Tweet
WHAT HAPPENED TO ADVISERS TO PRESIDENT
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Oct 30 2006
Robert Kocharyan has a number of advisers (in 2003 many political
parties got less than 5 percent, and besides, most people cannot
imagine themselves in the role of opposition), at least there are
a number of people who advise the president. Although in this case
we deal with the classic theory on the correlation of quality and
quantity, nevertheless, we will state without evoking this theory
that out of this quantity two advisers are distinguished for their
public statements. One is Garnik Isagulyan, the other is Vahram
Nersisyants. And by an amazing coincidence the two advisers "featured"
the TV channels on Saturday. It was also interesting that both had come
onto the stage to edit or deny their previous statements. For instance,
Garnik Isagulyan stated that he had not stated that "after quitting
office President Robert Kocharyan will influence the political thought
in Armenia with a higher status." But it is possible even to understand
Isagulyan's behavior. He is adviser to president on national security,
and a straightforward thinking and predictable behavior may lead to
a rather vulnerable situation.
Therefore, his vocation makes Garnik Isagulyan maneuver.
Vahram Nersisyan, who is economic adviser to president, is a
different issue. He is a man, who has successful experience of work
in international financial organizations. And he should have realized
that from an economic aspect, given the importance of flexibility,
predictability and consistency is encouraged. Vahram Nersisyan was
hosted at the National Press Club, where he stated with pity and
pain in his voice that they "had thought the revaluation of the dram
would reduce the price of certain imported products, but it did not
happen, and the reason was the lack of competition." In other words,
the adviser to the president confirmed that there is monopoly or
collusion in the sphere of imports of certain goods, because otherwise
it is difficult to explain the lack of competition. It goes without
saying that in this case the government should battle monopoly and
collusion. And since Vahram Nersisyan is the economic adviser to the
head of state, this statement was a surprise, although a pleasant one
in the sense that if the existence of monopolies is admitted on a top
level, they have surely decided to wage a real anti-monopoly battle.
Meanwhile, the public expected that some time later they would see
the result of this battle and would see that the revaluation of the
dram, besides cropping their income, would cause the prices of some
products to go down. But how could Bibilical Susanna know that only
old men were waiting for her? How could the society know that instead
of waiting for the anti-monopoly battle they should have waited for
a refutal of statements about it, or excuses. And since the society
did not expect it, it was definitely a surprise when the same Vahram
Nersisyants, who had been so sincere several weeks ago, explained to
the public on the Public Television on October 28 why the price of
sugar did not go down but on the contrary, it went up. The adviser to
the president not only pointed to the curve of the growth of the price
of sugar on the international market and simultaneously pointed to the
curve of the growth of the price of the same product on our market,
using one to explain the other.
It is clear that Vahram Nersisyants explained the growth on our
market by the growth of the price on the world market. Although it is
possible that our officials will become confused in their efforts to
excuse themselves that very soon they will lose the logical tie not
only between their previous and present statements but also between
the words uttered at the moment. But for the time being let's return
to the non-logic that Vahram Nersisyants offered to the public as
an explanation of the growth of the price of sugar. Meanwhile, it
is very easy to prove that this explanation is illogical, to put
it mildly. Even if we assume that the wholesale price of sugar has
grown, with at least 20 percent revaluation of the dram the price
of this product could at least remain the same. In other words, if
the importer could not cut the price because now he buys at a higher
price, he could keep the price low because the revaluation of the dram
enables him to do. Perhaps in this case it is unnecessary to continue
the debate over the words of the adviser to president, and perhaps it
is only worthwhile to mention that even if the price of this product
goes up on the international market, in Armenia they could cut the
price because the growth of the price on the international market
was less than the revaluation of the dram in Armenia.
But we should try to understand Vahram Nersisyan. He advises the
president because it is his job but this does not mean that the
president cannot advise him. And perhaps Robert Kocharyan used
his right and advised the adviser to give advice rather than news
conferences. If the news conference were a good thing, the president
would give news conferences.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Oct 30 2006
Robert Kocharyan has a number of advisers (in 2003 many political
parties got less than 5 percent, and besides, most people cannot
imagine themselves in the role of opposition), at least there are
a number of people who advise the president. Although in this case
we deal with the classic theory on the correlation of quality and
quantity, nevertheless, we will state without evoking this theory
that out of this quantity two advisers are distinguished for their
public statements. One is Garnik Isagulyan, the other is Vahram
Nersisyants. And by an amazing coincidence the two advisers "featured"
the TV channels on Saturday. It was also interesting that both had come
onto the stage to edit or deny their previous statements. For instance,
Garnik Isagulyan stated that he had not stated that "after quitting
office President Robert Kocharyan will influence the political thought
in Armenia with a higher status." But it is possible even to understand
Isagulyan's behavior. He is adviser to president on national security,
and a straightforward thinking and predictable behavior may lead to
a rather vulnerable situation.
Therefore, his vocation makes Garnik Isagulyan maneuver.
Vahram Nersisyan, who is economic adviser to president, is a
different issue. He is a man, who has successful experience of work
in international financial organizations. And he should have realized
that from an economic aspect, given the importance of flexibility,
predictability and consistency is encouraged. Vahram Nersisyan was
hosted at the National Press Club, where he stated with pity and
pain in his voice that they "had thought the revaluation of the dram
would reduce the price of certain imported products, but it did not
happen, and the reason was the lack of competition." In other words,
the adviser to the president confirmed that there is monopoly or
collusion in the sphere of imports of certain goods, because otherwise
it is difficult to explain the lack of competition. It goes without
saying that in this case the government should battle monopoly and
collusion. And since Vahram Nersisyan is the economic adviser to the
head of state, this statement was a surprise, although a pleasant one
in the sense that if the existence of monopolies is admitted on a top
level, they have surely decided to wage a real anti-monopoly battle.
Meanwhile, the public expected that some time later they would see
the result of this battle and would see that the revaluation of the
dram, besides cropping their income, would cause the prices of some
products to go down. But how could Bibilical Susanna know that only
old men were waiting for her? How could the society know that instead
of waiting for the anti-monopoly battle they should have waited for
a refutal of statements about it, or excuses. And since the society
did not expect it, it was definitely a surprise when the same Vahram
Nersisyants, who had been so sincere several weeks ago, explained to
the public on the Public Television on October 28 why the price of
sugar did not go down but on the contrary, it went up. The adviser to
the president not only pointed to the curve of the growth of the price
of sugar on the international market and simultaneously pointed to the
curve of the growth of the price of the same product on our market,
using one to explain the other.
It is clear that Vahram Nersisyants explained the growth on our
market by the growth of the price on the world market. Although it is
possible that our officials will become confused in their efforts to
excuse themselves that very soon they will lose the logical tie not
only between their previous and present statements but also between
the words uttered at the moment. But for the time being let's return
to the non-logic that Vahram Nersisyants offered to the public as
an explanation of the growth of the price of sugar. Meanwhile, it
is very easy to prove that this explanation is illogical, to put
it mildly. Even if we assume that the wholesale price of sugar has
grown, with at least 20 percent revaluation of the dram the price
of this product could at least remain the same. In other words, if
the importer could not cut the price because now he buys at a higher
price, he could keep the price low because the revaluation of the dram
enables him to do. Perhaps in this case it is unnecessary to continue
the debate over the words of the adviser to president, and perhaps it
is only worthwhile to mention that even if the price of this product
goes up on the international market, in Armenia they could cut the
price because the growth of the price on the international market
was less than the revaluation of the dram in Armenia.
But we should try to understand Vahram Nersisyan. He advises the
president because it is his job but this does not mean that the
president cannot advise him. And perhaps Robert Kocharyan used
his right and advised the adviser to give advice rather than news
conferences. If the news conference were a good thing, the president
would give news conferences.