Talk:Anders Åslund

Russian shock therapy
This is the article on Anders Åslund not Russia's shock therapy. Mentioning he supported Russia's shock therapy is fine, but excessive commentary of that shock therapy is unneeded unless it's relating to something Anders did. Most of this belongs in an article on said shock therapy or perhaps the economy or Russia and the reader should be directed there. In particularly, I doubt that there is universal agreement the shock therapy has been discredited. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The man's almost single-handedly responsible for the death of ten million Russians. Where do you think it's appropriate?


 * Removal of reputable journal articles needs to stop. Troopedagain (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and I when I checked I noticed that All three of the articles in dispute are online transcripts of Journals.Freepsbane (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence that ETC is a reputable source? Troopedagain (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem if you want to enter some criticism of Aslund into this article, but please get better sources first. It would help your cause. Troopedagain (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ETC is a Swedish leftwing newspaper. They may be "reputable", but are typically wrong. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

One could say the same thing about our News Corp (Fox) and the classically liberal New York times (Particularly as other groups such as Wired have noted that both lag behind the Daily show in accuracy) yet we use them regularly. As I have said per WP:SELFPUB Åslund’s self published articles cannot be used as the primary source for the article anymore than other controversial figures such as Oliver North’s books could be utilized. Freepsbane (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a self-published article, it was published in the highly respectable Foreign Affairs. Now your ETC article which doesn't even mention "architect" is published on some website of some unknown freelance journalist. A world of difference! Troopedagain (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oliver North may be a Fox contributor and have his books published by prominent groups but you still don't see self references as primary sources in his article. As for ETC The English translation may have been posted in a website, but by what I’ve read in international politics it is the Swedish equivalent of the New York Times while (particularly in the last few years) Åslund’s ideas are unpopular with the domestic public. Furthermore as a introduction mentions a individual’s best known contributions I find it pertinent to note that a Search with Google scholar ‘s Åslund entries deal with Shock therapy and it’s aftermath. A subjective term such as Russian affair expert (a term most Russians will take exception to) is unnecessary when most college Macroeconomics textbooks mention his role in executing Shock therapy. Freepsbane (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And yes even Neutral and Sympathetic sources note that Anders along with Jeffrey Sachs were the key figures in Russian Shock therapy. Freepsbane (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That does not make him an "architect" though, which has specific connotations. Can you ask for a 2nd opinion on the Foreign Affairs article? Troopedagain (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you use this http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602(199703)102%3A5%3C1430%3ATSDIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9 article instead in order to insert some constructive (albeit socialist) criticism of Aslund? Troopedagain (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can use other sources including Anders; I only meant that Åslund’s publications could not be a stand alone, or the primary view point. If you want to work on updating the introduction then let’s try posting it here. Terms like architect can be avoided, of course it still must be noted that he was one of the key planners in Russia’s shock therapy. Freepsbane (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources does not support that he was an "architect" behind it, just that he supported what was done. I deleted the architect claim. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, an Aslund article without mentioning viewpoints of Aslund would be dull and short. This is not the article about Russian privatization, it's about Aslund, and what Aslund has done that is notable, and that includes his writing in Foreign Affairs where he claims that the Russian government was not fully going through on shock doctrine. Troopedagain (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the lead, it seems only fair that if Aslund cannot share his views there, so can't his critics. Troopedagain (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why Aslund’s explanation on why Russian Shock Therapy fizzled can’t be posted, although they should not be the only view expressed or the primary. Let’s post any significant changes on talk. Freepsbane (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of other people who agree with him. See this article Note that shock therapy was successfully implemented in many former East Bloc countries. Troopedagain (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was more of referring to the global trend away from neoliberal governments (India’INC, Latin America sans Mexico, Columbia & Salvador). And yes while Eastern European nations had Shock therapy implemented successfully (at least relative to Russia) the success was fairly limited; Inflation, unemployment, and economic stagnation are endemic throughout the former Warsaw pact . By contrast emerging superpowers such as PT run Brazil were just two decades ago inferior to Poland in economic production. But I digress, my comments of course are for the talk page only. If you have any edits go-ahead and post them here. Freepsbane (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

removed section
''On September 3, 2008, Åslund published an article in The Moscow Times, under the heading “10 Reasons Why the Economy Will Falter” concluding “Russia is set for a sudden fall in its economic growth… A sudden, zero growth would not be surprising…” This stood in stark contrast with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s view that the Russian economy is a "haven" for foreign capital and "we will do everything to support that process." The International Monetary Fund projected in its October 2008 World Economic Outlook that Russia’s GDP would grow by 5.5 percent. In fact, Russia’s GDP plummeted in 2009.''
 * This is WP:SYNTH, and quite misleading since there was hardly a country that didn't see its GDP "plummet" in 2009. Take for example the EU27 countries, real GDP dropped in 26 of them (see this graph). And the Russian economy recovered: in 2009, Russian GDP per capita was 8,615 USD, in 2011 it was 13,284 USD. Ssscienccce  (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is fine, I think, it's tacking on the second sentence that makes it WP:SYNTH. But then, without the second sentence, there isn't much point in including the first one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anders Åslund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.riksdagen
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211104224/http://www.project-syndicate.org:80/contributor/4 to http://www.project-syndicate.org/contributor/4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anders Åslund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006092821/http://www.case-research.eu/en/node/51816 to http://www.case-research.eu/en/node/51816

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The IPA
Hello. The transcriptions are incomplete. Do you know the tones of the pronunciation? See Help:IPA/Swedish. LoveVanPersie (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)