I am out. I have been gone for many years and just keep watching it from a distance. I am not touching that country with a 10 foot pole. I don't want to go near it. I recently payed a higher price for a plane ticket just not to have to connect through Moscow.
Capitalist economy + corrupt judicial system + corrupt government officials at all level = hell for businesses.
You cannot do anything unless you bribe or do something illegal. Then if you become successful, both the mafia and the corrupt govt officials come after you. The police threaten to press charges, the mafia offer protection from the charges. You are fucked either way.
Chill out comrade. The country you left and despise so much doesn't exist anymore and I've learned to treat these sentiments as a mental reinforcement for your decades-long decision to leave.
The country I left and frequently keep visiting is great: I love the people, the food and the culture. I love what I hear from young graduates, I like seeing people smile more and new businesses pop up everywhere. I like doing business there myself. And by the way we are growing. The quality of tech. talent is impeccable, easily on par with US schools and the latest waves of graduates have good English as well.
Not everything is rosy yet, but the risks are manageable, especially when you "zoom out" and face the entire spectrum of possibilities of why your business may fail. Lack of customer interest/traction is orders of magnitude scarier problem that issues with authorities.
Be my guest and stay out, it only makes me easier to compete because I'm in.
> I love the people, the food and the culture. I love what I hear from young graduates, I like seeing people smile more and new businesses pop up everywhere.
I am sure I would love the people and the food. However the culture and the business environment is rotten.
> ...but the risks are manageable, especially when you "zoom out" and face the entire spectrum of possibilities of why your business may fail.
When my business fails there I want it to be because I screwed up in my execution, marketing, finance, but not because I didn't bribe the right official enough. If that is the risk, then screw it, I don't want to deal with it there. I am not that kind of a person.
And culture. Well, folklore and such, is great. If by culture you mean a culture of alcoholism, bribery and corruption -- then I don't want anything to do with it.
> Be my guest and stay out, it only makes me easier to compete because I'm in.
Not really. I live a hundred meters away from the future Skolkovo site and if they decide they want my land, it will not be manageable for me, even though they have no rights for it.
You're right though that not everything is so bad. But I don't see it getting better at macro-scale. If anything, the economic growth of the last X years was despite, not because of government actions.
Give me a break! If the US government decides to take your property through Eminent Domain you will be properly compensated and you can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court without fear of being thrown in jail.
The US may be gentler, but I take issue with "properly compensated".
My grandfather owned a grocery store on the path of a new highway in Texas. The government bought every house in the neighborhood first, depriving him of customers, then made him an extremely low offer based on his now extremely-reduced revenues. Better than arson or threats, but not exactly nice or fair.
Offers of compensation are small comfort to people that are being forced out of a home they care about, especially when they have no choice, recourse, or influence in the matter.
Perhaps you should give me a break with you screaming about jails. My wife's parents lived in an older house in historic district of downtown Kazan. When the government "took their property" to rebuild the area they compensated them by a much nicer and bigger apartment in a great neighborhood. I am just pointing out this is not uncommon to relocate folks for the common good in many countries.
Presumably you're expecting to be mistreated automatically just because you're in Russia and this happens to you. I don't believe there are any grounds for that assumption. Granted, chances of that happening in Russia are higher but as I mentioned earlier, on the grand scheme of things I (and most entrepreneurs I know) find those risks to be insignificant.
Although a special eminent domain for Skolkovo-like projects is most likely to be passed this autumn, it is not really required. And you will be compensated for land only, not for buildings. And how fair do you think the applied "fair market rate" will be?
Russia is a seriously sick. Think cancer and viruses flooded whole organism. There is almost no healthy cells. Although whole system tries to act_as_gov, there is already no gov as such. No such country as Russia. No laws, no justice, no safety, nothing.
Every Russian feels perfectly ok to pay road police officer money when speeding. Policeman bought that job for like $10k and have to pay to his chief. Just one example but shows how deeply it is.
Its kinda stupid to deny such problems although that something that government puts most of its efforts to. Still Russia is a promising market for you(think no taxes, lots of customers with dirty money..) if you are willing to play that rules. I am out. Pretty much snow Nigeria.
You know, my Russian friends are learning history of their own country from history books written in Poland. Even with recurring anti-russian bias in these books there are actually different points of view and you can build a picture of events by reading different authors, there's some diversity. Contrary to the official historical doctrine taught in Russia which has only one point of view, totally made up and a ridiculous bullshit.
As a Russian I'm, of course, concerned about it. Almost every intelligent young person under 30s here believes that the system is really broken. However we don't see any changes and I've been puzzled why.
Theoretically, even the most egoistic government who's only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve it's welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine. Russians are not desperate yet, so maybe the government has found the right balance. Obviously, many are involved in the scheme and many people have things to lose if the government initiates a real war on corruption. So the government must be afraid too and that fear is greater. However, I don't think you can keep that balance forever. Like the article suggests, the brightest flee the country and someone has to make the economy going.
I realize I probably don't know many things guys up there are aware of, but it seems pretty obvious from down here that the only thing that should be done to help the country bloom is to eliminate corruption. For real. Then all those silicon valleys and scientists start reappearing on their own, healthcare starts recovering, investors begin coming back. Focus.
Theoretically, even the most egoistic government who's only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve it's welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine.
This is true if the government is secure in its power. If the rulership--or factions within the rulership--are worried about losing their privileges, they may just grab what they can when they can.
That's a popular point here. Many think they're just grabbing as much as they can while they can. I don't know. Maybe it's true, but it seems to me it would be quite a task to run and hide later. It may be easier to stay and secure the environment (by eliminating corruption and making it safe). Maybe I'm wrong.
Not to stereotype, but I have noticed all my friends who have a live-fast, die-hard sort of attitude- the type that is appropriate when you're not entirely sure if you'll see tomorrow- were born in Russia.
So, I would hazard a guess the folks you speak of are simply not conditioned to be thinking about 'later'.
That is probably one of the most correct stereotypes about Russians. For example almost no one ever saves money here. Nor in the banks, neither under the pillow.
An interesting comparison I'm not really qualified to make is between the relatively secure (?) and cohesive (!) chinese communist party elite and the chaotic free for all (?) in russia. The countries elites both help themselves to quite a bit of wealth but the russians seem to experience an unsolved tragedy of the commons issue. If this is true, will united russia (or whatever it's called) solve the problem of maximising returns from their control of the country (it did take the PRC communist party a few decades)? How could they?
I read an economics paper on this once, but I forgot its title. Couldn't have been a very advanced paper because it was undergraduate economics. The thesis was basically exactly what you just said.
Theoretically, even the most egoistical government whose only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve its welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine.
Sadly, this theory has eluded Russian and Soviet governments for many decades.
However we don't see any changes and I've been puzzled why.
I think, fundamentally, the transition to a society ruled by law is a very long and difficult one. It was long and difficult in the countries where the modern form of the notion originated. It's probably going to be longer and harder elsewhere.
No time to go into depth, and probably won't do it justice, but a good summary would be "Institutions matter". Like it or not, the kind of negative entropy found in the west isn't easy to come by, and trying to build it from nothing most times will fail in strange ways.
"Theoretically, even the most egoistic government who's only purpose is to get more for themselves must realize that in order to preserve it's welfare it must make sure the citizens are doing fine."
The trouble is an egoistical government rarely possesses the ability to draw a line and stop interfering(rules and regulations) and collecting money(taxes,bribes) so that people can have enough to do fine. The people who run it are blinded by greed and always want a little bit more. Also, while the people at the top might realize that corruption should not exceed beyond a point, it is hard to enforce as your lowly clerk/officer does not possess the ability to see the bit picture. All he/she knows is everyone is corrupt(it is institutionalized) and tries to take the biggest pie he/she can.
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.
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?
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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=)
> 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.
Do you know that career opportunities in Moscow, despite being less great than in 2005, are dramatically brighter than anywhere in Europe (can't tell for the US)?
I left Moscow for Vienna 4 years ago. In Moscow some of my former classmates (in their late 20s) are managing departments in Big Four companies; in Vienna people spend 20 years working at the same desk.
When oil prices are high, the opportunities are booming. Young middle-class career-builders sure consider Russia as a temporary location ("I'll leave as soon as I'll be able to") and their children will attend Western universities and will stay some other place forever, but certainly idea about overthrowing this government is a last thought in their heads now.
I left the country right when it fell apart so I'm not exactly an expert on the current events, but from what I see doesn't seem like 20 years have made any difference.
I think you can trace this whole mess to Brezhnev's Zastoy(Stagnation) period of Soviet history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brezhnev_stagnation). The upper echelons of government achieved a comfortable and stable enough level of life and pretty much froze the rest of society in time, in order to support their lifestyle. They cracked down on any dissension or change from the status quo which by definition means that they cracked down on the most entrepreneurial and dynamic members of society. They jailed the makers and made the thieves rulers.
And unfortunately you can keep this charade going for a while; in the 70's-80's you can steal technology from the West; in the 90's you can sell minerals and in the 2000s you can wait for your people to invent something and then steal it from them. When the Soviet Union fell down there was a glimmer of hope but it was silly to think anything would change. You have now 2-3 generations of people at the highest levels of power who grew up with this mentality and it's not going to change any time soon.
It's sad, I remember watching a talk show on a Russian satellite station where the discussion was whether Russia needed an "innovation economy" or whether pumping and mining is perfectly fine. An obviously liberal member of the panel was pleading and cajoling with the others that oil and timber don't last forever and they only enrich a few people. The other side, a representative of a mining concern, had an awesome reply: "They'll last long enough for me"
I wanted to write a lengthy comment about the problems in Russia, but it was going to be so long that I'll just list the key points, they're pretty much self-explaining:
Corruption, weak law enforcement, very strict laws, everyone is guilty, selective enforcement, no rule of law, government has a backdoor to every process, government can block or initiate any action (think business operations, bankruptcy, legal actions), courts not independent of course, weak property rights, insanely complex and outdated legislation, people adapted to this system, some actually prefer it because they can buy their way out of troubles.
I hope I will be able to immigrate out of here in 2011. It's not my job to estimate my brightness though.
You'll be taxed internationally as a US citizen/PR for an income over a typical worker even if you don't live there anymore, so do beware. The USA is pretty much the only significant country does that.
This is trotted out all the time and the number of people it actually affects is miniscule.
* You are taxed on any income over $85,000.
* You can deduct any taxes you pay to the host government from your Federal Income tax.
The first and second apply to me and every year my US tax bill is 0.
Now, if I was making FU money it might be different, but most Americans working abroad never worry about this situation. Except if your Geitner, who just forgot.
>This is trotted out all the time and the number of people it actually affects is miniscule.
I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation. It's "miniscule" compared to the number of Americans living outside the country. Mainly because the majority of Americans living outside the country are in the military and not affected. There are various places in at least Europe where $85k is extremely easy to hit.
Further, it's not just the fact that you'll have to file this stupid tax form every year for the rest of your life. There is a new law that if you have more than $10k at any moment in time throughout the year you have to report the bank accounts that held the money. That's right. Even though you live and work in some other country, the US expects you to tell them your bank account information. Failure to comply results in a pretty hefty fine. Needless to say, even if you're willing to do this, you bank may not be. The end result is that it's damn inconvenient to be an expat. And it gets worse every few years.
Oh and did I mention that inheritance taxes still apply to you (when you die or when you inherit)?
Yes, I'm one of those Americans that has hit 85k repeatedly. But taxes in Europe is higher than they are in the US, 35% to 25% avg.
The last important line item is deduct the taxes you paid locally from your estimated US tax contribution. If you come out negative you owe the IRS 0. If you live anywhere in Europe 90% of the time you will hit 0.
>It's "miniscule" compared to the number of Americans living outside the country. Mainly because the majority of Americans living outside the country are in the military and not affected.
To me, the military doesn't count because 1) bases are treated as US territory they aren't taxed locally 2) Most military is tax exempt for duty and hazard pay. I'm referring to the 100,000 Americans in London and 50,000 in Paris. There are no US military presence in either of those cities and the US embassies can't hire them all.
>There is a new law that if you have more than $10k at any moment in time throughout the year you have to report the bank accounts that held the money.
This only applies to citizens living in tax shelters (ie Switzerland, Luxembourg, etc.) and if you are putting your money their and not honestly reporting it I have no sympathy at all when you get audited.
>Oh and did I mention that inheritance taxes still apply to you (when you die or when you inherit)?
Can't forget inheritance tax. Ole Dubya had to repeal it even though it only applied to his billionaires club.
>But taxes in Europe is higher than they are in the US, 35% to 25% avg.
In "Europe"? You mean parts of Europe or even most of Europe. In Switzerland, Lichtenstein, etc., it's lower.
>This only applies to citizens living in tax shelters (ie Switzerland, Luxembourg, etc.)
Uh... why do you think that is, eh? Think about that for a minute.
>and if you are putting your money their and not honestly reporting it I have no sympathy at all when you get audited.
Oh yea? If I live and work there and happen to put my money where I live and work you have no sympathy for me not wanting the US to bother me about it? Why does the US need to know? Why is it there business? I don't use their resources. No other first world country does anything like this and there is no excuse.
I'm sure there are a lot of shit stupid things certain people in America will say. But there is so little evidence for this point of view that it's breathtaking to even hear it uttered.
India is known to be a very corrupt country too, but in my personal experience and the experience of others I know well, the on-the-ground-reality can be quite good. India is a vast country, so all generalizations are very likely to be both right and wrong and many many times of each, but where we sit in India (Chennai in the deep south - but this applies to Bangalore as well), India is a good place to do business. The main thing to accept about India is the general atmosphere of chaos, the feeling that everything-is-breaking-down-but-somehow-running, but if you can mentally look past that, there are huge opportunities.
The reason I say all this about India is that a western journalist could write a similar story about India or China, yet there exist many versions of reality in which the story would be wrong.
Both India and China export a lot of people too. But normally you would not describe that as "fleeing corruption" but more of "seeking economic opportunity." Is Russia any different from that perspective? I don't know the answer, I am just asking the question.
From what I understood in India corruption is kind of societal. Government officials take a sort of 'cut' for doing things (this can be seen in France, however from what I understand in France it gets things done now rather than getting it done whenever), otherwise you're screwed.
From what I got in Russia the cut is an all level corruption, often with organized crime involved taking their own cuts.
Ex: Say in India you have to pay a bribe for a business license, in Russia you'd have to pay a bribe for a business license and then you have to pay for protection from the mob, then you likely have to pay protection from the crooked cops.
At least, this is how it's always been represented to me.
There is no doubt that France is overly bureaucratic — but having lived there for almost 25 years, I've only heard about a handful of corruption cases.
The corruption I've seen isn't actual corruption as it isn't inhibiting the proper processes, however a lot of the government officials seem to be prone to 'doing favors' in receipt of something. I've seen this in the UK and Canada, but France seems to be more accepting of it.
That's because in India at least, the corruption is mostly the "drag on business and the economy" sort, not the "life threatening" sort found in Russia.
The more successful regions in today's world seem to be the ones that are more united than other regions. Chinese civilization is united, apart from Taiwan, Singapore, and the overseas Chinese. The Indian subcontinent is (approx) 75% united into the nation of India, the rest splintered between Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc. Europe is more divided, but because there were 4 approx equal countries (60 million people in each of West Germany, France, UK, & Italy), they federated easily. North America is mainly the US, easily controlling Canada (and Australia/NZ). South America is 50% Brazil, so they can successfully electioneer in the "South American Union". The Muslim world is more divided, with a few equally sized players (Egypt, Turkey, Saudi, & Iran) who won't ever federate because of religion and foreign interference. And sub-Saharan Africa is the most divided of all. Unity and modern success seem to be correlated, though of course not necessarily one causing the other.
Chichvarkin was able to build his "multi-billion dollar empire" with clean hands, and then all of a sudden the corrupted government noticed his success and cracked down on him.
I am sorry, I find this very hard to believe. A more plausible explanation is that "Russia's best and brightest" simply stepped on the toes of the very same corrupted officials that helped him with his rise.
This is not to say that best and brightest, those who are considering starting a business, are not leaving the country because of the corruption. It's just that Chichvarkin is not a good example to illustrate the point.
That is true. The "anti" corruption police branch is the center of corruption. Everyone who gets anything done business wise has to bribe someone, steal something or defraud somebody.
If they become successful they'll get the knock on their door from the "anti-corruption" officials who tells them charges will be pressed since they used "unclean" methods in the past. Unless, of course, you offer to pay even more bribes to bribe the anti-bribery police....
And yes, it is a chicken and egg problem. Even on the cultural level. Starting from the hospital when the baby is born, up through kindergarten, high-school, university and so on there are expected bribes to be payed. So people already grow up with this constant culture of corruption in mind. It is like a latent infection, always there in the background.
Article is spot on about the corruption - if anything, the tone is too mild - but overall I can't say the situation for businesses has become worse since the 90s. Police methods have simply displaced blatantly criminal methods from the ecological niche :-) Yes, today businesses get taken over by corrupt police and courts. In the 90s it was done by kidnappings, soldering irons and automatic gunfire in the centre of Moscow. And also corrupt police and courts.
Disclaimer: I'm a Russian living in Moscow. Wouldn't dream of starting a business here. Life as a programmer is pretty nice, though.
I thought it was absurd that Medvedev was here several weeks ago exploring how get more innovative companies growing in Moscow. Maybe not terrorizing them might be a good first step.
There are good reasons Sergei Brin called it Nigeria with snow.
It's not an issue of Putin's control. It's an matter of people's mind.
I'd like to point out two issues.
1. Too many people here want a tough and strong leader with nearly absolute political power. Few days ago I ran into my childhood friend. And he told me, by the way, 'You know buddy I'd like to see a Tsar as a leader'. I was deeply depressed. I think it's a heritage of the Soviet where people could sidestep responsibility of their own life.
2. Most people do not like entrepreneurs. So you are entrepreneur. Then you're fraud and rouge by definition (in the eyes of common people). That's why Chichvarkin did not gain public backing. And it's a sad and shameful thing.
I think things will change someday. But it will take neither one nor three years but half a score.
The situation is more complex. All bad stories mentioned in the article are described pretty accurately. On the other hand, there are big businesses that feel OK to be in Russia.
The trick is to be in coalition with government/law enforcement. Unlike US you can not operate keeping full independence.
It is interesting to see this article today as the South African president has just used Russia as an example, to defend his attitude to the media (more about that below). As a South African, reading stories like this is frightening, since we seem to be embracing a trajectory that could lead us the same way.
While corruption is pretty high, it doesn't impact most people's day-to-day lives. However, serious institutional problems are becoming apparent: there have been cases where company directors have been removed by politically connected individuals, due to corruption at the government agency that registers companies. Significant amounts of real estate have been stolen due to corruption at the deeds office. And mineral rights are being seized because of weak controls at the government department that regulates these rights. In one case last week, a listed steelmaker was forced to buy mineral rights from a group of politically connected at a huge premium. All of these have been widely reported in the media, but that is where the problems start.
South Africa's media and constitution generally allow for free expression, but, a few weeks ago a newspaper was launched with an explicitly pro-ruling party stance (by some of the same people who benefitted from the steel shakedown described above). At the same time, proposals were released for a statuatory tribunal to regulate the print media (South Africa already has libel laws, so this has been interpreted as an opportunity to muzzle the press). The government is also pushing an act that would allow government officials broad powers to classify information. And a journalist was dramatically jailed (on what seem to be trumped up charges) by an elite police unit, days after reporting on a huge, and apparently irregular lease made by the Police Commissioner, again with a politically connected individual.
Will South Africa lose whatever gains it has made and follow the path of Russia? I hope not, but I am becoming increasingly pessimistic.
A lot of big companies are learning the hard way that doing business in Russia is riskier than they thought, when the other party has the legal system on their side. One example that made it to national politics, and AFAIK ended up being settled by basically giving in to the demands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Group#Dispute_with_Telenor
Russia as of today isn't good or bad. For some people, what's happening is inappropriate, others accept it. For everyone here, I guess, Russia seems a nightmare but there are quite a few Russians, many of them, actually, who genuinely support Putin and Medvedev and have no desire of leaving. It's a different mindset, different way of life.
As for me, I left for London when I was 23, 4 years ago, never visited Russia ever since and have no intention of going back. Many (most, almost all?) of my friends who exiled feel the same.
Capitalist economy + corrupt judicial system + corrupt government officials at all level = hell for businesses.
You cannot do anything unless you bribe or do something illegal. Then if you become successful, both the mafia and the corrupt govt officials come after you. The police threaten to press charges, the mafia offer protection from the charges. You are fucked either way.