This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Privatization in Croatia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is ideologically biased. It violates wikipedia NPOV standards by asserting disputable claims as if they were facts. Also, for many claims the article does not reference any sources.
1. For example, regarding privatization the article states: "this was far from transparent and fully legal".
However, if we put aside some indisputable minor irregularities, how many people have been validly convicted for supposed privatization crimes? Without relevant data and references, assertions like this one remain a mere opinion, not a proven fact. On the contraty, it seems completely plausible that the privatization was generally carried out lawfully (apart of already mentioned minor irregularities). It is another question whether these laws were "just", I grant that here the diversity of opinions is possible, but that's completely different discussion.
2. The article states: "The fact that the new government's legal system was inneficient and slow, as well as the wider context of the Yugoslav wars caused numerous incidents known collectively in Croatia as the "Privatization robbery" (privatizacijska pljačka)."
The term "numerous incidents" is imprecise. Many of those so-called "incidents" were artificially created and exaggerated by leftist media, but have never been proven as criminal. The term "robbery" is tendentious.
3. The article states: "This proved very lucrative for the new owners, but in the vast majority of cases this (along with the separation from the previously secured Yugoslav markets) also caused the bankruptcy of the (previously successful) firm, causing the unemployment of thousands of citizens, a problem Croatia still struggles with to this day."
Fist, socialist firms were generally not successful (especialy not on the free market) and each of them had a lot of its own problems even before the war. Second, it is not enough merely to claim that they bakrupted simply due to the privatization. It remains to be seen what was the main reason for their bankrupcy and subsequent mass unemployment, a lot of factors have to be taken into account: socialist heritage of unsuccesful mastodont and birocratized companies, direct and indirect war damages, loss of ex-yugoslav market, etc. Moreover, the complete economy of the nation was under heavy pressure due to the facts such as: mass of workers was mobilized in the army; the state had to take care of many hundreds of thousands of refugees (from Bosnia as well as from Croatia); complete absence of tourism-related incomes (which are major incomes for Croatia) during the war years as well as during the few subsequent years, etc. Now, we may disagree about the relative importance of all those factors for total condition of Croatian economy, but it is certainly not fair to simply impute all evils to privatization, without even considering other factors. Serious assessment has to take them all into account and try to estimate their relative importance, but it seems that this haven't been done yet. It is easier to parrot leftist demagogy and propaganda.
4. The article states: "It is also beyond doubt that not few shadowy figures who moved close to Tuđman, the centre of power in Croatian society, profited from this enormously, having amassed wealth with suspicious celerity."
Well, if it is really "beyond doubt", than it shouldn't be a problem to prove it. To me, this phrase resembles the oft repeated but never proved (or even argumented) thesis about "200 richest families" supposedly favored by Tuđman. Leftists based a lot of their rhetorics in the end of 1990-s on those mythical 200 richest families, and even promissed to make public their names, but have never done so.
5. The article states: "the majority of Croats are of the opinion that Tuđman could and should have prevented at least a part of these malfeasances because nothing similar has happened to Slovenia with who Croatia has been inside Yugoslavia."
While it is probably true that "the majoritiy of Croats are of the opinion", this is nevertheless a clear example of the "argumentum ad populum". Also, the opinion of this "majority of Croats" is clearly influenced by dominant leftist media. Where is the proof that the "majority opinion" is right?
Etc, etc...
PinkPantherZG ( talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed the article does need work, but your approach to the matter appears to be biased as well. You do not attempt to improve the article by finding sources about the privatization controversy, you try to diminish its existence. There indeed was a privatization controversy, with names such as Kutle or Pašalić immediately springing to mind, and it resulted in the unemployment of just under 400,000 people. WEe should not be trying to diminish its impact on Croatian society. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed since 2012 that this article is merged into the Economy of Croatia one. Like user Johnny029 wrote, this has nothing to do with facts. 90% of the article is pure unsourced POV, so the few sourced claims that have sense should just be put into the main article about the economy, and this one removed. Tzowu ( talk) 23:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Attempts to vilify opinion that are contrary to the taste of Croatian oligarchy are pathetic. There are plenty of evidences in illegal, criminal and immoral acts against Croatian legal framework, Croatian economy and the fabric of Croatian society. AFter all, 8 very senior officials of Croatian Privatization Fund were investigated and arrested, latter sentenced, but only under the pressure of EU. (Source - Encyclopedia Britannica) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.158.38 ( talk) 10:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Another example of illegal nature of the Croatian privatization process could be found in the law that governed the process. Article 8 of the Law stated: "The enterprise in the process of transformation cannot credit the purchase of the shares nor be a guarantee of the loans ..." The fact that corrupt Croatian courts did not make any conviction based on the Art. 8 does not give any rights to claim to the contrary. It is very well known fact that so called "managerial loans" were guaranteed by the enterprises. As the loans turned bad, the banks were taking over the enterprises, but the Croatian prosecutors went silent. The bank that almost went bankrupt was PBZ, saved and restructured by the Government before being sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.158.38 ( talk) 11:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
What is now the problem? Are you stalking me maybe? The text was not about the privatization and was biased. Totally ignoring the 99% of the privatization. So I have restored the previous version. Now we can discuss what changes would you like in the article. feel free to present them here and we can discuss them and work on a consensus. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 17:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
hdz lead by tuđman and with his blessing started the process that will in the end devastate Croatia. Make a few persons, especially tuđman family, rich, and everyone else poor. He wanted to do in 5 years something that lasted for centuries in other countries. But you do not accept the arguments because probably you don't even live in Croatia, and you have been feed up with your parents and the church a stupid propaganda that the nationalists are good. While in facts nationalist destroyed Croatia and it is questionable if Croatia will exist in ten years or so. And that is all their fault. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 18:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to argue with you. Just can we make possible that the restored text, which I have sourced, and all your text can be included in the article. what do you say on that?-- Tuvixer ( talk) 18:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC) And all that theft and destroying during the privatization still affect the lives of people today in Croatia. We could be much better of if the privatization was not implemented by the tuđman and nationalists who profited during the privatization. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 18:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Everyone knows that he sad "200 families", and if you know anything about the process of state development after the absolute monarchies until today, you will know that Croatia lacked the rich families who pushed the western countries trough a stage in that development. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 19:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Why the table? Because the table shows the effects of the privatization. If you are against that OK, it doesn't have to be in the article. What about the rest of it, is it balanced enough now? If you are fine with this we can remove the dispute and cleanup tags. Tzowu ( talk) 21:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? Tozwu has agreed that there should be no table. Stop edit-waring.-- Tuvixer ( talk) 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Please stop ignoring the talk page, stop edit-warring and come here to discuss. Tozwu and I have agreed on some things, don't ignore the talk page. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Then stop following me and leave ma alone, ok? What is wrong with you, if you want changes then present them here, ok?? -- Tuvixer ( talk) 13:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who is doing that. You are a horrible person. I was just trying to edit some articles, and you have harassed me just because I am not a right-wing fanatic like yourself. I wonder how you can look yourself in the mirror. Please just leave me alone so I can edit and improve articles. Please, I beg you to leave me alone or you will leave me no other choice that to contact the authorities. I was just happy that I can edit Wikipedia and improve articles but you have made me regret that, you are a horrible person, please just leave me alone. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 15:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's talk normally. Dejan Košutić actually founded the Kaptol Bank himself, it wasn't a case of privatization so it doesn't really belong to this article. As for the table, the "Privatization revenues" numbers are from "The Impact of Privatization in Transition Economies, London School of Economics and Political Science", page 21, while the GDP growth is from the UN statistics. Deficit/surplus includes income from privatization. I found another table showing number of employed in private sector and those in state-owned enterprises from 1991-1994. I also have unemployment figures from 1994-2000 and inflation rates. I'll probably add those in the Economy of Croatia article. We can add all those figures or add just the most important ones, like GDP growth and private/public sector ratio or employment numbers. Tzowu ( talk) 15:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Privatization in Croatia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is ideologically biased. It violates wikipedia NPOV standards by asserting disputable claims as if they were facts. Also, for many claims the article does not reference any sources.
1. For example, regarding privatization the article states: "this was far from transparent and fully legal".
However, if we put aside some indisputable minor irregularities, how many people have been validly convicted for supposed privatization crimes? Without relevant data and references, assertions like this one remain a mere opinion, not a proven fact. On the contraty, it seems completely plausible that the privatization was generally carried out lawfully (apart of already mentioned minor irregularities). It is another question whether these laws were "just", I grant that here the diversity of opinions is possible, but that's completely different discussion.
2. The article states: "The fact that the new government's legal system was inneficient and slow, as well as the wider context of the Yugoslav wars caused numerous incidents known collectively in Croatia as the "Privatization robbery" (privatizacijska pljačka)."
The term "numerous incidents" is imprecise. Many of those so-called "incidents" were artificially created and exaggerated by leftist media, but have never been proven as criminal. The term "robbery" is tendentious.
3. The article states: "This proved very lucrative for the new owners, but in the vast majority of cases this (along with the separation from the previously secured Yugoslav markets) also caused the bankruptcy of the (previously successful) firm, causing the unemployment of thousands of citizens, a problem Croatia still struggles with to this day."
Fist, socialist firms were generally not successful (especialy not on the free market) and each of them had a lot of its own problems even before the war. Second, it is not enough merely to claim that they bakrupted simply due to the privatization. It remains to be seen what was the main reason for their bankrupcy and subsequent mass unemployment, a lot of factors have to be taken into account: socialist heritage of unsuccesful mastodont and birocratized companies, direct and indirect war damages, loss of ex-yugoslav market, etc. Moreover, the complete economy of the nation was under heavy pressure due to the facts such as: mass of workers was mobilized in the army; the state had to take care of many hundreds of thousands of refugees (from Bosnia as well as from Croatia); complete absence of tourism-related incomes (which are major incomes for Croatia) during the war years as well as during the few subsequent years, etc. Now, we may disagree about the relative importance of all those factors for total condition of Croatian economy, but it is certainly not fair to simply impute all evils to privatization, without even considering other factors. Serious assessment has to take them all into account and try to estimate their relative importance, but it seems that this haven't been done yet. It is easier to parrot leftist demagogy and propaganda.
4. The article states: "It is also beyond doubt that not few shadowy figures who moved close to Tuđman, the centre of power in Croatian society, profited from this enormously, having amassed wealth with suspicious celerity."
Well, if it is really "beyond doubt", than it shouldn't be a problem to prove it. To me, this phrase resembles the oft repeated but never proved (or even argumented) thesis about "200 richest families" supposedly favored by Tuđman. Leftists based a lot of their rhetorics in the end of 1990-s on those mythical 200 richest families, and even promissed to make public their names, but have never done so.
5. The article states: "the majority of Croats are of the opinion that Tuđman could and should have prevented at least a part of these malfeasances because nothing similar has happened to Slovenia with who Croatia has been inside Yugoslavia."
While it is probably true that "the majoritiy of Croats are of the opinion", this is nevertheless a clear example of the "argumentum ad populum". Also, the opinion of this "majority of Croats" is clearly influenced by dominant leftist media. Where is the proof that the "majority opinion" is right?
Etc, etc...
PinkPantherZG ( talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed the article does need work, but your approach to the matter appears to be biased as well. You do not attempt to improve the article by finding sources about the privatization controversy, you try to diminish its existence. There indeed was a privatization controversy, with names such as Kutle or Pašalić immediately springing to mind, and it resulted in the unemployment of just under 400,000 people. WEe should not be trying to diminish its impact on Croatian society. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed since 2012 that this article is merged into the Economy of Croatia one. Like user Johnny029 wrote, this has nothing to do with facts. 90% of the article is pure unsourced POV, so the few sourced claims that have sense should just be put into the main article about the economy, and this one removed. Tzowu ( talk) 23:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Attempts to vilify opinion that are contrary to the taste of Croatian oligarchy are pathetic. There are plenty of evidences in illegal, criminal and immoral acts against Croatian legal framework, Croatian economy and the fabric of Croatian society. AFter all, 8 very senior officials of Croatian Privatization Fund were investigated and arrested, latter sentenced, but only under the pressure of EU. (Source - Encyclopedia Britannica) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.158.38 ( talk) 10:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Another example of illegal nature of the Croatian privatization process could be found in the law that governed the process. Article 8 of the Law stated: "The enterprise in the process of transformation cannot credit the purchase of the shares nor be a guarantee of the loans ..." The fact that corrupt Croatian courts did not make any conviction based on the Art. 8 does not give any rights to claim to the contrary. It is very well known fact that so called "managerial loans" were guaranteed by the enterprises. As the loans turned bad, the banks were taking over the enterprises, but the Croatian prosecutors went silent. The bank that almost went bankrupt was PBZ, saved and restructured by the Government before being sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.158.38 ( talk) 11:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
What is now the problem? Are you stalking me maybe? The text was not about the privatization and was biased. Totally ignoring the 99% of the privatization. So I have restored the previous version. Now we can discuss what changes would you like in the article. feel free to present them here and we can discuss them and work on a consensus. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 17:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
hdz lead by tuđman and with his blessing started the process that will in the end devastate Croatia. Make a few persons, especially tuđman family, rich, and everyone else poor. He wanted to do in 5 years something that lasted for centuries in other countries. But you do not accept the arguments because probably you don't even live in Croatia, and you have been feed up with your parents and the church a stupid propaganda that the nationalists are good. While in facts nationalist destroyed Croatia and it is questionable if Croatia will exist in ten years or so. And that is all their fault. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 18:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to argue with you. Just can we make possible that the restored text, which I have sourced, and all your text can be included in the article. what do you say on that?-- Tuvixer ( talk) 18:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC) And all that theft and destroying during the privatization still affect the lives of people today in Croatia. We could be much better of if the privatization was not implemented by the tuđman and nationalists who profited during the privatization. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 18:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Everyone knows that he sad "200 families", and if you know anything about the process of state development after the absolute monarchies until today, you will know that Croatia lacked the rich families who pushed the western countries trough a stage in that development. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 19:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Why the table? Because the table shows the effects of the privatization. If you are against that OK, it doesn't have to be in the article. What about the rest of it, is it balanced enough now? If you are fine with this we can remove the dispute and cleanup tags. Tzowu ( talk) 21:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? Tozwu has agreed that there should be no table. Stop edit-waring.-- Tuvixer ( talk) 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Please stop ignoring the talk page, stop edit-warring and come here to discuss. Tozwu and I have agreed on some things, don't ignore the talk page. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Then stop following me and leave ma alone, ok? What is wrong with you, if you want changes then present them here, ok?? -- Tuvixer ( talk) 13:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who is doing that. You are a horrible person. I was just trying to edit some articles, and you have harassed me just because I am not a right-wing fanatic like yourself. I wonder how you can look yourself in the mirror. Please just leave me alone so I can edit and improve articles. Please, I beg you to leave me alone or you will leave me no other choice that to contact the authorities. I was just happy that I can edit Wikipedia and improve articles but you have made me regret that, you are a horrible person, please just leave me alone. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 15:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's talk normally. Dejan Košutić actually founded the Kaptol Bank himself, it wasn't a case of privatization so it doesn't really belong to this article. As for the table, the "Privatization revenues" numbers are from "The Impact of Privatization in Transition Economies, London School of Economics and Political Science", page 21, while the GDP growth is from the UN statistics. Deficit/surplus includes income from privatization. I found another table showing number of employed in private sector and those in state-owned enterprises from 1991-1994. I also have unemployment figures from 1994-2000 and inflation rates. I'll probably add those in the Economy of Croatia article. We can add all those figures or add just the most important ones, like GDP growth and private/public sector ratio or employment numbers. Tzowu ( talk) 15:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)