Andrey Illarionov Vs. Deadman

Egor Timurovich Gaidar (1956-2009) - will remain forever in the memory of the people not only thanks to the results of activity in government posts, but also to a prohibitive number of curses that do not correspond to the real scale of the personality of their addressee.

In this sense, critics are the most effective popularizers of the heroes they hate. The intensity of radiated hatred forms the opinion of Gaidar as a global reformer, while the only activity carried out by his government is price liberalization, which was not very successful and consistently conducted.

Reputation and track record of the majority of active opponents do not allow to expect other polemical methods, except for dirty scolding and station cliché. It's amazing that Andrei Illarionov got into this category.

Doubts about competence can not be a critic. It was Illarionov who in 1996 was the first to publicly predict the future default. The first Putin term, universally recognized as extremely successful from the point of economic development, Illarionov formed the economic course of the presidential team. Moreover, the true reasons that prompted a respected economist to linger with the late reformer and his supporters are all the more incomprehensible.

In a heap of texts there are really valuable comments lost in the flow of verbal debris and distortions. Who would doubt that the world-class financier Boris Fedorov was a more effective conductor of a tight budget policy than a conformist politician Gaidar? But can the emotional statements of Gaidar, Fedorov and Chernomyrdin be the subject of serious research about each other? If during their lifetime they did not find it necessary to publish such information, why did Illarionov decide to appoint himself as their executor? Much attention is paid to the analysis of the moral feelings of Alexander Shokhin, who were affected by Gaidar when the Government left. That's really whose opinion is not interesting to anyone. Professional conformist, perfectly feeling the mood of any boss, from Silaeva to Putin, does not hesitate to talk about Gaidar's insubordination. Given the devastating consequences of Shokhin's stay at the head of the government's economic block in 1994 (the collapse of budget discipline, the inflation explosion, the "black Tuesday"), Gaidar's principled principles, which did not initially value such a specialist, are rather respectful.

Here are some more statements worthy of the most odious critics of the "dashing 90s":

- there was no threat of famine in 1991, wheat was in bulk, although all Europe was fed;

- there was no threat of famine in 1991, Gaidar simply sent the entire budget to the aid of Cuba;

- the financial stabilization, which Boris Fedorov dreamed of, was not achieved solely through the fault of Gaidar, an embezzler of budgetary funds,

etc. etc.

It's amazing how much the author's efforts were wasted. But he could give a practical advice to the opposition about the strategy for the elections on March 4.