In the interest of being completely fair to Dyson, I'm not sure anyone could have fully predicted just how bad of a regime Putin's would be. That said it seems like a long shot just the same.
Particularly if those financial services are extractive in nature?
Russia's is a "resource curse": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Our current financial system looks more like a twist on a "rent seekers": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking
They're kind of similar, but only because resource curse countries end up with a bunch of rent seekers and corrupt officials.
Notable WRT resources curse / Dutch disease is the Norwegian counterexample: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ssb/dispap/377.html
But it also has the effect of starving other fields of talent and technical expertise, of bidding up their costs, and related effects which are more similar to Dutch Disease / Resource Curse. The number of physics, maths, and engineering grads working at banks / financial institutions rather than at science / product R&D firms, for example, is pretty staggering.
Still mulling, but thanks for the food for thought.
Could you elaborate on that sentence? What do you mean by "extractive"? In the context of natural resources, I take that word to imply that the resource is depleted (e.g. non-renewable). Do you have a difference sense in mind?
>In the context of natural resources, I take that word to imply that the resource is depleted (e.g. non-renewable).
Is incorrect. Lumbering and agriculture are extractive industries but not "non-renewable". All primary production of resources are "extractive" industries.
I don't see sustainable timber, agriculture, fishing, or solar/wind/geothermal/hydroelectric power as extractive.
Wikipedia appears to agree with me, likewise the World Bank: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extractive_industry http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTOGMC/0,,c...
Some financial activities -- traditional financing of productive economic activity with real returns -- actually generates productive financial and economic activity. Other forms of finance -- essentially create liquidity based on existing assets, but don't actually turn that liquidity into something productive. Say, roughly, a HELOC. Or they simply squeeze payments out of population that's poorly equipped to refuse them: fees, fines, and penalties added to many financial and services contracts.
I'd argue that both of the latter are "extractive" in that rather than promoting economic activity, they serve to convert some illiquid asset class (or population) into a currency pump for the benefit of the financier.
I don't know if computerized trading falls into this model but I'm inclined to think it does, and would very much favor a transactions tax to put limits on this sort of activity. I suspect the bigger problem is that these systems are poorly understood and have very large downside potential through inadvertent (or deliberate) feedback loops. Think Flash Crash.
Russia is decades ahead of other countries, but they have a long path ahead of them. A good start would be teaching English in elementary school.
Compare that to, for example, someone from the Philippines who will be proficient enough in English that you think they are an American.
In my own personal business, I estimate without native English proficiency my employees would be worth 1/5th or less of what they are to me now. I would have to hire an bilingual manager to run projects, and that person would have to be paid a lot. My turnover would be higher and the accuracy of instructions would be diminished, thus resulting in slower project execution times.
Irregardless of the non-ideal situations of the past, current citizens with English proficiency benefit enormously -- in the form of money.
Being proficient in English is a really big deal. As an American child I was told over and over again that it was important to learn a foreign language to increase my ability to get a job. As an adult, I found the opposite, that English above all other languages was critical in running a successful international business.
You used the Philippines as a counter-example to Russians not having very good skills in English. I think the example was badly chosen: Like if you choose to compare them to Canada or United Kingdom. Of course there are countries where people have better skills in English than in Russia. But I think comparison with one of these extreme examples misses the point -- you should compare Russia to other countries that are competing for being "the world leader in software development".
I do think however that we are discussing about a bit different things though, as I didn't understand how your reply had anything to do with my message -- except for the double quote part.