Jeffrey Sachs, the strange case of Mr. Shock and Mr. Aid

After reading the interesting biography of Jeffrey Sachs, “Jeffrey Sachs, The Strange Case of Dr. Shock and Mr. Aid” (Japhy Wilson, 2014), the mirror in which I held such an economist up to scrutiny fell apart. He is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, with a staff of 850 people and $85 million, an advisor to the Secretary of State for the United Nations on promoting the Millennium Development Goals, a scholar at the Rockefeller Foundation, and the author of numerous books, including The End of Poverty: How to Achieve It in Our Time.

Sacks, at 35, was invited to implement a shock program to halt inflation in Bolivia, with moderate success, and was later invited by the governments of Poland and Russia to implement shock therapies with the governments of Poland and Russia to return to the free market.

It's worth noting that Sachs, despite his limited experience—he had just returned from his doctorate—held a newly appointed research position at Harvard in the Department of Economics.

The plan in Poland was relatively successful - Poland is now one of the most buoyant economies in Europe - due, in large part, to the interest of its population in following through with the final results and the limited help from the United States in its attempt to implement another Marshall Plan in Europe.

In Russia, the shock plan went in very different directions: Shacks was in favor of accelerated shock, and the Russian population never fully approved of it, so the effects were catastrophic and after several consultations, Sacks tendered his resignation, which was accepted without hesitation, pointing out his short-lived collaboration in the process.

The end result in Russia was disastrous: from 1991 to 1998, gross domestic product fell by 43.3%; industrial production fell by 56% between 1991 and 1996; by 1998, more than 80% of Russian businesses had gone bankrupt; 70,000 factories had closed, resulting in massive unemployment. Agricultural production fell to half of its level between 1886 and 1990, with the bankruptcy of numerous agricultural factories and the nationwide dissolution of national means of subsistence. The standard of living fell by half. The number of people living in poverty increased from 2 million to 78 million. Thousands committed suicide.

The terrible effect has several culprits: Boris Yeltsin, president of Russia, the Communist Party, and of course, Jeffrey Sachs and the United States. The United States government left Russia to its own devices, despite the economic catastrophe and the fact that it is the second most heavily armed country in history. The Bush administration bears grave responsibility for allowing Russia to collapse under its shoulders, with no aid program. From this emerged the Russian plutocratic crisis, which has been the support and breeding ground for the rise of Putin.

Why did Sachs and the United States abandon Russia, with the potential geopolitical consequences this would have? This is one of the many US crimes internationally that should be more widely reported in the international media.

To preserve his image—without ever defending his free-market stance—Jeffrey Sachs made a 160% turn: he became the economist of poverty, began championing the banner of sustainable development, and petitioning international bodies to promote aid to Africa. He became part of clinical economics, and while remaining pro-abortion, he became one of the main proponents of the 2030 Millennium Development Goals, for which he has built 500 development villages with the support of numerous organizations. However, Wilson doesn't believe Sacks's words: these millennium villages (Sachs's triumph) are proving to be a failure, in addition to the limited transferability with which they are managed.

Sacks hasn't abandoned his faith in the free market and in Friedman's followers. He changed professions to seek forgiveness for his terrible mistakes in Russia, whose errors he washes his hands of, and which have also paved the way for Putin's rise to power. Therefore, we can conclude that Sacks is partly responsible for Putin's rise to power.