• TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    In 1989, Sachs advised Poland’s anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland’s reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Sachs was the main architect of Poland’s debt reduction operation. Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised on the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership. Closure of many uncompetitive factories ensued.[33] In Poland, Sachs was firmly on the side of rapid transition to capitalism. At first, he proposed American-style corporate structures, with professional managers answering to many shareholders and a large economic role for stock markets. That did not bode well with the Polish authorities, but he then proposed that large blocks of the shares of privatized companies be placed in the hands of private banks.[34] As a result, there were some economic shortages and inflation, but prices in Poland eventually stabilized.[35][independent source needed] The government of Poland awarded Sachs one of its highest honors in 1999, the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit.[36] He also received an honorary doctorate from the Kraków University of Economics.[21] Based on Poland’s success, his advice was sought first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and by his successor, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, on the transition of the USSR/Russia to a market economy.[37]

    Sachs’ methods for stabilizing economies became known as shock therapy and were similar to successful approaches used in Germany after the two world wars.[31] He faced criticism for his role after the Russian economy faced significant struggles after adopting the market-based shock therapy in the early 1990s.[38][39][40]

    • wellfill@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult. The soviet privatization is not representative because his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies. From your paste is also Ukraine missing.

      But I partially agree that he talks diplomatically, so he wont always say exactly what he thinks.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult.

        Many people respond to criticism with negativity…

        his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies.

        Says who?

        From your paste is also Ukraine missing.

        The whole thing about quoting something is you don’t control what is left in or out, but yes Ukraine is a former Soviet state.

        Why exactly is this supposed socialist sub defending the honor of a capitalist economist who participated in the parting out of the Soviet economy?

        Is campism so strong that we are now cheerleading capitalists economists just because they support Russian nationalist?

        • wellfill@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.

          The fact that his ideas were mostly not implemented is a matter of observation.

          Quite a stretch of the word quote, is this wikipedia?

          Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist, we can reject dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis.

          • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.

            So he’s just upset at the name, not the implied criticism behind it?

            is a matter of observation.

            Ahh, so because you said so. Got it

            Quite a stretch of the word quote

            Literally is a quote from Wikipedia, yes.

            Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist we can reject only dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis

            And what is that rational bias of defending his views other than Russia supposedly standing up to western imperialism by doing western styled imperialism?

            • wellfill@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              14 hours ago

              I dont think that he is particularly upset.

              No see if one was to compare his advice take the one to the us planners that they should provide for example loans to the soviets it was completely rejected, as the us chauvinistically did not want to help.

              Quote of whom?

              First where does security concern equal “standing up to something”. Secondly what exactly do you mean by the concept of rational bias?

              edit: do you know that some bolsheviks pragmatically supported capitalist policies as means to help the national economy and as transitional to communism. Your argument crumbles even in this respect.