Our Three Stories Are . . .
A couple of stories that capture in microcosm Russia’s most acute dysfunctions.
First, the aftermath of the tragic KHL plane crash. Two competing explanations.
Explanation 1: the pilot left on the parking brake:
The Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, citing what it called a “trustworthy source” at the Yaroslavl airport, reported that “the plane began taking off from the runway with the parking brake still on,” which meant that, though “the engines were powerful enough to get the aircraft moving, reaching take-off speed would be problematic.”
The paper also presented criticism of the hypothesis. Test-pilot Sergey Knyshov called it “hard to believe.” Rbc.ru quoted another test-pilot, Aleksandr Akimenkov, who was also skeptical: with the brake engaged, “the plane wouldn’t have taken off, or it would have remained in place.”
Will we ever know for sure what happend? Not necessarily. Moskovsky Komsomolets’s source “supposed that . . . ‘the commission [inquiring into the crash] will try not to place all the blame on the crew, for purely ethical reasons, and find that something broke down.’ After all, the pilots themselves died in the catastrophe.”
The last line indicates that someone has a sadistic sense of humor, because it is precisely because the crew is dead that it will be all too convenient to pin the crash on them.
See update/correction below. This is supported by Explanation 2 (which is more of an insinuation, actually): the plane’s “navigator” was drunk. As R astutely asked, “Who even has navigators anymore?” I don’t think Yak-42s do: they have only 2 man cockpit crews. Even if the “navigator” was drunk, that would probably matter only if the pilot was even drunker. Which can’t be ruled out a priori.
The parking brake theory would also imply that there are two failures: one human, and the other mechanical. Because as one of those quoted in the Bloomberg piece said, if it had been working the plane shouldn’t have moved.
In response to the Bloomberg writer’s presumably rhetorical question “Will we ever know for sure what happened?” I say never. The pilots (and “navigator”) make convenient patsies. And if it isn’t laid at the feet of the crew, but instead on the airline, who could trust that judgment either? That too could be a convenient political drama, and could also serve to cover up potential state culpability (e.g., the de facto price controls that led to fuel shortage and perhaps fuel adulteration).
The second story is the Prokhorov farce. I have no idea why he got in, or why he got out. I don’t know whether this was the plan all along (to discredit and confuse any potential opposition), or whether the plan was for Prokhorov was supposed to be a domesticated opposition leader who took the “opposition” thing a little too seriously for some people’s liking, or neither, or both.
And that’s the point. There are no genuine politics in Russia. Everything is managed. Everything is a stage play. Sometimes the players go off script, but they don’t take over the plot: the author just writes them out, like in a bad soap opera where the star involved in a contract dispute first goes into a long coma, and then dies.
Speaking of going into a coma and dying, Prokhorov does seem to be very chastened in the aftermath. After some hot words directed at Surkov, he now seems to have gotten his mind right. He is taking pains to make sure everyone notices that he is not being critical of Putin.
It almost seems that he is about to break into a chorus of “I don’t want to go to Chita.”
One last thing. I guess that would make three–one more than a couple. (Maybe the sight of Obama lecturing about math is getting to me.) The Bloomberg article presents this sunny summary of the preliminary results of the recent census (such as it is–the news accounts of the census methods leave considerable room for doubt about its accuracy):
Russia’s demographic trends are almost as frightening as its transport safety record. The Moscow Times relayed grim tidings from the State Statistics Service: “Preliminary results from a nationwide census last fall put the Russian population at almost 142 million, 3 million less than during the previous census in 2002.” The Service predicts that Russia’s population could fall by as many as 8 million by 2025. That is bad enough, but the paper noted that “A 2008 United Nations report said the decrease may be 11 million, with widespread alcoholism, emigration, poverty and poor medical care to blame.”
The matter has long concerned the highest echelons of the Russian government and poses a grave threat to the economy. A 2010 uptick in the birth rate has not reversed the population drop, said Tatyana Golikova, the Minister of Health and Social Development, according to Interfax. In fact, Russia still hasn’t “returned to the birth rates of 1991” – the year the Soviet Union collapsed.
What a country.
Update/correction. The dangers of blogging while somewhat jet-lagged. The article about the drunk navigator was about another crash, one that occurred in June (I think it’s the one that killed a bunch of nuclear scientists). Very sad to say that have been enough fatal plane crashes in Russia in a short period of time that it is possible to mistake one for the other. Also, (h/t R) there is a 3 man crew on the Tu-134 (the type that crashed in June), so it did likely have a navigator. The NATO reference name for the Tu-134, by the way, is “Crusty”. Somehow that seems very appropriate.
As usual the Moscow Times is acting its part as a pro-Western Russophobic propaganda organ to present Russia in the worst possible light.
First, the projection they cite is the Low one. Rosstat makes three. In the Medium one the population drops by 1 million to 2025, and in the High one it increases by 4 million.
Second, anyone who’s been observing the population trends would know that the population decline has essentially stabilized, with growth of 20,000 in 2009, a drop of 80,000 in 2010 (in large part due to the 50,000 excess mortality due to the heatwave), and has already grown by 30,000 in the first seven months of this year.
They are basically nitpicking the figures of 2010 (which did see a decline, but one that is almost statistically irrelevant compared to Russia’s overall population) to give the impression of a continuing demographic collapse.
And so it goes with the Russophobic fanatics employed by the MT.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 19, 2011 @ 6:32 pm
This is temporary. According to this report (Section 1.2, p.20), “by 2012 the number of potential mothers will return to the level at the beginning of the 1990s and the number of elderly persons will return to growth as the large generation groups of 1949-1960 reach 60 years of age. Natural decrease of population will accelerate once again.”
Comment by peter — September 19, 2011 @ 8:04 pm
Good point Peter.
The problem is SO is completely unable to deal with actual facts.
And SO, the MT is not “Russophobic”, unfortunately reporting the truth about Russia makes it that way in your eyes.
I still say “Why do you live in the USA?” if Putin’s Russia rings your bell so hard?
Comment by Andrew — September 20, 2011 @ 7:03 am
Who cares about those reports.
The important thing to note is that out of all the mainstream self-proclaimed “experts” and pundits, the projections I made back in mid 2008 were far more accurate than literally anybody else’s.
I’m not going to indulge in false modesty on this. I was more or less the only person predicting a resumption of Russian population growth at around 2010. This has turned out accurate, amazingly, brilliantly, starkly so considering that I was almost alone in doing so.
My same projections show Russia’s populations broadly stable over the next decade. I trust them over those of unaccountable experts and pundits.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 20, 2011 @ 6:27 pm
Actually moron, there was no resumption of population growth in 2010, there was a (slight) uptick in births in 2010, which has once again reduced.
Russia’s population fell in 2010.
You are such an idiot.
If you are unable to understand the fundamental problems that Russia faces with regards to population loss, it shows how vapid and pathetic you really are.
Comment by Andrew — September 20, 2011 @ 11:33 pm
“Who cares about those reports.”
For sure nobody who, like SUBLIME PSYCOPATH, relies entirely upon what the Russian government itself says about its own population demographics, because he believes that if the data was bad the Russian government, ruled by a clan of proud KGB spies, would tell the truth about it.
See why we call him SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH?
Comment by La Russophobe — September 21, 2011 @ 6:08 am
SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH:
Did Russia, or did it not, experience an accidental and temporary increase in the number of mothers in the 2000s? If not, please cite evidence that the number of mothers was the same in the 1990s.
Do you have ANY evidence OTHER THAN YOUR OWN WARPED AND TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED OPINION that the number of mothers will remain constant through the 2010s? If so, please cite it.
Your response to Peter, who has BLOWN YOU AWAY, is shameful. “Who cares about those reports” indeed!
Comment by La Russophobe — September 21, 2011 @ 6:15 am
You should. If you want to toe the Kremlin’s official line, you should at least know where that line is.
No, you were merely propagating (perhaps unknowingly) the Rosstat’s best-case-scenario. There’s no prize for that.
Comment by peter — September 21, 2011 @ 6:30 am
I’m not toeing any Kremlin official line. And my projections do differ from Rosstat’s Middle and High variants in the details, though they are overall fairly similar.
The point remains that according to practically all forecasts from the time when I made them, Russia’s population should be 140mn or thereabouts now, and continuing to fall by half a million or more per year.
It is actually 142.8mn, and has essentially stabilized, seeing slow growth this year.
LR doesn’t know what the fuck she’s talking about as usual. The numbers of women in their child-bearing years will decline in the next decade, and my projections implicitly model that (because that is how demographic models work). What’s also true is that mortality is also falling, and will almost certainly continue doing so as lifestyle choices and healthcare improve, and life expectancy rises.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 21, 2011 @ 12:42 pm
Incorrect.
Comment by peter — September 21, 2011 @ 3:48 pm
SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH:
Wow, this is truly a new low for you! Congrats! Who knew you could plumb such depths!
You ADMIT that Russia will dramatically lose child-bearing mothers, and you bet that Russia’s population will remain stable despite that because RUSSIANS ARE GETTING HEALTHIER BY THE MINUTE!!!
Do you have any idea how hilariously ignorant that makes you sound?? Only a person like you, WHO HAS NEVER SPENT ANY SIGNFICANT TIME LIVING IN RUSSIA, could possibly make a claim like that. NOTHING about Russian lifestyle choices is changing, no more than Russia is making choices to become more democratic. Russia is perishing from drinking, smoking, obscene violence (one woman killed by her husband every forty minutes!), fires, car crashes, airplane crashes and a whole litany of social ills that are TOTALLY IGNORED by the government as it expands the defense budget and funds ego projects like the Sochi Olympics.
Russia does not rank in the top 100 nations of the world for life expectancy and that is not going to change any time soon, no matter what Kremlin-sponsored lies you repeat like a braying jackass.
Comment by La Russophobe — September 21, 2011 @ 3:57 pm
I’m not going to wade through that document.
Page number.
There will be exceptions, of course. Point remains that current population growth (since about 2009) is about 0%, which very few people predicted.
@LR,
The numbers contradict you.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 21, 2011 @ 4:23 pm
You cannot be this obtuse, can you? Try the table of contents.
Comment by peter — September 21, 2011 @ 5:07 pm
So the medium to higher estimates of the Demoscope study show that Russia’s population will stabilize or grow slowly. Good work on their part. I’ve always respected Demoscope.
But see, the first study you cited, to “disprove” me, has projections (pg.21) that also happen to contradict the second Demoscope study you later brought up. The 2008 US Census forecast shows natural increase peaking at -700,000 in around 2009. The UN Population Projection from 2006 is more pessimistic. Even the medium Rosstat 2008 forecast(they of Putinist propaganda, cf. La Russophobe) don’t show natural increase dipping below -400,000.
In reality: It fell to -360,000 in 2008, -250,000 in 2009, -240,000 in 2010 (despite the heatwave), and looks set to register another big improvement this year.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 21, 2011 @ 6:05 pm
Hey crazy Ekaterina, do you have any emails in your inbox detailing how the Moscow Times has willfully SPIKED stories embarrassing to exiled oligarchs and their friends in Washington D.C. as recently as 2008? Because I do. And I’ll gladly post excerpts here for you and SWP’s enjoyment if you like, just so you can get a taste of the dark side of American ‘diplomacy’ (aka meddling in a sovereign country’s politics we would never tolerate on this side of the Pond) in Russia.
At times I suspect the Russian authorities leave MT alone for the same reason the Brits leave the jihad-central Finsbury Park mosque alone — there’s just too many foreigners coming and going of interest not to just leave it alone but under close surveillance.
“WHO HAS NEVER SPENT ANY SIGNFICANT TIME LIVING IN RUSSIA…” crazy Ekaterina, there’s no evidence you’ve been there since 1979. So either take off that Darth Vader-ette mask or shut up about where people have and haven’t been and what evidence you demand from them.
Comment by Mr. X — September 21, 2011 @ 8:09 pm
This is getting embarrassing. It’s like arguing with Averko, except he is at least funny in his own very unintentional way. You should spend less time dreaming of world domination and more doing your homework, this might save you from constantly getting lost in three pines, as we say in Russia. Had you taken a minute or two to wade through at least the opening pages, you’d have noticed that those two studies are written by more or less the same people from ВШЭ.
Comment by peter — September 22, 2011 @ 5:04 am
SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH:
It’s really sad that you don’t stop even for a second to consider the possibility that when you ADMIT NOT ONE SINGLE PROFESSIONAL DEMOGRAPHER agrees with you this might mean something bad for you rather than something good.
The elaborately researched UN report CLEARLY shows Russia’s population will reenter freefall soon, and you can cite NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to the contrary other than your own insane, biased, Russophile ravings. Where is your proof that Russians are getting rapidly healthier?? Nowhere to be seen.
That is all an normal intelligent person needs to know about your “views.”
Comment by La Russophobe — September 22, 2011 @ 5:27 am
FYI, SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH, the authors of the UN report ARE RUSSIAN: Anatoly G. Vishnevsky, Dr.Sc. (Economics), Director of the Institute of Demography at the State University – Higher School of Economics; Prof. Sergei N. Bobylev, Dr.Sc. (Economics), Department of Economics at Lomonosov Moscow State University.
OOPS! This is one really bad week for SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH. Ouch.
Comment by La Russophobe — September 22, 2011 @ 5:30 am
The Russian stock market lost over 8% of its value today, and has shed over 30% since April. Ouch.
Comment by La Russophobe — September 22, 2011 @ 7:04 am
peter, what substantive difference does it make?
The fact of the matter is still that my own Medium projection/a> from 2008 is amazingly accurate. Nearly bulls-eye so.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 22, 2011 @ 10:45 am
Russian stocks, ruble take their biggest one-day hits in two years.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/ruble-stocks-at-2-year-low/444206.html
Comment by La Russophobe — September 22, 2011 @ 1:42 pm
SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH wrote: “2.Natural population increase will occur starting from 2013 at the latest.”
But the UN says Russia will lose its accidental uptick in mothers in 2012, and SUBLIME PSYCOPATH himself ADMITS that “progress has ceased in the first five months of 2008” in controlling the mortality rate.
So SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH predicted a bright future for Russia without acknowleding that the motherhood uptick was TEMPORARY and without ANY evidence that mortality would continue improving.
In other words, once again, he lied. And tried to cover it up with a bunch of charts and graphs that amount to meaningless gibberish and are contradicted by AN ARMY of RUSSIAN demographers writing for the UN (among many, many others).
Comment by La Russophobe — September 22, 2011 @ 1:48 pm
This one? 150 millions by 2020, 160 by 2045? You cannot be serious.
Comment by peter — September 22, 2011 @ 2:03 pm
But the UN says Russia will lose its accidental uptick in mothers in 2012, and SUBLIME PSYCOPATH himself ADMITS that “progress has ceased in the first five months of 2008″ in controlling the mortality rate.
One can’t make any judgments on five months. For the record, life expectancy still improved in 2008, rising from 67.5 to 67.9 in 2008, and by nearly a year in 2009.
So SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH predicted a bright future for Russia without acknowleding that the motherhood uptick was TEMPORARY and without ANY evidence that mortality would continue improving.
It is acknowledged implicitly, as you insistently fail to notice. As you can see in the graphs, birth rates start falling in the 2010’s.
Decreasing alcohol consumption and improved healthcare always leads to mortality improvements. Both are happening in Russia.
This one? 150 millions by 2020, 160 by 2045? You cannot be serious.
It’s one scenario. It has a high increase in fertility which, it seems, probably isn’t going to be as big as projected. On the other hand, mortality improvements are outrunning. See how in the Middle scenario LE was projected to rise above 70 only in 2015, whereas in all likelihood it will actually happen in 2011.
If you want another scenario, look at this one. Take the Low one here, where the TFR gets stuck at 1.5 from 2010 (it was actually around 1.56); where mortality follows the old Medium scenario (where it is currently understated if anything); and 300,000 annual emigration (which is consistent with the experience of the last few years). That is how this scenario (which is in net terms slightly worse than reality) runs:
Population growth starts from 2011, going from 142mn to 143mn by 2023. Then it falls slowly to 138mn by 2050. The birth rate peaks at 12.5 in 2013, falls sharply to 7.8 by 2032, and then remains in the 8-9 range. The death rate troughs at 11.4 in 2032, then rises to 12.9 by 2050. Positive natural increase is never attained.
Bottom line is – no matter how you spin it, the future demographic picture is one of stabilization, slow growth, or in the pessimistic case, very slow decline.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 22, 2011 @ 3:22 pm
Don’t you people read Spengler? Phobie? Russia is a fertile paradise compared to Latvia, Japan, Turkey, and Iran. And maybe compared to most of southern and eastern Europe in between Germany and Russia. All this huffing and puffing is ludicrous. SO is right that the real issue is population stabilization and whether life spans are increasing.
Comment by Mr. X — September 22, 2011 @ 4:54 pm
SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH:
Why do you continue to ignore clear proof of Vladimir Putin’s personal corruption, and the official coverup that protects him?
http://www.zaks.ru/new/archive/view/83713
Why do you not call for Putin to be placed in a cell next to Khodorkovsky??
Comment by La Russophobe — September 23, 2011 @ 1:10 am
Mr. X:
Average life expectancy:
JAPAN: #1 82.6
LATVIA: *87 72.7
TURKEY: #98 71.8
IRAN: #108 71
RUSSIA: #135 65.5
Don’t you read Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Do you read at all, you illiterate goat?
Comment by La Russophobe — September 23, 2011 @ 1:14 am
Now I’m confused. Just to be sure, is this or is this not the “Medium projection” that you proudly described above as “amazingly accurate. Nearly bulls-eye so”?
And while we’re at it, another yes or no question. Do you still stand by your prediction that the “natural population increase will occur starting from 2013 at the latest”?
Comment by peter — September 23, 2011 @ 3:38 am
Crazy Ekaterina in Manhattan (what are you eating now, cat food on those Jamestown crumbs?) the point is despite its average life expectancy Japan is poised to lose a greater share of its adult population than Russia in the next thirty years, in no small part due to it being an island with no tradition of immigration or integration whereas Russia has more or less integrated Armenians and many other minorities into its national polity for over a century or more.
The numbers for Latvia, as S/O pointed out in his most recent post, are even more dismal, but it’s not exactly a potential world power like Russia or Japan so we can ignore that. Hell, the Economist makes damn sure they do. No point in suggesting their poster child for how not to be like the Kremlins in Eastern Europe has become another burst bubble.
As Spengler is pointing out, Iran and Turkey’s fertility levels are falling through the floor, at a significantly faster rate than Russia’s albiet from a higher baseline. And Turkey unlike Iran and Russia cannot try to use oil wealth to bribe women into having more children. Neither Iran nor Turkey also seems as likely a destination for immigrants as Russia, judging by recent numbers which show some Israeli passport holders are actually coming back to Moscow (a disproportionate share of are likely to be either business owners or work in the natural sciences i.e. innovators and job creators).
Nonetheless, pointing out the demographic decline of all of these countries does not serve your perpetual Cold War, anti-Russia fanatic agenda for which you’re really just a pawn for globalists who want to destroy both Russian AND American sovereignty in perpetual warfare. That’s the point I keep hammering home to SWP, his Jacksonianism is only useful when it comes to advocating for American troops in 120 countries. It is not welcomed if it’s about defending Gibson Guitar, American manufacturing, national sovereignty, or actually auditing or shutting down the Federal Reserve.
At least SWP has been smart enough to avoid this debate.
Comment by Mr. X — September 23, 2011 @ 2:43 pm
Crazy Ekaterina in Manhattan (what are you eating now, cat food on those Jamestown crumbs?) the point is despite its average life expectancy Japan is poised to lose a greater share of its adult population than Russia in the next thirty years, in no small part due to it being an island with no tradition of immigration or integration whereas Russia has more or less integrated Armenians and many other minorities into its national polity for over a century or more. [And since you haven’t been to Moscow since 1979, you probably haven’t noticed all the Indian and Chinese faces on the Metro that Senor Equis has).
The numbers for Latvia, as S/O pointed out in his most recent post, are even more dismal, but it’s not exactly a potential world power like Russia or Japan so we can ignore that. Hell, the Economist makes damn sure they do. No point in suggesting their poster child for how not to be like the Kremlins in Eastern Europe has become another burst bubble.
As Spengler is pointing out, Iran and Turkey’s fertility levels are falling through the floor, at a significantly faster rate than Russia’s albiet from a higher baseline. And Turkey unlike Iran and Russia cannot try to use oil wealth to bribe women into having more children. Neither Iran nor Turkey also seems as likely a destination for immigrants as Russia, judging by recent numbers which show some Israeli passport holders are actually coming back to Moscow (a disproportionate share of are likely to be either business owners or work in the natural sciences i.e. innovators and job creators).
Nonetheless, pointing out the demographic decline of all of these countries does not serve your perpetual Cold War, anti-Russia fanatic agenda for which you’re really just a pawn for globalists who want to destroy both Russian AND American sovereignty in perpetual warfare. That’s the point I keep hammering home to SWP, his Jacksonianism is only useful when it comes to advocating for American troops in 120 countries. It is not welcomed if it’s about defending Gibson Guitar, American manufacturing, national sovereignty, or actually auditing or shutting down the Federal Reserve.
At least SWP has been smart enough to avoid this debate.
Comment by Mr. X — September 23, 2011 @ 2:43 pm
Comment by Mr. X — September 23, 2011 @ 2:43 pm
@peter,
Both the Medium projection in the main post, and my Low and Medium projections in response to nobody, are fairly accurate to this point.
What can’t be denied is that the Low projection in the main post, which basically reproduces the results of “pessimistic” projections elsewhere (i.e. with population falling to 120 million in 2050), is even already looking wrong as the birth rate is higher, the death rate is lower, and immigration is far higher than what it assumed.
Which of the projections between the Medium in the main post, and the Low and Medium projections in response to nobody, do I think will be more accurate? Obviously, when I wrote it, I thought that the one I bothered generating graphs for was the more accurate. In retrospect, the idea that the TFR will steadily rise to a peak of 2.0 by 2015 is now looking far more unlikely. (It seems to now be flat in the 1.5-1.6 region). On the other hand, mortality improvements in the past three years have been significantly faster than the rates of convergence I posited in all these scenarios. They are even higher than in the most optimistic High scenario in the main post! Net immigration, at slightly less than 300,000 per year, seems to be basically accurate (I projected a constant 300,000 for the main post Medium scenario, and all of nobody’s scenarios).
So overall, I think that the most accurate fertility projection was made by nobody (TFR to remain in the 1.5-1.75 range) was more accurate than mine, and that I was basically right on immigration, and actually too pessimistic on the rate of mortality improvements. On that note, it will probably a good idea to run the models again, 3 years later, now that we know more on how the trends are playing out in real time. Unfortunately I don’t have Matlab on my current computer so this post will have to wait for a bit.
And while we’re at it, another yes or no question. Do you still stand by your prediction that the “natural population increase will occur starting from 2013 at the latest”?
In retrospect, with the experience of my 2010 population growth prediction in mind (when the population fell, as opposed to 2009 and – almost certainly – 2011), I decided giving predictions for specific years is a bad idea. So no, I don’t. I give it perhaps a 50% chance. Unforeseen events can screw it up, e.g. a repetition of the 2010 heatwave that artificially raises mortality. Regardless, and you can quote me on that, there will be a few years in the 2011-late 2010’s period when natural decrease is less than -0.1% a year. You can also quote me on a prediction that there will be few if any years in the next decade during which Russia will experience negative overall population growth.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 23, 2011 @ 6:28 pm
You’re again doing an Averko. Why can’t you answer a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no? Once again, is this or is this not the “my own Medium projection” that you described above as “amazingly accurate. Nearly bulls-eye so”?
A blonde is asked: what are the chances to meet a dinosaur on the street? She replies: fifty-fifty, I either will or won’t.
Comment by peter — September 24, 2011 @ 4:28 am
SUBLIME PSYCHOPATH:
You were very, very wrong about Putin, and your actions helped him (to however insignificant an extent) become president for life.
http://twitter.com/#!/larussophobe/status/117573079647002624
Please apologize.
Comment by La Russophobe — September 24, 2011 @ 6:28 am
“A blonde is asked: what are the chances to meet a dinosaur on the street? She replies: fifty-fifty, I either will or won’t.”
LOL! Awesome.
Comment by La Russophobe — September 24, 2011 @ 7:31 am
@Hey, Peter–*I’m* blonde, so be careful. But I guess I should just remember what Bart Simpson said: “Blond boys aren’t dumb, they’re evil, like in Karate Kid or World II.”
Once again, is this or is this not the “my own Medium projection” that you described above as “amazingly accurate. Nearly bulls-eye so”?
So far, it’s accurate. Indeed, nearly bulls-eye so, in comparison with most of the others out there (which don’t have the population flattening out in 2008-2011).
Please apologize.
If you recall, I gave my prediction as a range of probabilities. There is nothing to apologize for, in fact doing so would be bizarre as I’m a Putinista and very much happy about the decision.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 24, 2011 @ 11:31 am
Hey Crazy Ekaterina, please apologize for all your libelous Google bombs that you and that freakin’ Orwellian creep Erik Schmidt want to keep at the top of various people’s search results — FOREVER.
Comment by Mr. X — September 24, 2011 @ 5:46 pm
LA RUSSOPHOBE: Kevin Rothrock of “A Good Treaty” says Putin won’t return to the presidency in 2012, Medvedev will be reelected. Do you agree?
ANATOLY KARLIN: Yes, I do. If I had to bet on it, I’d give the following odds: Medvedev – 70%, Putin – 25%, Other – 5%.
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/interview-anatoly-karlin/
Anatoly is no better at demographics than he is at politics.
Comment by La Russophobe — September 24, 2011 @ 6:25 pm
That’s not nearly far enough to draw any conclusions. On the other hand, the mere fact that your “Medium projection” is a lot higher than Rosstat’s “High” exposes you yet again as a hopeless amateur in anything involving numbers.
Comment by peter — September 25, 2011 @ 5:35 am
And I would note that Rosstat’s own projections have been increasing year by year, as reality outpaced even their former High scenarios.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 25, 2011 @ 8:39 pm
Incorrect
Comment by peter — September 26, 2011 @ 1:46 am
Correct.
По предварительным итогам переписи, оглашённым в марте 2011, население России составило 142 905 200 человек.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 26, 2011 @ 12:37 pm
You cannot be serious.
Comment by peter — September 26, 2011 @ 1:51 pm
Censuses are more precise than projections made on the basis of previous censuses (which is what interim estimates of population essentially are).
As of this time, 142,905,200 is simply the best figure we have on Russia’s population.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 26, 2011 @ 5:38 pm
And your point being?
Comment by peter — September 26, 2011 @ 6:29 pm
My point being булщит детектед.
My point being that 142,9mn (prob. 143,0mn in 2011) > 142,7mn as per the High projection for 2011.
My point being that you can throw around wise-ass comments about “false precision” all you want, but the Census results will remain the most reliable estimates we have.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 26, 2011 @ 7:08 pm
No, they are equal within reasonable margin. Considering that the latter figure is a forecast from a decade (!) ago, it’s pretty much a bull’s-eye. You’re clutching at straws.
Comment by peter — September 27, 2011 @ 3:06 am