Hacker News Reader

Comment by snitko | Hacker News Reader

That is to say, eliminating corruption is a dangerous and a difficult task. Someone really smart should be working on it. I can tell by the speeches they're not doing it at all right now.

View on HN

I watched an interview with President Medvedev in which problems like corruption were brought up. It seemed like he is taking a long term view of improving conditions in Russia, which makes sense to me, because it's not possible to transition to the kind of democracy with limited corruption we see in the U.S. overnight. What do you think of the actions or non-actions of the current Russian leadership? Are they at least on a path toward improving the situation?

Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwZLhqDEnSo&feature=playe...

If you listen carefully to this interview and others, you'll only hear he says he's going to fight corruption, but he doesn't say how. Politicians are usually all like this in any country, though. I listen a lot to Obama's speeches and interviews and he's pretty much the same. It's all blabbing.

To give you an impression of how it probably should be, may I remind you of Mikhail Saakashvili, a Georgian president, who is so much hated in Russia. Personally, I don't know what happened at that war in 2008, but what many people in Russia realized recently is that he managed to eliminate corruption in Georgia in a matter of 3-4 years. How? One example: they fired all of the police force there overnight, hired and trained new people, raised their salaries and punished seriously for any bribes. What was the result? A great raise in respect for police in Georgia in less than 2 months.

> he says he's going to fight corruption, but he doesn't say how.

That's because he doesn't have a clue.

Last step is to rename "militia" to "police" with trivial changes to law enforcement and direct insult of all those who served in supposedly "ineffective" Soviet militia.

Yes, I'm aware that politicians often speak "empty words". However, I would point out some politicians are indeed active and effective. President Obama has already signed over 200 bills into law, including one so large and complicated it took over 50 years of unsuccessful attempts: healthcare. I was just wondering if President Medvedev is more of the "empty words" type of politician, or does he genuinely feel compelled to do his best to improve conditions? As much as he safely can, that is.

Well, how am I supposed to know if he's genuine, I'm not his psychoanalyst. And I don't think it matters. I don't see how he can change anything - that's the problem.

I agree that progress, if any at all, would be slow. President Medvedev recently toured Silicon Valley, opened a Twitter account, and proclaimed Russia "open for business". Unfortunately, with articles like this I don't think he will get many takers. However, I do think such efforts can plant the seeds of improvement better than doing nothing at all. That's why I mentioned a long term view. This article looks at Russia now, today, and we see people even is this thread talk of leaving. But if there were at least honest attempts to change things for the better, maybe people wouldn't be in such a hurry to leave, hurting chances for progress before they even get started.

None of his personality traits matter until he fires his puppetmaster buddy Putin. And that just ain't gonna happen.

Obama is a government official increasing govt power. That's easy comparatively, govt has the guns and the pulpit. Going against the flow is hard.

Obama is a government official increasing govt power.

Government power in the U.S. is limited by the Separation of Powers as well as the Constitution.

Edit: Someone downvoted me? Why not post an argument with your position?

I'm always amazed how many U.S. Supreme Court decisions are passed by a 5-to-4 vote. Government power in the U.S. is limited by the beliefs of the 9 lifelong Supreme Court judges, interpreting written laws and precedents according to their own subjective belief systems.

Yes, that is how it's set up and yet the Supreme Court does not make the laws or set policy. So the judicial branch of government is limited too -- just as it is meant to be -- by the Separation of Powers.

there is no position to disagree with, just a well known fact posted as if it was in opposition to the quoted statement..

That's just it. It is in opposition if it's a fact. The OP said President Obama is expanding government power. If it's a fact that government power is limited by the Constitution and Separation of Powers then no president can expand government power without circumventing these checks and balances. They may expand government influence but not government power. So for the OP to be correct I guess the claim is that President Obama is circumventing the Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court?

Edit: Actually, I take that back. Since the citizenry and Congress can neglect their oversight duty, presidents can in fact increase government power, as evidenced recently by George Bush Jr. However, in theory the mechanisms exist to place limits on what any single person/politician can do. Making a blanket statement that Obama is increasing government power without providing specific arguments how is not substantive. After all, the same could be said by picking any of the other 43 presidents at random.

>President Obama has already signed over 200 bills into law, including one so large and complicated it took over 50 years of unsuccessful attempts: healthcare.

I will believe it when I see it. Right now, the situation is that nobody will sell me health insurance /at any price/ and the things that are wrong with me are really pretty minor. The health plan says this won't be a problem in 2014.

Then, the people this bill was really meant to help are screaming bloody murder because they are now going to have to pay for health insurance. the thing is, most people are just getting by. Sure the bill provides help for low-income folks, but people worry they might not meet the low-income cut off, what with the payments on the truck and the house.

So yeah, I'll be /very/ surprised if this actually goes in to effect. My personal plan is to try to get a group plan for prgmr.com; I've gotta bring nick on full time anyhow, so I might as well.

Vibrant countries seem to have "started again" more recently than more stagnant ones. E.g. Gernamy and Japan were "re-started" after conquest, China was restarted after a takeover by new people from the PLA and Communist Party, Georgia after a new police force. Startups and successful businesses thrive in countries with more lenient bankrupcy laws. This ensures the decay-death-rebirth rolls around quicker.

switzerland, the US and the UK haven't had any restarts for a long, long time. they are doing good. canada, australia and new zealand never had one (after the initial settlement). the wealth of germany and japan was a re-convergence in spite of bombing.. try again=)

It's actually in the article:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agrees—in theory at least. [...] But his bold speeches against corruption are largely ignored.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com