Civil Unrest in Kazakhstan plus Russia sending Troops.

[meiam]

Lifting cap on fuel price is an extremely worthwhile endeavor, it's terrible for the environment, mostly benefit well off people that can buy car/generator, usually lead to smuggling of fuel to neighboring country (usually supported by high ranking corrupt official), is incredibly expensive and distort the economy. The problem is that its something that overwhelmingly affect middle class and up, ie people that can afford to protest/strike and such. So this is a pattern that's been seen many time before, where a governement tries to remove them, protest happen and so the government back track and instead implement policy that will instead hurt the very poor (who are in too much shit to be able to protest) or they'll just try to get a loan to kick the can down the road (either IMF or Russia in this case). Even if we stay within the idea of price cap, it would be a far better policy to cap food price instead.

We're just seeing the classic problem that trap country in poor situation. A new person rise to power who's sligthly less worse than the previous person, they decide to start implement better policies, but this change the system and hurt the few people who were able to take advantages of the situation before the good side of the new policy can start helping people, so they protest. The new guy then either get replace by someone just as bad as the previous guy or just dust off the playbook of the previous guy and nothing changes.

 

[Silvanus]

The Kazakh military was in bed with the British military.

Not quite seeing how this helps make your point. It would seem to run directly counter to it, and make both seem like gangs of brutal crooks.

Quite like this post

A bit like that, yes! The key difference being that I was talking in broad strokes about a forum member's posts, whereas you were talking in broad strokes about global protest movements. One would seem a little bit more reductive and trite.

Anyway, the description of protestors as wanting "economic liberalization" is a red flag. It sounds like, to the extent this is an organic response to fuel prices, that the people are disorganized. All sorts will attempt to capitalize.

Yeah, that's unlikely to be a terribly accurate description, particularly given the Kazakh government is all-in on privatisation.

Probably not as much of a red flag as describing them as "fascists", though, because they had the gall to protest.

 

[Silvanus]

Lifting cap on fuel price is an extremely worthwhile endeavor, it's terrible for the environment, mostly benefit well off people that can buy car/generator, usually lead to smuggling of fuel to neighboring country (usually supported by high ranking corrupt official), is incredibly expensive and distort the economy.

Sorry, how is a fuel price cap worse for the environment than not having a cap? And how does it benefit the rich?

In both circumstances, surely the effects would be worse with no cap. The rich can sell for more, without limit, and the larger profit possibilities encourage further fuel extraction and further ecological damage.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Not quite seeing how this helps make your point.

Because you're assuming I'm asserting points I haven't made.

 

[Satinavian]

Sorry, how is a fuel price cap worse for the environment than not having a cap? And how does it benefit the rich?

In both circumstances, surely the effects would be worse with no cap. The rich can sell for more, without limit, and the larger profit possibilities encourage further fuel extraction and further ecological damage.

The fuel price cap was done via a fuel price subsidy. Which was also the reason for abolishing it. It cost too much. They tried to reintroduce the cap without subsidizing it, but that only produced a shortage because it seems the cap is below supply cost.

And yes, making fuel artificially cheap via subsidy is obviously really bad for the environment as it sponsors and increases consumption. Won't comment about wealth as that is way more somplicated.

 

[Silvanus]

Because you're assuming I'm asserting points I haven't made.

Not quite: I'm assuming you're insinuating points you haven't explicitly stated.

Because coming into a thread about a specific protest and saying that protest movements which the US supports "tend to be thinly veiled excuses to perpetrated a right-wing takeover" is 1) quite transparently implying the protest movement we're talking about is one such; and 2) seeking to justify the security forces putting em down.

 

[Silvanus]

The fuel price cap was done via a fuel price subsidy. Which was also the reason for abolishing it. It cost too much. They tried to reintroduce the cap without subsidizing it, but that only produced a shortage because it seems the cap is below supply cost.

If its done via a subsidy to the companies, then yeah, fuck that. That would also remove the disincentivisation element.

And yes, making fuel artificially cheap via subsidy is obviously really bad for the environment as it sponsors and increases consumption.

It sponsors usage on the end-user's side, but only to a certain point; public transport is always going to be significantly cheaper, and those that do have/use cars are only going to be buying a certain specific amount, they won't be drastically increasing fuel consumption if its cheaper.

A cap that isn't predicated on corporate subsidy could theoretically act to disincentivise oversupply, though.

 

[Kwak]

Is it not in the realm of possibility for Russia to secretly help get the protests started so they can now send in troops for support?

 

[Agema]

It's arguably academic, but isn't it fair to say that the EU and China are in a similar position as Russia? All three are dealing with greying populations. And the EU (or at least the western part of it) has shrunk from being a global power to a regional one (I guess you could point to France and maybe the UK, granted), while China might be regaining its place in the sun to some extent, but there's doubts as to whether it can really emerge as a major power considering its looming demographic crisis.

They are all regional powers already. There is only one global power currently, which is the USA. The USA is increasingly finding more limits, on its way to becoming "just" a regional power.

China doesn't have a demographic crisis, really. "Crisis" is an overblown term: they can all handle their modest population decrease, it's just a matter of management. And as all the major contenders will have population decline (without extensive immigration), no-one's really suffering a disadvantage - certainly not in the way for instance that France's pop stagnation weakened it relative to Germany in the 19th and early 20th centuries. If China's pop declines to ~1.2 billion, it's still massively powerful. The EU will still be rich and powerful, and the USA will. Africa may be populous but will still be dirt poor, and India... well, let's see.

China's biggest worry should be that middle income countries tend to struggle to get economic growth much better than high income. When China's been growing ~7-8% a year, it looks like dominance is in its grasp. But experience of other countries suggests that's going down to 3-4%. Better than the USA/EU's 2-3%, but by a sufficiently small margin that it will take a long, long time to reach per capita income parity, even if its larger population takes it into being the largest economy.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Is it not in the realm of possibility for Russia to secretly help get the protests started so they can now send in troops for support?

Almost certainly not -- unrest in Kazakhstan is against Russian economic and political interest. This is why:





Kazakh oligarchs are already in bed with the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan is strongly allied to Russia and Russian interests, and the Kazakh population is much more pro-Russia than, say, Georgia, Chechnya, or Ukraine. Comparing the situation in Kazakhstan to any of the aforementioned countries is just going to yield wrong conclusions. Russia has nothing to gain from stirring the pot in Kazakhstan, save to intervene on behalf of its oligarchy to avoid revolution in an economically and strategically critical satellite state, and a whole lot to lose because as I said, Kazakhstan is Russia's fossil fuels export gateway to Asia.

 

[Hawki]

They are all regional powers already. There is only one global power currently, which is the USA. The USA is increasingly finding more limits, on its way to becoming "just" a regional power.

China doesn't have a demographic crisis, really. "Crisis" is an overblown term: they can all handle their modest population decrease, it's just a matter of management. And as all the major contenders will have population decline (without extensive immigration), no-one's really suffering a disadvantage - certainly not in the way for instance that France's pop stagnation weakened it relative to Germany in the 19th and early 20th centuries. If China's pop declines to ~1.2 billion, it's still massively powerful. The EU will still be rich and powerful, and the USA will. Africa may be populous but will still be dirt poor, and India... well, let's see.

China's biggest worry should be that middle income countries tend to struggle to get economic growth much better than high income. When China's been growing ~7-8% a year, it looks like dominance is in its grasp. But experience of other countries suggests that's going down to 3-4%. Better than the USA/EU's 2-3%, but by a sufficiently small margin that it will take a long, long time to reach per capita income parity, even if its larger population takes it into being the largest economy.

I doubt China will stabilize at 1.2 billion. I've read that by the end of the century, its population will be around 800 million, and with a much 'greyer' population at that. It might not have a "crisis," but the 1 child policy's done a number on its demographics, and migration isn't much of a thing - off the top of my head, Germany took in more refugees from Syria in 1 year than all the refugees China has accepted in the history of the PRC. Also, China's military is arguably a paper tiger since it's never taken part in a major conflict.

Still, despite all this, I think China's got a better shot at being more than a regional power than Russia or the EU. Chances are we're headed for a multipolar world, but China will still be a top dog of sorts.

 

[Agema]

I doubt China will stabilize at 1.2 billion. I've read that by the end of the century, its population will be around 800 million, and with a much 'greyer' population at that. It might not have a "crisis," but the 1 child policy's done a number on its demographics, and migration isn't much of a thing - off the top of my head, Germany took in more refugees from Syria in 1 year than all the refugees China has accepted in the history of the PRC. Also, China's military is arguably a paper tiger since it's never taken part in a major conflict.

Still, despite all this, I think China's got a better shot at being more than a regional power than Russia or the EU. Chances are we're headed for a multipolar world, but China will still be a top dog of sorts.

Yeah, I thought I saw that 800 million figure as well somewhere but can't remember the source, although I also read that China has thought there's been a little too much of a decline and may encourage more breeding.

 

[Gergar12]

Academics are telling me on Twitter that the president is doing this to consolidate power against the mentioned former president/long-ruling dictator. Also, it's an interesting tactic, get the security forces on your side as you leave to avoid any revenge killings, and corruption trials against you. Then die, and afterward assume they don't go after your kids who would have immigrated to the west or be forgotten. Reminds me of China, and Jiang Zemin.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Not quite: I'm assuming you're insinuating points you haven't explicitly stated.

Incorrectly.

 

[Silvanus]

Incorrectly.

Lol sure, okay.

You were talking about how protest movements are thinly-veiled excuses for right-wing takeovers, and how they're fomented by the USA, in this thread about a specific protest movement... by pure coincidence. No intention to connect the two.

K.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Lol sure, okay.

You were talking about how protest movements are thinly-veiled excuses for right-wing takeovers, and how they're fomented by the USA, in this thread about a specific protest movement... by pure coincidence. No intention to connect the two.

K.

I was responding to the idea that the uprising wants "economic liberalization".

It apparently doesn't.

 

[Silvanus]

I was responding to the idea that the uprising wants "economic liberalization".

It apparently doesn't.

That's a lot of extra words and additional guff about fascists and right-wing takeovers to make that point.

 

[Agema]

That's a lot of extra words and additional guff about fascists and right-wing takeovers to make that point.

There is however a lot of truth to the effect that in many internal squabbles in such countries, there isn't truly a faction representing the people. Just two bunches of elites, one of which may have better PR or just be the devil we don't know.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That's a lot of extra words and additional guff about fascists and right-wing takeovers to make that point.

It was two, arguably even just one sentence until you decided to make a snide comment.

 

[Silvanus]

There is however a lot of truth to the effect that in many internal squabbles in such countries, there isn't truly a faction representing the people. Just two bunches of elites, one of which may have better PR or just be the devil we don't know.

Sure, but protesters are not a "faction". There may be factions and groups among them. But writing off/ dismissing a protest in entirety on such a basis-- and more, attributing it to a specific foreign power, without any actual detail or evidence-- is completely ludicrous.

And when protesters are being gunned down by the military, it becomes more than a little grotesque to make serious unsupported claims about them.

It was two, arguably even just one sentence until you decided to make a snide comment.

Hah, a sentence with several enormous, serious assertions about the protest in it.

Come on, dude. Nobody coming into this thread, and then reading the post, wouldn't reasonably conclude that you were... talking about the protest that this thread is about. If you want to tell me that paragraph was not meant to have any relevance to the situation in Kazakhstan, which this entire thread is about, then that's the weakest excuse I've read in months.