Russia to help Venezuela develop nuclear energy

You misunderstand. The assets are all still in place. The value of the assets may have dropped, but nothing has gone anywhere.

A company can go out of business, but the assets are still there, able to be acquired by others, who can better utilize these existing assets.

If I have a plant, valued today at one dollar, and tomorrow economic woes cause the value of the plant to fall to half a dollar, so what? It's a paper value anyway. The plant is still there, with the same capability. And the economic valuation can change next week or next month. Until I sell it at a loss, do I experience a loss. Otherwise, it's just a number on a piece of paper.

Coming from Russia, I wouldn't expect many of you to understand basic finance and principles of capitalism. Not much experience with it.

And as for Russia being roughly 75 years behind other European initiatives, one only needs to break out a history book. I'm sure the Russian texts don't hit too hard on that, but of course, no one wants Russians to have their feelings hurt.

Feeling generous, I'll just give you a few. Of scores.

While the rest of Europe was expanding colonization and trade with those colonies, Russia was trying to annex Poland.

While Europe was embracing Mercantilism in the 1600-1700's, Russia was agrarian and only began embracing Mercantilistic practices in the 1800's.

When Europe had abandoned Mercantilism and was embracing commercial capitalism, industrial capitalism, and financial capitalism, Russia was still about a hundred years behind.

After Quesnay and Smith had indicated the fallacy of Mercantilism and everyone had abandoned these principles, including accumulation of bullion, Russia continued for another hundred years.

While other Europeans cast off their monarchies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it wasn't until the twentieth century that Russia cast theirs off.

While others nations stressed the importance of the individual in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Russia cast off its monarchy only to be replaced with a state dictatorship.

While other nations enjoy private ownership of property during the entire twentieth century, Russia issues five-year plans to their collectives.

I don't think I need to go further. You should have the idea by now.

Yes, Russia pushed science, military science, and technology.

But at what cost?

Well, US influence is failing, and as the Americans have stated so many times, it's Might that makes them Right.

If Russia turns out to be the next power house, I'd warn Americans to get on their good side quickly... otherwise, you're just another rogue nation that needs to be... how should I put it... "Liberated".

You too, seem to have your concepts of finance and capital somewhat skewered.

And it's funny, but I saw the exact scalar interferometer that was used to generate the standing wave to hold the Russian scalar probes and then pop all that energy back just a month ago.

Of course, at the moment it was popped back, no one knew exactly where it originated from, only that we were returning to sender.

And it was still a few days before it was figured out where the source was. Those naughty Russians tried to conceal their disaster.

So you're not correct in your statement about the event.

In fact, I had asked something specifically about that event, and was told, "here. This is the interferometer we used to pop them back."

Nice try, though. Your information must be Russian generated.

Originally posted by dooper
You misunderstand. The assets are all still in place. The value of the assets may have dropped, but nothing has gone anywhere.

The issue is - that most of "assets" in the US are capital assets not plants, or buildings, or equipment - they are financial investments, securities, debt instruments, capital ventures. Look at the balance sheets of many large corporations, especially financial ones. What do you see? Large intangible assets like goodwill, and investments. The companies may still have their building and plants, but if their goodwill or investment assets take a hit - it is very real, and may cause them to lose their equitability.

Originally posted by dooper
A company can go out of business, but the assets are still there, able to be acquired by others, who can better utilize these existing assets.

That holds true for industrial economies like China or India - that actually producce tangible goods. The US and many European economies are capital-intensive, not industry-intensive. Thus for them - a financial crisis is a very serious matter, and the financial losses aren't just "on paper".

Major US businesses do not necessarily require assets like plants, building or equipment to do business. They primarily require financial assets.

Originally posted by dooper
If I have a plant, valued today at one dollar, and tomorrow economic woes cause the value of the plant to fall to half a dollar, so what? It's a paper value anyway.

Today's capital-intensive economy is based on "paper value". An alternative would be to go back to the industrialization age when tangible assets actually mattered more than anything else.

Originally posted by dooper
The plant is still there, with the same capability. And the economic valuation can change next week or next month. Until I sell it at a loss, do I experience a loss.

You do experience a loss if you recognize impairment, which should be done under proper conditions according to US accounting standards.

Originally posted by dooper
Coming from Russia, I wouldn't expect many of you to understand basic finance and principles of capitalism. Not much experience with it.

Oh and you do have much experience?

I am from Russia, and I have a Masters-equivalent degree in accounting and financing. I have experience working for a Western investment-management firm, and a Russian investment-management firm.

Or do you think that all Russians are capable of is shooting aks and working on farms? If you think Russia (or for than matter China or India) is unfamiliar with the capitalist economy systems, then maybe you should get out and see the world more often.

Originally posted by dooper
And as for Russia being roughly 75 years behind other European initiatives, one only needs to break out a history book.

I so I presume that your perception is that Russia was frozen in time from 1917 to 1991. With such presumption I have a feeling that I am not the one that needs a history lesson.

Originally posted by dooper
I'm sure the Russian texts don't hit too hard on that, but of course, no one wants Russians to have their feelings hurt.

What about texts concerning Soviet Union's economic development by hundreds of renown Western historians and economists? Tell me - what enlightening texts on the economic progression of the USSR have you read lately? Who were they written by, do they have an unbiased point of view, and what facts and conclusions do they "hit hard" on?

Originally posted by dooper
While the rest of Europe was expanding colonization and trade with those colonies, Russia was trying to annex Poland.

So you mean that while Europe was annexing territories by force (military or economic) in Africa, Asia, and Americas, and exploiting and sometimes enslaving local population, Russia was trying to do something of similar nature. Fascinating. Please do go on.

Originally posted by dooper
While Europe was embracing Mercantilism in the 1600-1700's, Russia was agrarian and only began embracing Mercantilistic practices in the 1800's.

Mercantilism - the very same system which American text books describe as being backwards and nationalistic, and counter to the notion of capitalism and globalization?

In during the era you describe, European powers were far more interested in waging war against against other and fighting over land, than in building their economies.

What is the point of comparing who is historically "better, richer and smarter" - Europe or Russia. Western Europe made some advancements, but it is also responsible for highly detrimental colonization and empire building, two bloody world wars, and more spilled blood around the globe than any other region on earth.

I see you have a highly Euro-centric point of view, and arguing with that would be less cognizant than beating ones head against the wall.

Originally posted by dooper
When Europe had abandoned Mercantilism and was embracing commercial capitalism, industrial capitalism, and financial capitalism, Russia was still about a hundred years behind.

Also Europe was embracing industrial militarization - which involved rapid development of new methods to kill people. This industrial militarization and the killing machines it produced is responsible for millions of lost lives in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

This out-of-control industrial growth and colonial ambitions is what resulted in huge-scale conflicts such as WWI and WWII being made possible.

Originally posted by dooper
After Quesnay and Smith had indicated the fallacy of Mercantilism and everyone had abandoned these principles, including accumulation of bullion, Russia continued for another hundred years.

Do tell - what is the date range when Russia was under "mercantilism". When do you think industrial age started in Russia?

Originally posted by dooper
While other Europeans cast off their monarchies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

I am sure Austrians, Germans and Prussians, British, Turks, and Spanish among a few others would disagree with you.

Originally posted by dooper
While others nations stressed the importance of the individual

That importance surely played a major role during the two World Wars, and numerous other revolutions and dictatorships in Europe untill mid 20th century, and in some cases lated. How many millions died without any concern for individual or other liberal ideals.

Originally posted by dooper
While other nations enjoy private ownership of property during the entire twentieth century, Russia issues five-year plans to their collectives.

You are now dwelling into the capitalism vs socialism debate. You are prejudiced to believe that capitalism is the holy of holies - that is the ultimate human achievement and that it is a manifestation of freedom. Billions of people on earth have an alternative perception. Even people in the US who live under the poverty level.

You are trying to argue that because Russia wasn't capitalist - it is far behind countries that were capitalist. You are trying to say that being under socialism equates to being frozen in time and not having progress of any kind.


I do not wish this thread to decompose into capitalism vs socialism debate. You know little about life in Russia in Soviet Union, and know little about life in Russia now. How can I expect you to make a coherent arguement about Russia's economic progress and econimic well-being.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by maloy]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by maloy]

Maloy, geez, you don't have to take this so personal.

Oddly, we seem to have the same educational background. Accounting and finance.

I think we can agree that in Russia, there were those who wanted to embrace European initiatives, and those who wanted to embrace Eastern agrarian, communal values.

And no, I'm not European centric. If I appeared so, it was only to contrast economic initiatives that evolved during the seventeenth to twentieth centuries.

I have always said, that if the natural Russian suspicion of everyone and everything not Russian could somehow be suspended, then by working together, there is no end to the good that all Western powers in a spirit of trust and cooperation could do.