Vladimir Putin recently made comments on the seriousness of global conflicts that can lead to nuclear conflict. Patriots worldwide should pay close attention as the globalists build their dangerous nuclear arsenal.
In stark contrast to attempts in numerous western countries to stifle free speech online, Russian President Vladimir Putin defended Internet freedom during a conference...
A prominent Swedish lawmaker asserts that Hungarian billionaire George Soros's influence on European politics and policies make him "one of the most dangerous men,"
Amidst global economic slowdown, Russia’s industrial production shows
stellar growth. After sanctions and rejection of Western imports,
Russia’s domestic import substitution program is showing impressive
results. Industrial production up 2.6% year-on-year for the first half
year. And accelerating, up 3.3% in June from last year. In the same
period, the subsector manufacturing (factory production) surged by a
staggering 3.4%, which really shows Russia is going full steam ahead.
Meanwhile, no growth in the US over the year, with two last quarters negative.
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A Finnish political economist and
author highlighted predicaments of nations that refused to adopt
strategies of resistance against US unilateralism, saying Ukraine, for
instance, became “the poorest” country in Europe after succumbing to
Washington’s bullying.
“Look
at Ukraine; they succumbed to USA bullying and propaganda and now their
country has become the poorest in Europe although it used to be the
industrial powerhouse of the Soviet Union,” Jon Hellevig said in an
interview with the Tasnim News Agency.
“And look at Germany,
France, and the whole European Union. Subjugated to the USA, they are
being ruined with a stagnant economy for more than a decade and deep
social and cultural crises,” he added.
Jon Krister Hellevig is
a Finnish lawyer and businessman who has worked in Russia since the
early 1990s. Hellevig was a candidate in the European parliament
election in 2014. He is the managing partner of the Moscow-based law
company Hellevig, Klein & Usov. Hellevig has written several books,
including Avenir Guide to Russian Taxes (2002, 2003, 2006 English and
Russian editions); Avenir Guide to Labor Laws (2002, 2003, 2006 English
and Russian editions). Expressions and Interpretations, a book on the
philosophy of law and the development of Russian legal practices;
Hellevig takes actively part in public discussion of current affairs and
social structure contributing with articles and commentary in the
media. He regularly lectures at international seminars on various
topics.
Following is the full text of the interview:
Tasnim:
International developments are full of examples of how regional and
trans-regional countries have successfully adopted strategies of
resistance against oppression and unilateralism that have borne good
results. As you know, countries like Iran, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and
Palestine have protected their national sovereignty against foreign
threats and achieved many gains through this strategy. In contrast, some
countries have adopted a strategy of appeasement or reconciliation when
being hectored and bullied by world powers. Given the experiences of
these resistance countries, what do you think about their approach and
the concept of resistance?
Hellevig:
Naturally, resistance is the only choice, come what comes. At the same
time, the resistance strategy must be smart and strive to build bridges
to other countries outside the enemy. Tasnim: Do you think
countries that currently toe the line of major powers like the US ought
to emulate these experiences of resistance countries to protect their
independence and stand against unilateralism?
Hellevig:
Obviously they should. It’s a question of both the material and moral
well-being of the people and their very existence in the long-term. Look
at Ukraine; they succumbed to USA bullying and propaganda and now their
country has become the poorest in Europe although it used to be the
industrial powerhouse of the Soviet Union. And look at Germany, France,
and the whole European Union. Subjugated to the USA, they are being
ruined with a stagnant economy for more than a decade and deep social
and cultural crises. The traditional way of life of those European
countries is rapidly being destroyed with their social structures torn
apart. In fact, the very existence of those nations is now at risk.
Tasnim:
In an op-ed article written for Tasnim, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme
National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, warned the European countries
of the risks of inaction regarding the US administration’s unilateral
policies, saying the current EU leaders will be held accountable for
Europe’s future challenges. Shamkhani criticized Europe for becoming an
unimportant and passive actor that accepts humiliation at the hands of
the US and has to live with the destructive effects of Washington’s
unilateralism that have affected several international treaties. What is
your take on that? Isn’t it better for the EU to stand up to US
bullying and unilateralism?
Hellevig:
The European Union and its main constituent countries are not
independent nations as they have been taken over by US-led globalists.
Their armies belong to the US umbrella organization NATO, their
intelligence services are CIA branches, their media is owned by the
globalists, their capitalists are totally at the mercy of the US market
and its bullying terms, etc. Given these circumstances,
independent-minded politicians do not have a chance to come to power,
not in the individual states nor the totally undemocratic European
Union.
The problems are fortunately building up in the European
Union and with President Trump’s erratic policies the relationship is
becoming increasingly fraught. But things must get much worse before the
European people will mature to free themselves from the globalist yoke.
I am afraid, it will take an enormous financial and economic crisis to
bring that about. But this crisis will come for sure, sooner or later.
Paradoxically, an attack on Iran might be the final trigger for that.
And this is what holds the Americans at bay from Iran, at least for the
time being. On the other hand, the US economy is so bad with enormous
asset bubbles in every field of the economy, stock markets, housing
etc., massive budget and trade deficits and skyrocketing debt.
Therefore, there might be some people in the USA who could possibly
consider war and ensuing financial crisis as a means to extract the
country from those problems, to let everything crash and start the
global economy anew from ground zero.
I
had today a stopover at a small provincial town in Northern Finland.
They were having their annual fair. After having enjoyed a fantastic
street stall portion of crispy fried vendace, I strolled around. I then
spotted the official Finnish protestant state church (yep, no separation
of state and church here) had their stall there, too. That prompted me
to ask a question, I long had in mind.
I approached the
representatives of the church and asked why the Finnish state church had
engaged in a propaganda campaign to support the jihadist terrorists of
Aleppo. From 12th to 24th of October 2016 the Finnish churches were
every day ringing their church bells “in support of the victims of
Aleppo bombings” by the Russian and Syrian forces. I asked those people
whether they knew that it was all the other way around and that the
Russians and Syrian government forces were liberating the people of
Aleppo from the brutal rule of the US sponsored terrorists. – They did
not know it.
“The church is engaged in various campaigns from
time to time,” I was told. – That I know, I said, and added that the
most recent campaign was that of being the official sponsor of the
Helsinki Pride sodomite pervert parade. ‘The church wants to live with
the times,” the young church official replied, and continued “that’s why
the church went in there as a business partner of the pride march.” –
BUSINESS PARTNER, I exclaimed. How can the church possibly be a business
partner of anything. What kind of business is this church engaged in?!?
“The church changes with the times,” my interlocutor said as three fat
women colleagues looked on. I was mighty surprised to hear that. I said,
how can the church which supposedly bases its faith in God’s immutable
words change. Are you then saying that the bible isn’t for real? And do
you mean the church was lying 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, when it
professed another opinion on sodomy? Or are you lying today? Which way
do you want to have it, I inquired?
I continued that line of
discussion and then eventually left with the note that I was happy that
so many people are leaving that fake politicized church. Membership used
to be some 90% of the population when I was young, and now it is down
to 60% and sinking.
I am not against sex in any consensual form
between willing adults performed in privacy, but I am against this NWO
globalist campaign of public perversion aimed at breaking down the
fabric of society by means of this devilish campaign.
This
perversion and its sister gender hoax is right up there with the climate
hoax as key means of the globalists to destroy family and national
values in order to break down society and make people more malleable for
one world government rule. Naturally, the population replacement
program by means of mass migration serves the same cause.
A municipality in Southern France called Gallargues-le-Montueux
yesterday SUPPOSEDLY broke the all-time temperature record in France
(for all months). But it turns out – as I expected – that it is a total
fake.
Gallargues-le-Montueux lies in the Occitaine
administrative region of France, the southernmost part of the country.
It is a village of 3,500 people. According to the official readings the
village recorded a peak temperature of 45.7 degrees yesterday. In the
same day Nimes a city of 150 thousand people 25 kilometers northeast
recorded temperatures around 42. Same level was recorded in Montpellier,
a city of 300 thousand, 40 kilometers southwest.
So far, a
convincing story. Yes? But Marseille (850 thousand), one hundred
kilometers southeast, only had around 30 degrees. Same for Barcelona,
350 kilometers south. And Nice, 250 kilometers East, also had only 30
degrees.
Considering that the little bit bigger radius gave
those vastly cooler temperatures, the story sounds fishy. On what kind
of active volcano is the area between Montpellier and Nimes to have such
enormous heat when everything a bit further around is seasonally
normal?
I was monitoring the situation in France, because I had
been alerted about the mainstream media's hysterics about a coming
record heatwave, which did not at all tally with the forecasts I could
check in www.gismeteo.com.
I have several posts on this topic on my wall for the past few days.
Therefore, I was checking the news as they came in. The BBC announced
yesterday (28 June) that France would have record temperatures. The news
was adorned with an image with all France (and most of Western Europe)
painted in red inferno hellfire and with 43 and 45 degrees splashed all
over it. This was incomprehensible in view of what the real weather
forecasts said. And in fact Paris had yesterday only 30-31 at peak.
Something had to explain the volcano heat effect in the Montpellier –
Nimes area and its record breaking Gallargues-le-Montueux. My hunch was
that it was quite hot there, let’s say about 35 degrees. When it is 35
degrees it is not an abnormal summer temperature, but for most people it
will feel really, really hot. So, it will be quite easy to announce
that it was in fact 40, or 42. Which they did for Montpellier and Nimes.
Then you choose a small municipality like Gallargues-le-Montueux and go
on and announce that they made the record. There are so few people
there, and most are pensioners, who are suffering from the heat anyway,
that it will be a piece of cake to say they made the record 45.7. Nobody
will contest that as they felt so hot anyway. (And they will be pleased
to get their village in to the annals of national history). It would
have been different in Montpellier and Nimes with the hundred thousands
of people. Very big chance that too many had been making their own
measurements, so you would just press the real 35 up to 40 – 42, but
stay clear from records. Not to speak about Paris. - And BTW, wouldn't
it stand to reason, that the bigger cities would have a higher
temperature than the small villages?
A friend of mine just sent
me proof positive that this is how it happened. But it was worse yet. My
friend sent me a video from realclimatescience.com who specializes in debunking the climate hoax.
In the video, Tony Heller made some shocking exposures about this
particular hoax. Turns out that the measurements are recorded from a
thermometer on top of a tile roof directly exposed to the sun. The video
has photo proofs, which I copied in the images below. (The photos are
not from the same day, but they show the location of the thermometer).
Heller gives another photo (below) of a thermometer by a highway a
couple of miles off, also directly exposed to the sun. I hope the reader
understands that a thermometer directly exposed to the sun, does not
show the temperature of the air, but the temperature of the heated
thermometer. – I suppose the Montpellier and Nimes readings where
obtained in the same way, and this through globalist secret services
special operations. Operations which could not cover the bigger cities
around: Barcelona, Marseille and Nice, which therefore were spared the
supposed heatwave.
More, being close enough, you can additionally tweak the results, never mind the actual readings.
This was a special propaganda false flag operation, where the Western
propaganda media, foremost the BBC, prepared the ground a couple of days
in advance. Then they delivered the false heat record as explained
above.
This is all done in order to prop up the general climate
hoax, where climate change (formerly known as global warming) is blamed
on human emissions of carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels.
And not surprisingly, Greta, the Swedish wunderkind of climate science,
was there right on cue to announce on social media (that is, the PR
team of the Greta trade mark) that this record had been made and that it
is all cause of humans “burning fossil fuels.” Greta TM’s post also
copied below.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Putin told that “the liberal
idea” had “outlived its purpose” and said that nationalism is growing
instead as the public has turned against immigration, open borders and
multiculturalism.
“This liberal idea presupposes that nothing
needs to be done. That migrants can kill, plunder and rape with impunity
because their rights as migrants have to be protected,” the president succinctly put it.
Putin chastised the European liberal governments for not having acted
to reassure the citizens. Instead those governments had pursued a
mindless multiculturalism embracing, among other things, [false] sexual
diversity.
On a positive note the president told that the
liberals cannot anymore “simply dictate anything to anyone just like
they have been attempting to do over the recent decades.”
Jon Hellevig: "Instead of bailing out banks and oligarchs, Kazakhstan will write off
loans of the poor. This has been announced by new Kazakh president
Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. There’s an unexpected corner of the world from
where sound and fair financial policies emanate!
Doing this
President Tokayev is actually reviving an ancient traditions of
cancelling debts when a new ruler took over going back to Hammurabi, the
Sumerians and other Near Eastern rulers. Michael Hudson has written a
book called “And Forgive their Debts” depicting this story from Babylonia and to other Bronze Age Near Eastern realms.
Hudson tells that this concept of starting from a clean slate was also
at the center of the Old and New Testaments, in the form of the Jubilee
Year. Jesus actually said: “Forgive them their debts,” but it was
converted by the Church to mean something vague in the form of: “Forgive
them their sins.” Actually meaning, just pay up, and we’ll deal with
the debts at the final judgement once you kick the bucket.
Forgiving of debts was also in ancient Greece and Rome an important
policy goal in the fight against the oligarchs. Should become again."
Nariman Gizitdinov and Tony Halpin • Bloomberg
Kazakhstan President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said the debt relief would cost less than $1bn [Pavel Golovkin/Pool/Reuters]
Kazakh
President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said he'll write off bad loans held by a
sixth of the central Asian country's population, while signaling a
sharp change in policy to end costly state bailouts of private banks.
The loan-forgiveness program is Tokayev's first major policy
announcement since he was elected president on June 9 in a choreographed
transfer of power that began when longtime leader Nursultan Nazarbayev
stepped down as head of state in March. His victory was met with rare
and widespread protests.
Bank bailouts are also a sensitive issue in Kazakhstan, which has
been mired in a decade-long crisis in which the government has pumped at
least $18 billion into lenders to keep the sector from collapsing under
the weight of bad debts. The central bank is conducting a review of
asset quality, prompting speculation that a new round of bailouts may be
in the works.
"My attitude is that there should be no governmental bailouts" for
lenders, Tokayev, 66, said in an interview Tuesday in the capital,
Nur-Sultan. "My assessment of this issue as a president is that the
government should not get involved any more, any longer, with its loans
as far as private banks are concerned."
Debt relief
While the debt-relief initiative may help lenders, the total
cost is likely to come in at "a bit less than $1 billion," according to
Tokayev. More than 3 million Kazakhs in the energy-rich country of 18
million will get help to escape debts averaging 300,000 tenge ($790), he
said. It is aimed at "people who find themselves in very difficult
living circumstances," he said.
About 4,000 people were detained by police during a rare outburst of
protests against what activists said was a lack of real choice in the
recent vote, which Tokayev won easily with 71% support. Leader-for-life
Nazarbayev, 78, handed the presidency to Tokayev in March, who called
the early election "to remove any uncertainty." International
observers criticized the conduct of the vote.
The new president's debt forgiveness program is similar to a
controversial policy unveiled by Georgia's ruling party,
which announced the write-off of loans for 600,000 people days before a
hotly-contested presidential election won by its candidate in November.
"We are not following the example of Georgia, this is a different case"
focused on the poorest citizens, Tokayev said.
Nazarbayev berated ministers as "cowards" in January for failing to
clean up the banking system, shortly before he dismissed the government
and replaced the central bank governor. Yet the biggest bank rescues
have involved people close to the former president's inner circle.
While Tokayev denied that political connections played a role in past
bailouts, "the lesson has been accepted by us," he said. "We will take
lessons from the past, from what has happened in the banking system, and
I think that in a couple of years you'll have absolutely new
questions."
The CIA has called on its puppet regime in Georgia to make a serious
provocation against Russia, with staged demonstrations and threats
against Russians. An American woman who serves as the US puppet
president of that country declared that "Russians are our enemies and
occupiers." Protesters held up signs telling Russians to **ck off.
Then Putin told Russians would do just that, **ck off. There came a
Russian law, that no flights between Russia and Georgia are allowed,
meaning no tourists will travel.
The rub here is that Russians are by far the biggest paying tourist
group. They are the biggest group, but also the most affluent group.
Armenians and Azeris from neighboring countries also cross the borders,
but they hardly keep the economy going.
But the Russians do. 30%
of the Georgian economy comes from tourism. And about at least one-fifth
or some 6-7 percentage points of that stems from the aggressors
(Russians). Russia is also the only country that buys their wine and
mineral water. That could be another 2-3%. So, this CIA inspired
provocation will cost about 10% of the already miniscule GDP of that
country.
Georgia's GDP is about 16 billion USD nominally, and 40
billion on PPP. Tourism is 3 billion out of that (9 billion on PPP).
So, quite a costly provocation. Good luck with that.
Georgia has been hostile to Russia aleady for 10 years. Now with the
spark of this new round of hostility they say that they will get
tourists from other countries if Russians won't come. But then why did
they don't get any other tourists during the last 10 years of
hostilities?
Jon Hellevig writes: I don't know why Russia does this. They reported Q1 GDP growth of
0.5%. But they said the GDP deflator was 8.5%. GDP deflator is the
factor by which you diminish the nominal GDP growth. The idea is that it
would show the "real growth" of output instead of price inflation. In
this methodological theory you would only show as output increase
quantitative and qualitative growth but not price growth. But the
inflation in the same period was only 5%. So, Russia decreases the GDP growth
by much more than the inflation. At the same time, the price of oil and
gas has not increased from last year, and not that of other commodities
either.
So, where from do they find this 3.5% decrease above inflation? I would not
exclude that there is a Serdyukov ploy playing out here. Referring to
the time he was Minister of Defense and grabbing the headlines because
of corruption, while at the same time under his term Russia made an
incredible modernization of the army. The one that took over Crimea in a
night, and Syria in two years. There's a theory that Russia wanted they
Yanks to think that the Russian army is a quagmire and will stay so
until the time is right.
So, perhaps I am giving the game away, and the Russian economy is actually growing much more than they want us to know.
At the same time, the real-real GDP, the one measured in PPP grows
exactly by the nominal minus inflation plus the "nominal real growth"
plus/minus difference in currency exchange to the USD. That is 9 - 5.5 +
0.5 + 0=4%
I just finished reading a book called Putinomics by Chris Miller. He
had earlier written a book on Gorbachev's failed perestroika, except he
did not call it failed, rather it was an apology of that failure.
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting facts (which facts the
author tried to tweak to fit his agenda). All in all, I was satisfied
with the reading, it gave me just what I was looking for, cause I am
very apt at separating facts from the narrative.
His second book "Putinomics"
is just what the heading promised. "Putinomics" - what a nonsensical
concept that has been clearly chosen to appease the author's publisher.
He discusses Putin's economic policies throughout his rule. In the text
itself Miller provides no information that could in anyway justify the
comical title, as if Putin was engaged in some hullabaloo excentric
policies. Instead he gives a fairly reasonable account of how Putin has
driven the economy. However, the big picture is lacking, and at the end
of the reading one is in no way the wiser from having read Western MSM
propaganda on the topic for 10 years. What surprises is that the book is
so badly structured and does not in anyway dig into the most important
topics, like modernization, corruption etc. Miller tells there is a lot
of corruption, but he does not provide any evidence, not even discussion
on that, and worst of all there is no comparative analysis, which would
show Russia is far behind his own United States what comes to graft.
The one good thing is the author's surprisingly candid account on the
criminal machinations that led to Khodorkovsky's downfall and the happy
jailing of him, which marked the end of oligarch rule of Russia.
On the other hand the book is replete with all the classic Russophobe
tropes - no doubt the grants would not have been flowing in otherwise
and the book would not have been published. In addition to all the trite
Western repetitions of "corruption," an "ineffective state sector",
"Putin's pals" etc, we also read that Sechin (CEO of Rosneft) an
employed director for a state owned corporation is repeatedly referred
to as an oligarch.
West Attacks Russia with Piketty’s Overblown Claims About ‘Oligarch’ Wealth
Blowing
Thomas Piketty’s academic fraud, Awara’s new study debunks the myths
about overreaching oligarch grip on the Russian economy and supposed
extreme economic inequality in a global comparison
There
is no love lost between the Russian people and the oligarchs. You just
can’t erase from history the theft of the century when the 1990s
oligarchs looted the country through sham privatizations staged by the
liberal government. The press has done its best to imprint the memory of
those years of robber capitalism on the Western public. It’s a
scandalous memory all too easy to exploit and rehash for the purpose of
vilifying Putin and “his cronies.” At the same time, everybody seems to
have forgotten how the present ruling plutocrats of America made their
capital a century earlier.
The
United States has already slapped sanctions on influential Russian
businessmen, which they refer to as oligarchs. They are supposedly
punished for their proximity to the Russian president who is
incriminated with imaginary charges of meddling in US elections, a nerve
agent attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter in England, and
other fabricated allegations. And echoing antisemitic racial slurs of
Hitler’s Germany, now with the Russians as the villains, the UK
parliament has launched a crusade against “dirty Russian money” of the
Russian “super-rich kleptocrats.”
But,
the real reasons to go after Russian “oligarchs” and the “super-rich”
have nothing to do with a newfound sense of social justice or their
supposed ties with the Russian president. (By the flawed logic of the
accusers anybody who is rich in Russia must be connected with the
president). This time around this image of malign Russian oligarchs is
used by the West in a full-frontal attack on Russian capital and
Russia’s industry as the United States is hysterically trying to find
ways to contain the country. By attacking Russian business tycoons, in
addition to the state corporations, the US strives to block out Russian
industry from the West and the wider world.
New study demonstrates that talk about Russia’s economic inequality has been greatly exaggerated
Yet, the idea that the rich own a vastly disproportionate share of the Russian national wealth has been disproved in a recent study by the Moscow based https://www.awaragroup.com.
The study takes aim at Thomas Piketty’s high-profile report about
Russia’s economic inequality. The Awara report does not aim at
deflecting from the problem of economic inequality in Russia as the
authors merely want to put the problem in its right global proportion.
Economic inequality is not any more “extreme” in Russia — as Piketty
falsely claims — than in the major Western countries in general. In
fact, the Awara study shows that it could be less.
The
Awara report exposes the bias and reveals the multitude of
methodological errors, distortions and misrepresentation of data, which
have informed the Piketty report. After identifying the deficiencies,
Awara adjusted the main findings to reflect the actual data. The
corrected data shows that instead of owning more than 70% of the
national wealth, the share of the top 10 percent of the population was
39% of private wealth and 32% of total national wealth.
Below
charts demonstrates the differences in the Piketty study and the
corrected data of Awara. Top chart from the Piketty report, bottom,
Awara’s corrected findings.
Correspondingly,
instead of earning 45–50% of national income as claimed by Piketty, the
top 10% of Russians earned less than 30% of the income. The Piketty
research team had said that their study expressly replaces the findings
of earlier income inequality studies like that of the EBRD, which had
allocated 30% of income to the Top 10% richest. After revealing the
multitude of flaws in the Piketty study, Awara found it natural to
return to those earlier findings. his also puts the wealth figures in
perspective as it is obvious that the share of wealth must closely
correlate with the share of income.
Western propaganda can’t decide if Russia is owned by oligarchs or by the state
A
big contribution towards mitigating economic inequality is delivered by
Russia’s substantial public property. But in his study Thomas Piketty
has written off the value of Russia’s public wealth as if it did not
play any role as an equality inducing factor. It is actually very
strange when one set of Western propagandists claim that Russia’s state
sector has totally taken over the economy comprising 70% of the total,
and another (like Piketty) maintains that the super-rich owns 70% of
Russia’s wealth. It seems to us that the propagandists better make up
their mind.
The
Awara study reports that experts conclude that the state sector makes
up a much higher share of the Russian economy than it is the case in all
Western countries. The estimates vary from 35% — 70%. The European Bank
of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has estimated that the share
of the public sector (state sector) of the total economy was 35% in
2009. Experts agree that the state sector share has grown since. The
Russian competition authority, the Anti-Monopoly Committee, estimated in
its annual report for 2015 that the state sector had grown to comprise
70% of the Russian economy.
Small business enterprise value exceeds that of the Russian billionaires
A
remarkable finding in the Awara report is that the total value of small
and medium businesses (including shadow business) at 35% of total
business assets stands way higher than all of “oligarch” wealth, and
even at the same level as the combined wealth of the top 10 percent
(39%). (Hereby, it should be noted that there is overlap between the
categories of small and medium business wealth and top 10 percent
wealth).
The
35% share assigned to small and medium businesses (SMEs) is backed up
by reference to a study done by the global consultancy EY together with
the European Investment Bank, which assessed that SMEs cover 20–25% of
Russia’s GDP, in addition to estimates of the size of the shadow
economy. The Russia statistics authority (Rosstat) has the shadow
economy at 10–14% whereas liberal economists assess it at 32%.
When everything else failed, Piketty conjured up Russian “offshore wealth”
When
all the other methodological biases, misrepresentations and distortions
failed to produce the screaming inequality — which the scholars
undoubtedly had set out to prove — they resorted to adding, some
supposed “offshore wealth” to the possessions of the top 10% of
Russians. We have all heard about assets Russian “oligarchs” have
abroad, like the Chelsea football club, villas and yachts, therefore
this one would seem like a safe bet. When the figures don’t prove that
the superrich in Russia are so much richer than the Western plutocracy,
throw in their offshore wealth. What Piketty therefore did was to add
offshore wealth to the tune of the equivalent of 75% of the GDP to the
richest top 10%. And Voila! The Piketty figures show extreme inequality
for Russia in comparison with other countries.
Not
only is there no evidence on the amounts and distribution of such
“offshore wealth,” but it also represents a major transgression of
Piketty’s own method as such assets abroad have not been taken into
consideration in the studies concerning any of the other countries that
his research team has examined. After all, the Piketty studies are
supposed to represent global comparisons of economic inequality — the
comparison is the very point they make. Yet Piketty blatantly breaches
his own method just to make Russia look bad. See, no such “offshore
wealth” has been summed up to the wealth of the rich in any of the other
countries studied.
Piketty’s colonial ideal model
Obviously,
the offshore wealth (i.e. assets outside home country) of the
capitalist classes of the major Western countries is vastly more (as a
share of) than that of the Russian rich. Just think about the holdings
of the Western transnational corporations around the world. But Piketty
et co. don’t even want to consider the Western transnational capital,
going so far as to totally exclude foreign owners as factors of
inequality in a given country. In their colonial model foreign owners
are a benign class, above criticism. With this kind of logic, Piketty
runs into total absurdities. Praising the relative inequality of Eastern
European countries, he puts the success down to their colonial economic
model, as the Pikettys express it: “the fact the holders of top capital
incomes tend to be foreigners rather than domestic residents
contributes to lower top income shares in countries like the Czech
Republic or Poland or Hungary (as compared to countries like Russia or
Germany). I.e. foreign owned countries tend to have less domestic
inequality (other things equal).”
So,
in Piketty’s perverted logic it is good that foreign capitalists own
everything, because that makes the natives more equal between
themselves. But in case of Russia it is the other way around, because
some nasty rich Russians own property in third countries, it makes
Russia’s wealth distribution more inequal.
Why would you call the Russian rich “oligarchs” but those of the West “billionaires”?
Why
does the media call the Russian rich “oligarchs” while their peers in
the West are just “billionaires”? The reason is obvious, oligarch sounds
nastier and therefore it must be reserved for the Russians. That’s what
Piketty does, too, calling his report “From Soviets to Oligarchs,”
thereby clearly flaunting his biases. This is precisely what drove him,
to tarnish the Russian state by alleging it’s a country ruled by a vile
oligarchy and Putin’s cronies.
The
Awara study demonstrates that the true income and wealth figures on
Russia — especially when considering Russia’s substantial state
sector — does in no way qualify Russia as an oligarchy any more than any
of the other major economic powers in the world. But even if that would
not have been the case and Russia’s wealth distribution would be as
Piketty mendaciously claims, then still there would be no reason to pick
on Russia by calling it an oligarchy. An oligarchy is foremost a
political concept signifying that real power in a given country rests
with a small number of super-wealthy people termed oligarchs. But, the
fact that a country would have a skewed division of wealth with a
disproportionate share of billionaires would yet not mean that the
country is an oligarchy in the true political meaning of the concept.
And certainly, the Russia of today does not qualify as one. It has been
widely acknowledged that since his ascendance to Russia’s presidency
(2000) Vladimir Putin has effectively stripped the super-wealthy
individuals from the political power they actually wielded in the 1990s.
Throwing around that disparaging epithet, Piketty has completely
omitted any analysis of the political aspect of supposed Russian
oligarchy. This clearly demonstrates his ideologically bias to revile
the Russian nation and to flag his politically motivated preconceived
conclusions
Piketty relies on Forbes billionaire gossip
Apart
from the trickery with “offshore wealth,” Piketty builds his case on
“data” drawn from the Forbes’s billionaire gossip. Of course, the Forbes
billionaire data is an interesting and entertaining source and
certainly can serve to guide the reader in the direction of who are the
billionaires of one or another country. However, it seems that the
Forbes exercises considerable editorial discretion in its reporting
exposing and exaggerating the wealth of some billionaires while choosing
not to disclose that of certain other billionaires. In any case, it is
not a scientific study. The methods of compiling the data are not
explained and sufficient details of the composition of the alleged
wealth is not disclosed. The validity of that data would then at best be
dubious, even in a transparent study.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
The
Awara report is not only a criticism of the dubious studies of the
Piketty team, but also more in general an attempt to reveal how scholars
manipulate public opinion under the cover of statistical methods to
advance their ideological or pecuniary objectives. In this regard, the
Piketty studies excellently illustrate the old adage “Lies, damned lies,
and statistics.” A perfect case of how authority combined with the
persuasive power of numbers is employed to bolster false arguments.
Awara
explains the glaring differences in its findings with gross
methodological errors and skewed or even fabricated data in the Piketty
study. When the transparent data sources failed to back up Piketty’s
prejudices about Russia, he resorted to blatant distortions.
In
general, the Piketty reports never demonstrate to what extent the
scholars have relied on one or another set of source data, rather their
method is like a recipe for a potpourri, throw in generous amounts of
Forbes billionaire data, a bit of survey data, some homemade tax
tabulations, and stir everything with a Pareto spatula. The scholars
merely tell that they have relied on those sources to make the blend,
but the share of emphasis on one or another set of source data is not
given and the choices are not discussed. There are also no
scientifically falsifiable computations, which would show how the
various data sources would supposedly have been mathematically combined
to yield the results that these scholars claim to be their science. This
is in itself renders the Piketty reports invalid as academic science
and relegates them merely to the level of personal opinions.
Their
starting point is said to be earlier household income survey data,
which then is “corrected,” as they claim, with income tax data on
high-income individuals, supposedly drawn from the referenced fiscal
data. But the fiscal data does not represent any “raw tabulations by
income bracket” as the scholars wrongly maintain. Furthermore, that data
source does not contain any data on “high-income-taxpayers income tax
data,” as was further gratuitously claimed. The national accounts and
wealth inequality data is then somehow applied to all that in order
to — supposedly — “impute tax-exempt capital income.”
Obviously,
there cannot possibly be any mathematical model that could achieve the
feat of combining the multitude of those disparate and overstretching
data sources. In reality, the Piketty scholars have by an artful
manipulation of the sources picked and chosen what aspects of all that
welter of data to refer to in order to verbally motivate their
conclusions. All the references to statistical models serve only as
smoke and mirrors designed to lend academic credibility to the resulting
computations.
The Piketty study is a potpourri of sources without any falsifiable scientific method to combine them.
Propaganda for war
There
is no doubt that the scandalous history of Russian “oligarch” wealth
and contemporary urban legends about the malicious grip of oligarchs on
Russia have initially informed the Piketty scholars in their quest to
prove “extreme inequality” in Russia. More than that, I am inclined to
see the Piketty report as one more installment in the Russia bashing
propaganda in line with notorious propaganda hoaxes like Assad’s
supposed chemical attacks, the Salisbury incidents, Russian Olympic
doping scandal, invasion of the Ukraine etc. At the end of the day, the
question is about propaganda for war, which we must expose.
The Piketty research team is financed by the European Union, needless to say.
![Kazakhstan President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said the debt relief would cost less than $1bn [Pavel Golovkin/Pool/Reuters]](https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2019/6/26/b0d6e4b223b74241bd14d599a84cf662_18.jpg "Kazakhstan ends bank bailouts, writes off people's debts instead")
Liberteon