capital inflows that are required to finance the United States' enormous and persistent current account and fiscal deficits entail opportunity costs. In part, PM Putin's outlook was influenced by the difficult post-Soviet transition that took place in Russia. More than likely, he believes the U.S. is avoiding taking the painful measures to restructure its economy and government finances, something over which Russia had no choice when it plunged into its crisis.
 
Last edited:
It's difficult to think in the same terms than Vladimir Putin if you have been in the US all your life, but he's absolutely right. The world doesn't need the US.
 
Prime Minister Putin views the world in almost neo-mercantilistic terms. Hence, he sees chronic negative imbalances as generally unhealthy. Moreover, given the size of the U.S. imbalances, he recognizes that they have global implications. He is not completely off the mark, even if he engages in hyperbole that detracts from a more realistic point. The large capital inflows that are required to finance the United States' enormous and persistent current account and fiscal deficits entail opportunity costs. In part, PM Putin's outlook was influenced by the difficult post-Soviet transition that took place in Russia. More than likely, he believes the U.S. is avoiding taking the painful measures to restructure its economy and government finances, something over which Russia had no choice when it plunged into its crisis.

Have to disagree. Putin is a defacto control freak dictator that runs one of the biggest mafia's in the world. His comment might be right in some ways, but his motivation is pure selfish and the fact that Russian companies (read his friends) have not gotten a bigger part of the "pie" in the US compared to his main competitors in China and other emerging markets.

And Russia had a choice when it defaulted, and chose to screw over its creditors despite knowing of the massive amounts of wealth it was sitting over.
 
I have one word for Putin:

MAD.

And I don't mean angry.
 
I think we are more of a saprophyte, really.
 
And Russia had a choice when it defaulted, and chose to screw over its creditors despite knowing of the massive amounts of wealth it was sitting over.

I probably wasn't sufficiently clear. Russia likely had a choice as to whether it defaulted (it chose default). Russia had no choice when it came to the onset of its crisis. In contrast, if U.S. policy makers choose wisely, the U.S. still has enormous latitude to avoid the kind of crisis that unfolded in Russia. But will the U.S. choose wisely remains to be seen. Risks of a less than prudent course likely have increased on account of the recent political dysfunctionality exhibited during the debt ceiling debate. That a modest deficit reduction agreement was sealed to avoid a self-inflicted crisis does not mean that U.S. political risk has diminished.

Also, I fully agree about PM Putin's motives. He is extremely focused on Russia's interests how he perceives them and those interests alone. The less exaggerated point about the opportunity costs associated with large capital inflows is a reasonable one. PM Putin's exaggerated claim goes well beyond that narrower issue.
 
Иосиф Сталин;1059706009 said:
It's difficult to think in the same terms than Vladimir Putin if you have been in the US all your life, but he's absolutely right. The world doesn't need the US.

Really? The world doesn't need the world's largest economy, the number one manufacturing country, the number one consumer economy, and the only country in the world with the wherewithal to oppose some like, say, Putin, should he decide that Russia's daliance with representative government has gone far enough? Interesting perspective.
 
I probably wasn't sufficiently clear. Russia likely had a choice as to whether it defaulted (it chose default). Russia had no choice when it came to the onset of its crisis. In contrast, if U.S. policy makers choose wisely, the U.S. still has enormous latitude to avoid the kind of crisis that unfolded in Russia. But will the U.S. choose wisely remains to be seen. Risks of a less than prudent course likely have increased on account of the recent political dysfunctionality exhibited during the debt ceiling debate. That a modest deficit reduction agreement was sealed to avoid a self-inflicted crisis does not mean that U.S. political risk has diminished.

Also, I fully agree about PM Putin's motives. He is extremely focused on Russia's interests how he perceives them and those interests alone. The less exaggerated point about the opportunity costs associated with large capital inflows is a reasonable one. PM Putin's exaggerated claim goes well beyond that narrower issue.

If Russia wasn't sitting on a pool of oil and gas it would be completely bankrupt. Where did Putin earn is degree in economics?
 
If Russia wasn't sitting on a pool of oil and gas it would be completely bankrupt. Where did Putin earn is degree in economics?

Of course, not every country with abundant natural resources is prosperous. Yemen is but one example. Factor endowments offer potential, but that potential needs to be realized.
 
I agree with Putin... we arn't only parasites in the global economy but also on our own.

There is no "we." The US government and American people are two separate entities.

Don't degrade yourself by identifying w/uncle sam.
 
Of course, not every country with abundant natural resources is prosperous. Yemen is but one example. Factor endowments offer potential, but that potential needs to be realized.

Yemen's natural resources are in serious decline.
 
Of course, not every country with abundant natural resources is prosperous. Yemen is but one example. Factor endowments offer potential, but that potential needs to be realized.

Frankly I haven't seen Putin as very important at all on the world stage recently. His country is one of the finest examples of total corruption the world has seen in decades. The intermixing of companies and govt are more corrupt than China's. The poverty and food shortages are totally unnecessary, and besides that he's just an old school stalinist.
 
There is no "we." The US government and American people are two separate entities.

Don't degrade yourself by identifying w/uncle sam.

The fact that our politicians have managed to convince you of this is representative of what our fundamental problem is.
No, we aren't two separate entities.
 
Yemen's natural resources are in serious decline.

Yemen still has abundant natural resources (3 billion barrels of proved oil reserves and 16.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas) with a total value of near $500 billion. Having said that, natural resources are a starting point. Any advanced economy has to transition into a broader range of activities if growth is to be sustained for the long-term. Russia and Yemen are no different in that respect.

However, Russia has done far more than Yemen to leverage its natural resources. In other words, it has taken measures to realize the potential that exists with respect to its natural resources. Yemen has not. Therefore, it isn't Russia's natural resources that have made the big difference, it is what Russia has done to leverage those resources. Had Russia not leveraged those resources, it would be far worse off than it presently is. For the longer-term Russia still has a lot of work to do to diversify its economy.
 
Yemen still has abundant natural resources (3 billion barrels of proved oil reserves and 16.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas) with a total value of near $500 billion. Having said that, natural resources are a starting point. Any advanced economy has to transition into a broader range of activities if growth is to be sustained for the long-term. Russia and Yemen are no different in that respect.

However, Russia has done far more than Yemen to leverage its natural resources. In other words, it has taken measures to realize the potential that exists with respect to its natural resources. Yemen has not. Therefore, it isn't Russia's natural resources that have made the big difference, it is what Russia has done to leverage those resources. Had Russia not leveraged those resources, it would be far worse off than it presently is. For the longer-term Russia still has a lot of work to do to diversify its economy.

I certainly agree that Yemen is and has been about a dysfunctional as you can get. Clearly they were starting from a much more primitive state and have a far less educated population, very little infrastructure, and numerous other problems.

OTOH I can't heap much praise on Russia. It is riddled with crime and corruption.
 
I probably wasn't sufficiently clear. Russia likely had a choice as to whether it defaulted (it chose default). Russia had no choice when it came to the onset of its crisis.

Well I disagree some what.. they did have a choice on the onset of the crisis, but chose to the wrong path on so many fronts.. some say it was deliberate, others say it was stupidity.. I personally believe it was deliberate. Yes they were moving from a communist run state to a more market orientated state, but so were many other former Soviet client states and far from all of them went belly up at the first push. The Russian default and what lead up to it, was a pure speculative move by the leaders of the time to rid Russia of unwanted debt to "foreigners", while lining their own pockets with massive amounts of money as they were "forced" to privatise so much of the Soviet economy, and funny enough those companies fell into the laps of loyalists at a fraction of their value. Frankly it was one of the largest cases of out right robbery in history if you ask me. Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a classic example of having the right friends at the right time and making billions. Just sucks for him that those friends were replaced by enemies that then threw him in jail... but the point is there... Russian society is corrupt to the core and it will implode at some point.

In contrast, if U.S. policy makers choose wisely, the U.S. still has enormous latitude to avoid the kind of crisis that unfolded in Russia. But will the U.S. choose wisely remains to be seen. Risks of a less than prudent course likely have increased on account of the recent political dysfunctionality exhibited during the debt ceiling debate. That a modest deficit reduction agreement was sealed to avoid a self-inflicted crisis does not mean that U.S. political risk has diminished.

There is at the moment, not much difference in the policy makers of the US of today (or the last 30 years) and the crooks in Russia. Both are heavily involved in business and will do anything to advance that business even at the cost of the country and the population. There is no such thing as a "wise" US politician as it stands now.. you either have the utterly corrupt (both sides) or the insane (both sides). The few real politicians that there are have been marginalised by partisan bickering and corruption. The very fact that legislation that was suppose to protect the consumer was written by corporate America to protect themselves shows a de-stain for the average American by the politicians they elect. The Bush prescription drug law he signed as his first law is a classic example of corporate America being ahead of the average American. The list goes on of pro-Business anti-consumer legislation and all are connected to massive amounts of money funnelled legally into the campaign trough´s of your politicians.

So.. as long as the US has the system it has now.. then Putin's words, while based on a highly biased and personal view for him, is actually quite true on so many fronts and that scares the **** out of me and many people around the world. I had hoped the Tea Party could change this, but with all the crazies and even more crazies in the so called party and their actual actions once elected, then the Tea Party is nothing but a teenage version of the GOP... they are just as corrupt as everyone else. I read or heard somewhere (cant for the life of me remember where) that the Tea Party members had gobbled up 48 billion in government funding for their districts and much of that in out right pork... so much for change there.
 
Last edited:
The fact that our politicians have managed to convince you of this is representative of what our fundamental problem is.

:lol: The pols in Congress try hard to try to convince people that they and the people are one and the same.

And, alas, gullible Americans fall for it.

No, we aren't two separate entities.

They are. Congress works for those who sponsor them. The average American, OTOH, doesn't pony up substantial funds for their re-election campaigns so pols have no allegiance to them.

You must be very gullible to believe otherwise.
 
To label the U.S. economy as "parasitic" implies we're out to get all we can get, building up our own wealth while watching foreign markets crumble around us. While it's true we introduced collatoralized debt obligations and credit default swaps to countries such as Ireland and Greece, we certainly haven't sat idly by and watched as the economies of these nations tumbled downwardly out of control.

Moreover, it is true that we still have some problems to fix within our own markets, i.e., liquidity of banks large and small, investor and consumer confidence in the markets and properly valuing toxic assets still held by most banks and certainly held by the FedResv, I'm a long way from calling our financial system "parasites on the global economy. There's no question our actions caused problems, but we've been trying to correct our problems while also helping other nations correct theres. That's hardly what I'd deem "parasitic behavior".
 
Back
Top Bottom