I guess there's a Russian word that translated to "freebie." Google translates "freebie" to "халява"/"khalyava." But what do Russians mean when they say "khalyava"? Ah! There's a Wikipedia entry for "Khalyava":
In Russian culture, khalyava / by khalyava (Russian: халява, на халяву) is an untranslatable concept, similar to the concepts of "freebie" and "getting something for nothing", however with a different semantic field.
Khalyava is a possibility to get something without particular effort. A distinction are [sic] that khalyava is something free one is not normally entitled to. It may be a result of luck. For comparison, if your friend gives you a ticket inviting you to go to the movies, it is not khalyava, if it is part of your normal relations, but if he gives you a ticket because his wife cannot go, then it is khalyava. Another possibility is that one gets something free in a way of dubious morality or legality, but not outright criminal.
The "something" you get is not necessarily something tangible; it may be a possibility to get something, e.g., to buy a rare book by a lucky occasion, i.e., "by khalyava".
A slightly different meaning for "khalyava" is an easy, low-effort job....
A person who is good at getting a khalyava is called khalyavnik or khalyavshchik, which may simply mean "a lucky man". However khalyava may come at the expense of others. In the first case it may be eating at restaurants at other's expense; in the second meaning this involves a skill to dump the hard part of the job on others. In this case "khalyavshchik" becomes pejorative and reasonably corresponds to "freeloader" or "free rider".
The link on "getting something for nothing" goes, to the Wikipedia article "No such thing as a free lunch." Excerpt:
The "free lunch" refers to the once-common tradition of saloons in the United States providing a "free" lunch to patrons who had purchased at least one drink. Many foods on offer were high in salt (e.g., ham, cheese, and salted crackers), so those who ate them ended up buying a lot of beer. Rudyard Kipling, writing in 1891, noted how he
...came upon a bar-room full of bad Salon pictures, in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts.
TANSTAAFL, on the other hand, indicates an acknowledgement that in reality a person or a society cannot get "something for nothing". Even if something appears to be free, there is always a cost to the person or to society as a whole, although that may be a hidden cost or an externality. For example, as [Robert A.] Heinlein has one of his characters [in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress] point out, a bar offering a free lunch will likely charge more for its drinks....
Less literally:
If one individual or group gets something at no cost, somebody else ends up paying for it. If there appears to be no direct cost to any single individual, there is a social cost. Similarly, someone can benefit for "free" from an externality or from a public good, but someone has to pay the cost of producing these benefits. (See Free rider problem and Tragedy of the commons.)
Posts
44 comments:
Yeah, solar and wind power are free and totally clean.
The most important thing I learned in high school physics was, “There is no free lunch in the Universe.”
Instead of no free lunch, I prefer no additional cost.
the 3 laws of thermodynamics
Zeroth law: Hot food cools off.. Cold food warms up
1st Law: TANSTAAFL
2nd Law: You Always need to tip
Imagine the support from Ivy League schools Putin would get by stating his goal is to decolonize Ukraine.
Putin leads the largest country in the world -- it has functionally unlimited coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear fuel, wood, diamonds, and agricultural resources. Ukraine is on its border, physically part of historical Russia, and inhabited by many Russia-friendly sympathizers.
Putin can easily maintain a siege. A war of attrition. Putin wins. This was quite obvious after the first 30 days, despite Russia's rotten truck tires, the muddy soil, and putting young boys out as cannon fodder. Russia wins over the next 100 years or next 1,000 years.
Flip the script and put Russian anti-NATO forces in Mexico or Canada...what happens? We all let it go and welcome Russia on the doorstep? Ha. Do the Dr. Strangelove NATO and National Security lizards literally go nuclear?
I’ve seen numbers of 250k to 300k Russian dead. We lost 50k in Vietnam.
"the 3 laws of thermodynamics
Zeroth law: Hot food cools off.. Cold food warms up
1st Law: TANSTAAFL
2nd Law: You Always need to tip"
1st: you can't win
2nd: you can't even break even
3rd: you can't even quit the game
Putin word for the state of Russia is resolute.
I look forward to hearing Biden state of the union safe word.
Perhaps if the greedy a-holes who run the weak and corrupt Ukraine (people who think and act just like the selfish greedy Biden family)
Perhaps if the greed-heads in the Ukrainian upper crust running the show there hadn't taken OUR tax payer dollars to purchase luxury items like real estate and so forth - and actually spent it on weapons...
Just keep coming back to the American tax payer trough. We don't mind - we love spending money on illegal entrants and giving it to international crooks... who waste it.
Where is the EU?
Crimso beat me to it! Kudos.
Putin understands the art of blackmail.
He knows Biden is weak. Biden and the left use blackmail in the same manner.
You must do this... or Putin wins.
How many billions and billions have we already spent on Ukraine?
This marathon press conference shows yet again that there isn't room for any negotiations in good faith with this mendacious dictator.
He and his enablers must be beaten back to Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. Hopefully, then the Russian people will come to their senses and no longer support him, but we should not count on it.
Ukraine should be supported to victory or we will have a much bigger problem down the line as weakness in the face of aggression only encourages the aggressor.
The Ukrainian people are suffering because of greed and corruption.... and Biden's weakness.
It's strange the way the Democrats have become the party of war. I guess it's all just play acting on both sides. Situational morality all around. Glen Greenwald seems consistent.
What has Russia, in its entire history, ever done to the United States?
Emboldened by his fellow travelers in the Republican Senate
Blogger I stand w Isreal. Leftists, Mullahs, Hamas-Palistinian terrorists can suck it: "Where is the EU?"
Failing to meet even their minimal NATO annual spending minimum requirement of 2% GDP (only 7 of 31) and alot of what is spent by NATO members isnt even miliary spending at all, just infrastructure that supports general spending for their welfare states while watching their military capabilites get hollowed out.
For instance, Germany will use their NATO "military" budget to improve a public highway that leads to a US base or expand a dual use power plant while their submarine "fleet" starting in 2017 showed 0 submarines capable of even leaving port. Our Deutschland-er amigos are down to 6 subs and half of those, along with active duty squadrons cant be deployed. And for a nation their size, just take a gander at how few combat ready troops are ready to go.
Thats all because they know Uncle Sugar will always foot the bill.
Which is why backers of the Ukraine permanent stalemate / kill off 2 generations of Ukrainian Males Project will write paragraph after paragraph of how terrific the support for Ukraine is by our European pals using stats and not raw numbers because in the end, it will always be all us even as our nation is bankrupted, overrun by illegals and Cloward-Pivened into oblivion...
...with Blackrock & Vanguard and the military industrial disinformation complex cashing in with their DC politician lackeys.
America not just Last, But America Last With A Nice Kick In Teeth.
Howard: "Emboldened by his fellow travelers in the Republican Senate"
Every day you return with this transparent and historical easy-to-debunk lie.
I have to imagine that the dudes you hang around with are simply as dumb as you and buy into this sort of thing.
Old and slow: "It's strange the way the Democrats have become the party of war."
Strange? Hardly. Its the easiest thing in the world to understand.
Unlimited money skimming & money laundering back to US politicians, unlimited contracts to favored companies with revolving door politicians to Boards/leadership positions.
The insiders, another generation of the self-anointed and connected though not competent "Best and the Brightest" also get to play God on a global scale in a real world game of Risk where they and their families never serve on the front lines...so all the egos get massaged even as they fail and fail upward with promottions while the cash continues to flow in.
The dens are all in because they have entrenched their people throughout the bloated military leadership (necessary for later against domestic opponents) and enough republicans have been bought off and/or compromised and actively support it all.
The state dept/deep state plan for almost the last 2 decades has been to break up russia into about 15 or 17 little fiefdoms which the US can manipulate and control to gain access to the raw materials.
The ChiComs kmow they are next if that happens..hence the now joined at the hip russia/ChiCom alliance.
Brazil believes they are on that list as well...
...hence: BRICS
Our "elites" are rather breathtaking in their hubris.
Howard - stay on the crook Biden plantation. weakness and BS! It's all yours.
https://www.dossier.today/p/world-economic-forum-demands-35-trillion
How much of the 91 borders of Ukraine was Russia, and how much of it was Ukrainian, at the time that Lenin created the Soviet Republic? How much was Poland added by a handshake between Hitler and Stalin, and did anyone consult the Russian people in Crimea before Krushchev, a Ukrainian, simply tacked it on?
Why was everyone A-OK with Ukraine forcibly annexing the Republic of Crimea in 1995 after the people there had voted to be independent and created their own country? Why was Russia able to take Crimea without firing a shot? Ukrainian sources say treachery because they would rather be ruled out of Moscow, and has grand plans for Bandera style ethnic cleansing of Crimea. That’s why they are always accusing Russia of genocide, every accusation is a confession.
I’ve seen numbers of 250k to 300k Russian dead. We lost 50k in Vietnam
The first casualty in war is the truth.
Propaganda is a weapon for both sides in any such conflict.
"Strange? Hardly. Its the easiest thing in the world to understand."
Yes, I am aware.
Beta tests of new weapons coming soon, I hope. Use this battlefield to see if Lockheed & Raytheon can come up with something to match, or counter, 10,000 Chinese suicide AI drones swarming an area.
Ukraine is not our problem. They don't deserve our support, and fighting a proxy war against a fellow nuclear superpower is reckless beyond belief. This useless bloodbath would never had occurred if Ukraine had ignored US advice to give up their nukes. They fucked up. They trusted us.
Elon owes me money but I don't need it anymore.
Instead I'm going to ask him for a free launch...
Well we instigated the Ukraine war by pushing for Ukraine to join nato. We are responsible for this. I hope we fail.
Given the various definitions of Khalyava, my guess is Putin is saying that Ukraine is the freeloading-Khalyavshcik type. In the beginning there was a fair amount of messaging out of Moscow framing the war as one where the US and NATO had forced brother against brother. I think this was when Moscow was expecting a quick resolution of the war, and they were planning for the peace ahead where they expected to have relations with Ukraine as a vassal or quasi-vassal state. But as the war continued and the Russian casualties mounted, I suspect Russians grew angrier and angrier at Ukraine for not losing. This would naturally lead Russians to develop stronger antipathy to Ukrainians.
But the other reason for the freeloading-Khalyavshcik type use is that Russia suffered a major blow its ego. Russia by and large expected to quickly and easily defeat Ukraine. In Russia's mind, Russia was the older, stronger, more successful sibling and Ukraine was the weak runt who really ought to have known better than to resist his older brother. But as the war continued on and the casualties for Russia grew that idea of a vastly stronger Russia was threatened. Painting Ukraine as the conniving freeloading type helps the Russian ego feel better about Russia's capability and it's justness in action. After all the only reason Ukraine was able to resist Russia's just special military operation is because they are conniving and tricked the West into giving them handouts.
Given how many Ukrainians and Russians have died in this war, it is hard for me to see either of those sides as getting a freebie.
There are no freebies. In 2024, the Ukrainian parliament will take up a measure rescinding the law against foreign ownership of farmland. American investors are salivating at the prospect of owning some of the richest soil in the world. I actually saw this mentioned in one of my investment portfolios.
It's a revealing speech. Domestically, Putin is too weak to impose conscription, and as to the war, he's given up on conquering Ukraine and is inviting talks.
I suppose Ukraine's best bet would be to agree to the current boundaries, with both sides returning all captured personnel, military and civilian. Free passage either way across the new border for a year, to let the Ukrainian people choose (although this might be too embarrassing to Putin).
The problem is that such an agreement sets up a third invasion in a few years. A UN peacekeeping force would be funny.
I said at the beginning that the most likely outcome is a bloody stalemate, and that even an ugly win--which I don't rule out but don't much expect--won't do a lot to improve Russia's longterm geographic and demographic lot.
Oblomov and Kije' may be fictional, but they represent some very real aspects of Russian culture and national character IMO, that should always be kept in mind.
The Uke side is less dependent on the will of one man, and the pulling and pushing of internal politics as well as the currents of international relations both murkier and more complex than in Putin's case.
Patrick Driscoll @9:59... "This useless bloodbath would never had occurred if-"
USA elected officials, congressmen, and deep state federal bureaucracies weren't elbows deep in stolen money, corruption, graft, kickbacks, and wickedness in partnership with the junior mafiosos in charge of Ukraine. The USA government is fighting to keep evidence of their evil, antiAmerican activities hidden from Americans and the world.
I have an ongoing dialog with one of my boys about Ukraine. He advocates added support to Ukraine. I try to introduce a bit of reality to him by using the Viet Nam analogy of our first giving material support, then limited "boots on the ground", then 500,000 troops in country(I was one) with a resulting KIA count of 58,000+. I see us walking into the same kind of situation in Ukraine.
I like to introduce reality wherever possible. First I gave him a couple of basic statistics: Russian population 147.2 million; Ukraine population 36.7 million; Russian GDP $2.2trillion; Ukraine GDP $160.5 billion.
Then I argued the following: "On the face of it Ukraine doesn't stand a chance demographically. So we make up some of the difference logistically with our manufacturing capacity and advanced technology. Unfortunately we have other obligations/threats for which we need to be prepared and at the moment it is clear that we are drawing down our logistic reserves and are not replacing them quickly enough to deal from a position of strength with the Chinese. I am also philosophically opposed to fighting the Russians to the last Ukrainian. Even then, if we get to the last Ukrainian what do we do? If , as you say, Putin may not be satisfied with just Ukraine are we really prepared to put in troops to the Baltic states - which are NATO members? The demographics in the Baltics are even worse. From my point of view we need to do everything we can to negotiate some kind of settlement in Ukraine that lessens the threat to the Baltic states -and the rest of the eastern European NATO states. I am convinced that we missed our chance 18 or so months ago when the Ukrainians actually had the Russians on the ropes a bit and are headed for a shit storm next spring when the Russians go on the offensive (from their now solid defensive perimeter in SE Ukraine and Crimea). I hope I am wrong."
Certainly Putin can not afford to lose and he has the logistic and manpower advantage over Ukraine. Is anyone in the Biden administration paying attention to the reality of Ukraine? If they handle Ukraine the way they handled the withdrawal from Afghanistan we are in "deep do do".
physically part of historical Russia
Also the historical territory of the Scythians, Tartars, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Austria, and Ottomans. Call it the tragedy of the middle ground. Russia tried to suppress the Ukrainian language and culture, they also sent settlers to colonize part of the country. I wouldn't call it immoral, history is full of similar empires, but no empire lasts forever.
“How much was Poland added by a handshake between Hitler and Stalin, and did anyone consult the Russian people in Crimea before Krushchev, a Ukrainian, simply tacked it on?”
When the legal form of government is a committee supported dictatorship would you not say that all the above actions including by Krushchev are perfectly legal? Do the people of Russia, or Putin, hold a higher power to change the law in defiance of the old dictators? Yes they can make a new government, but they don’t have the power to change existing international agreements, unless they negotiate or go to war. So that is where we are, the most powerful state can violate the existing rights of other nations.
There is no need for an artistic patina of moral philosophy or the invocation of ancient rights, if you have power you win. Nothing more need be said.
No matter if Russia eventually wins in Ukraine. They have already lost. Every kopek Russia will drain from Ukraine will never pay back what was spent in war production, not in 200 years. Russia has killed their energetic youth in the 100,000’s. Worse, they have caused all the smart techies ( except for hackers) to flee the country and they will never come back. NATO was never going to attack mother Russia, why? The West could just buy what they wanted and leave the rest for the poor Russians.
A lot of pain for Russian ego, as usual the answer is to stop doing stupid things. If you invested in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, what would your IRR or NPV be now? How is Putin’s real estate investment trust in Ukraine performing?
I appreciate the fact that Anne Applebaum is not a fave of many of those who post here. Nevertheless, her book about Stalin's weaponization of famine against the Ukrainians, "Red Famine", and her book length exposition of the post WW2 takeover of Eastern Europe, "The Crushing of Eastern Europe", are excellent introductions to the thinking of Russians about the people to their south and west. Russians were and still are ruthless and effective in subjugating peoples and destroying lives.
They would have succeeded by now in crushing Ukraine, but for their corruption and incompetence. Narr referred to Oblomov ( the fictional embodiment of Russians' procrastination), and Kije (the fictional embodiment of Russians' dishonest subservience to power). Narr is right. That will never change. And demographics are winning a war against the Russian people, so demoralized that they no longer reproduce. Beating Russia is a waiting game.
For example, as [Robert A.] Heinlein has one of his characters [in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress] point out, a bar offering a free lunch will likely charge more for its drinks....
This is the kind of nonsense "Libertarian" throw out with no proof. Obviously, if a bar owner can make more money by charging less and no providing any food, they would do it. The fact that they're charging more and providing food means they are making more in total sales and in profit.
We have "Free lunches" before WW 1, because food was so cheap (relatively speaking). Today hamburger costs $12 lbs in some places. The same as 24 oz of commerical low quality beer.
"This is the kind of nonsense "Libertarian" throw out with no proof. Obviously, if a bar owner can make more money by charging less and no providing any food, they would do it."
What you miss is the psychology of "promotion." If you advertise that your lunch is free you get volume, ordinary folks are attracted thinking they can eat and leave with no cost, but the marketers know they can apply friction to prevent the free seekers from enjoying the free gift. Make them wait longer, or give them warm beer, and they will pay a bit more thinking they will reach optimality. They won't, Heinlein was talking about marketing ploys, why would a bar owner give lunch for free for the good of society?
'No matter if Russia eventually wins in Ukraine. They have already lost. Every kopek Russia will drain from Ukraine will never pay back what was spent in war production, not in 200 years. Russia has killed their energetic youth in the 100,000’s'
Depends on how much Ukrainian propaganda you believe...
" her book about Stalin's weaponization of famine against the Ukrainians,"
Total propaganda. That famine stared Soviet citizens all across the Soviet Union. It was a failure of communism, not some kind of hate crime aimed at Ukrainians. Anne Applebaum is a neocon who believes that using the Ukraine is the key to breaking up the Russian Federation, which has been a CIA project since 1945.
" Putin is too weak to impose conscription"
Talk about trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Post a Comment