In the not so distant perestroika, when no one was surprised sophistication of latter-day business of inventing ways to deceive the citizens, there was this kind of business as a facsimile of the package. Sometimes even with a portrait of witness. Who does not remember such a "guarantor" of quality, as Dougan?
On the packaging of various products began to appear different texts, with an assurance of product quality, and painting. A peculiar kind of Soviet mark of quality, which, however, does not guarantee the quality of the product itself, but gave a signer good margin. Costs just to make labels for packaging, yes to packing, and get a PR own personality and fat from the sale of another product. Cheap, safe, as for the quality of the product in accordance with the law, the manufacturer is responsible, and profitable. But because of fear of being recognizable on the street and beaten, as the quality of the goods only getting worse, this form of making money went almost to nothing. But not quite, but only in the sphere of production. In the same ideology is not only not lost its importance, but also recruit many new fans. One of the typical examples of this, an interview with the director of the Institute of Economics Academy of Sciences Ruslan Grinberg, which he gave to the newspaper "Izvestia", on September 21, 2007. In an interview with Ruslan Greenberg decided to endorse the status of academic quality of liberal ideas, hoping that they will believe him, and no one doubted his assertions. Well! That is his right. That's only the liberal ideas Easterly so that there is no academic status is not enough. So what are we told, Ruslan Grinberg? Yes, all of that, "We tend sharahane between arbitrary power" and "arbitrary power" that "all successful attempts to catch-up development in Russia realized kings-Ghoul. Such as Ivan IV, Peter I, Josef Stalin ... All they made modernization breakthrough, unless, of course, not to think about what they got along. A true liberals and Democrats, for example, Alexander F. Kerensky, or Mikhail Gorbachev, have shown that human emancipation could lead to degradation of the country that "In Russia there are two types of reforms - simulated and unmanaged. we simulated, for example, in the 1960's and 70's. In the 90's began unmanaged. Greatness Gorbachev is that he dared to begin the transition to "normality", which we have never had. "But will not all be lumped together, and analyze everything in order. That's all so simple. Whether "the power of tyranny," or "arbitrary power", and most importantly no one to blame. And why one can create arbitrary, while others are forced to endure, it does not matter academician. He did, and most do not seem to understand. Arbitrariness, and that's it. Well, even more unusual. Kings-Ghoul committed modernization breakthrough, but the "true liberals and Democrats, have led to unleash human degradation. It is not friendly Ruslan Grinberg with logic. If the bad kings made a modernization breakthrough, raise living standards and saved the country, then why are they bad? And why is the "true liberals and Democrats - in the opinion of Greenberg - for example, Alexander F. Kerensky, or Mikhail Gorbachev, that is good, according to the allegations of the same Greenberg, it was brought to collapse. What is their appeal? Who they are and what good did? Knows only himself Greenberg. And absolutely in any gate not climbing Greenberg assertion that "the emancipation of man can lead to degradation of the country." And whether the emancipation of man in general? Or was the granting of full freedom of robbery and one of creating conditions of unfreedom for others? That led to such a vast gap between the poorest people and a handful of super rich. Because of this he and Greenberg says: "... by adopting the false notion of the concept of" economic freedom "over ten years of market reforms have made the rapid impoverishment of the overwhelming majority of the population and degradation of its science, culture, education and health." That's just all this was not a result of uncontrolled reform, as it tries to persuade us to Greenberg, and myself, that neither managed to eat. And managed by people who, and possessed all the riches of the country. So even do not need to guess - who? And what has been done to the country and its people, this is, according to Greenberg's "normality" to which we are led Gorbachev. Good "normal" when most people do not know what to eat, because there's nothing but tiny layer of super-rich do not know what to eat, since lost in the election. But from the standpoint of Greenberg's reforms were successful, after all, "counters is not to compare." But it tighter fixes a loophole for his excuses: "It's all - a mix of objective data and subjective feelings." And we are moving, according to the academician, to prosperity and freedom are just "have to pay a particularly high price for the transition to prosperity and freedom." Why and to whom we should pay for the remaining overs. And where is it freedom, and why the question of freedom is put in that vein - or freedom or good, everyone should probably define himself.
Throwing all kinds of pearl verbiage: "The higher taxes, the lower the fences", "Either freedom turns into trouble, or the order goes into a dictatorship," Greenberg has decided to simultaneously justify the liberal reformers, presenting them not as a robber, looking for personal enrichment, but as a sincere and noble figures, well, the smallness of the misguided, ie, to spin on the well-known saying Chernomyrdin: "We wanted the best, but it turned out, as always." "And now let us remember why we started the restructuring and reform: we wanted to increase productivity, efficiency, make products better, cheaper and more diverse and thus raise the overall standard of living. And what happened? "
Wanted to make products cheaper and staged inflation by 1000%, divided the state property, seized the contributions from the public, depriving them of work, economic collapse. Some strange approaches to cheaper goods and higher productivity. But for academics it does not seem strange. He main thing to convince readers that they would like better and had no malicious intent. Yes, that's all messed them Liberated people. Already the Western advisers involved in the collapse of our country, have repented, as noted, Ruslan Grinberg, and our "reformers" all his hard - like best. For whom? And while "modest" silent old truth recorded in the Bible: judge people by their deeds, not by their speeches.
But all this does not answer the question that inevitably arises in any thoughtful reader: what made Greenberg's rush to the defense of liberalism, to indulge in such false arguments and to sacrifice their academic reputation? And the fact that Greenberg has fixed himself said in an interview: "... in the minds of Russians have already occurred the disastrous discrediting of liberal values, and the word" democracy "has become almost synonymous with theft, corruption and humiliation of a great country. Society instinctively reached for the "strong hand" ... And Greenberg understands that the "strong hand", pulled by society, aware of cause-effect relationship of the processes, first of all, and must deal with the reformers, which inflicted enormous damage to the people of our country. And that once again ahead of the rest and again as innocent babes, they write programs for socio-economic development until 2015, led by Reiman and Jurgens, and occupy leadership positions. This is the most important thing about what I wanted to tell readers the director of the Institute of Economics Academy of Sciences Ruslan Grinberg, and not answering the question posed in the beginning of the question: Dictatorship or permissiveness, state capitalism or free market - how to find the balance between them? He chose to get rid meaningless statements. State activity and private initiative in the modern economy in addition to, rather than negate each other - gave another gem Greenberg. What and why supplements, in any form or on any private interests says academician and expert on the charm, he told us. In an interview with Greenberg, arguing the state, managed to say nothing about the nature of this state, that is the most important thing. Well, we say that for workers without a difference, on behalf of whom they are ruthlessly exploited. On behalf of the private capitalist companies, or on behalf of the bourgeois state, behind which lurk the same predatory bourgeois disguised public interest. Of course, that if Greenberg said only this, then all at once it would be understandable. Therefore, all interviews academician who teaches technology and more personal charm, which apparently allowed it to become an academician and director of the Institute of Economics, is permeated with an ostentatious concern for the industry in the country, the people. He says a lot about airplanes, roads, labor productivity, pipelines, housing, the state's role in the economy, but it is only a camouflage, cover those false systems that have been mentioned, and which he seeks to impose on the readers.
Vitaly Glukhov
On the packaging of various products began to appear different texts, with an assurance of product quality, and painting. A peculiar kind of Soviet mark of quality, which, however, does not guarantee the quality of the product itself, but gave a signer good margin. Costs just to make labels for packaging, yes to packing, and get a PR own personality and fat from the sale of another product. Cheap, safe, as for the quality of the product in accordance with the law, the manufacturer is responsible, and profitable. But because of fear of being recognizable on the street and beaten, as the quality of the goods only getting worse, this form of making money went almost to nothing. But not quite, but only in the sphere of production. In the same ideology is not only not lost its importance, but also recruit many new fans. One of the typical examples of this, an interview with the director of the Institute of Economics Academy of Sciences Ruslan Grinberg, which he gave to the newspaper "Izvestia", on September 21, 2007. In an interview with Ruslan Greenberg decided to endorse the status of academic quality of liberal ideas, hoping that they will believe him, and no one doubted his assertions. Well! That is his right. That's only the liberal ideas Easterly so that there is no academic status is not enough. So what are we told, Ruslan Grinberg? Yes, all of that, "We tend sharahane between arbitrary power" and "arbitrary power" that "all successful attempts to catch-up development in Russia realized kings-Ghoul. Such as Ivan IV, Peter I, Josef Stalin ... All they made modernization breakthrough, unless, of course, not to think about what they got along. A true liberals and Democrats, for example, Alexander F. Kerensky, or Mikhail Gorbachev, have shown that human emancipation could lead to degradation of the country that "In Russia there are two types of reforms - simulated and unmanaged. we simulated, for example, in the 1960's and 70's. In the 90's began unmanaged. Greatness Gorbachev is that he dared to begin the transition to "normality", which we have never had. "But will not all be lumped together, and analyze everything in order. That's all so simple. Whether "the power of tyranny," or "arbitrary power", and most importantly no one to blame. And why one can create arbitrary, while others are forced to endure, it does not matter academician. He did, and most do not seem to understand. Arbitrariness, and that's it. Well, even more unusual. Kings-Ghoul committed modernization breakthrough, but the "true liberals and Democrats, have led to unleash human degradation. It is not friendly Ruslan Grinberg with logic. If the bad kings made a modernization breakthrough, raise living standards and saved the country, then why are they bad? And why is the "true liberals and Democrats - in the opinion of Greenberg - for example, Alexander F. Kerensky, or Mikhail Gorbachev, that is good, according to the allegations of the same Greenberg, it was brought to collapse. What is their appeal? Who they are and what good did? Knows only himself Greenberg. And absolutely in any gate not climbing Greenberg assertion that "the emancipation of man can lead to degradation of the country." And whether the emancipation of man in general? Or was the granting of full freedom of robbery and one of creating conditions of unfreedom for others? That led to such a vast gap between the poorest people and a handful of super rich. Because of this he and Greenberg says: "... by adopting the false notion of the concept of" economic freedom "over ten years of market reforms have made the rapid impoverishment of the overwhelming majority of the population and degradation of its science, culture, education and health." That's just all this was not a result of uncontrolled reform, as it tries to persuade us to Greenberg, and myself, that neither managed to eat. And managed by people who, and possessed all the riches of the country. So even do not need to guess - who? And what has been done to the country and its people, this is, according to Greenberg's "normality" to which we are led Gorbachev. Good "normal" when most people do not know what to eat, because there's nothing but tiny layer of super-rich do not know what to eat, since lost in the election. But from the standpoint of Greenberg's reforms were successful, after all, "counters is not to compare." But it tighter fixes a loophole for his excuses: "It's all - a mix of objective data and subjective feelings." And we are moving, according to the academician, to prosperity and freedom are just "have to pay a particularly high price for the transition to prosperity and freedom." Why and to whom we should pay for the remaining overs. And where is it freedom, and why the question of freedom is put in that vein - or freedom or good, everyone should probably define himself.
Throwing all kinds of pearl verbiage: "The higher taxes, the lower the fences", "Either freedom turns into trouble, or the order goes into a dictatorship," Greenberg has decided to simultaneously justify the liberal reformers, presenting them not as a robber, looking for personal enrichment, but as a sincere and noble figures, well, the smallness of the misguided, ie, to spin on the well-known saying Chernomyrdin: "We wanted the best, but it turned out, as always." "And now let us remember why we started the restructuring and reform: we wanted to increase productivity, efficiency, make products better, cheaper and more diverse and thus raise the overall standard of living. And what happened? "
Wanted to make products cheaper and staged inflation by 1000%, divided the state property, seized the contributions from the public, depriving them of work, economic collapse. Some strange approaches to cheaper goods and higher productivity. But for academics it does not seem strange. He main thing to convince readers that they would like better and had no malicious intent. Yes, that's all messed them Liberated people. Already the Western advisers involved in the collapse of our country, have repented, as noted, Ruslan Grinberg, and our "reformers" all his hard - like best. For whom? And while "modest" silent old truth recorded in the Bible: judge people by their deeds, not by their speeches.
But all this does not answer the question that inevitably arises in any thoughtful reader: what made Greenberg's rush to the defense of liberalism, to indulge in such false arguments and to sacrifice their academic reputation? And the fact that Greenberg has fixed himself said in an interview: "... in the minds of Russians have already occurred the disastrous discrediting of liberal values, and the word" democracy "has become almost synonymous with theft, corruption and humiliation of a great country. Society instinctively reached for the "strong hand" ... And Greenberg understands that the "strong hand", pulled by society, aware of cause-effect relationship of the processes, first of all, and must deal with the reformers, which inflicted enormous damage to the people of our country. And that once again ahead of the rest and again as innocent babes, they write programs for socio-economic development until 2015, led by Reiman and Jurgens, and occupy leadership positions. This is the most important thing about what I wanted to tell readers the director of the Institute of Economics Academy of Sciences Ruslan Grinberg, and not answering the question posed in the beginning of the question: Dictatorship or permissiveness, state capitalism or free market - how to find the balance between them? He chose to get rid meaningless statements. State activity and private initiative in the modern economy in addition to, rather than negate each other - gave another gem Greenberg. What and why supplements, in any form or on any private interests says academician and expert on the charm, he told us. In an interview with Greenberg, arguing the state, managed to say nothing about the nature of this state, that is the most important thing. Well, we say that for workers without a difference, on behalf of whom they are ruthlessly exploited. On behalf of the private capitalist companies, or on behalf of the bourgeois state, behind which lurk the same predatory bourgeois disguised public interest. Of course, that if Greenberg said only this, then all at once it would be understandable. Therefore, all interviews academician who teaches technology and more personal charm, which apparently allowed it to become an academician and director of the Institute of Economics, is permeated with an ostentatious concern for the industry in the country, the people. He says a lot about airplanes, roads, labor productivity, pipelines, housing, the state's role in the economy, but it is only a camouflage, cover those false systems that have been mentioned, and which he seeks to impose on the readers.
Vitaly Glukhov
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий