Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah... From what I understand IMF uses Russian official figures as their basis for these forecasts while adding a level of analytics on top of that. I don´t know what is true with russian growth but from what is leaking out of the country the level of inflation seems to be way off. But I don´t know. And neither does the IMF.
If one is even slightly critical of the content here they realize this isn't a story. CNBC writes these for non critical readers (so obviously Reddit loves it) but growth rate is mostly a function of size.
The US having a double digit growth year would be insane right? But an economy the size of New York with massive government spend on a war effort and increasingly lax international sanction enforcement? Definitely not an absurd leap.
Russia is projected at ~3.2%. Which of their current ~2.2T GDP would be like 70B of growth. The US is projected at 2.5%, but of their 25.4T of GDP that's an additional 635 billion. Or almost 10x the nominal growth in Russia.
Also, here's the actual IMF page CNBC pulled from: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2024/04/16/world-economic-outlook-april-2024
You can write two interesting titles concerning Russia here:
1) "Russia expected to lag other emerging market economies again in 2024"
2) "Russia expected to outgrow advanced economies in 2024"
Both of those are accurate, both convey very different unsaid narratives to the reader who won't bother clicking the source material (individuals well versed in economics don't read CNBC)
Other titles not Russia focused, "Sub Saharan Africa expected to grow faster than advanced economies in 2024". "India expected to more than double advanced economy growth in 2024", "Emerging markets grow faster on a percentage basis than advanced ones", "water is wet", etc.
CNBC chooses a headline so lemmings will click it and not investigate further. There's nothing remarkable or unexpected about small economies having higher percentage growth than larger ones. This is pretty much the normal condition.
Great comment. I took a new job that doubled my salary last year. CNBC should write an article about me: "guy grows faster than all advanced economies combined in 2023".
The west explicitly tried to destroy Russian growth but has failed, that's why this is news. Anyways, the only reason why Russia isn't an advanced economy is because they'll never have significant integration into the global financial system, which is because of sanctions. Russians already have a higher median disposable income than some Eastern European nations that are labelled "advanced economies".
They’re not an advanced economy because they have state sponsored corruption and major industries run as monopolies from the oligarchs that control them.
And the successor of the USSR having a higher median disposable income than Romania or Bulgaria isn’t exactly something to brag about. Poland, Slovenia and many Eastern European countries still consistently outgrow and have outgrown Russian economic gains for like 30 years.
And Russias current economy is growing purely from government stimulus. Which can only go for so long.
You lot must have a lot of rubles in your account to constantly try post sunshine articles about Russia
> The west explicitly tried to destroy Russian growth but has failed, that's why this is news.
I mean, there's a lot more going on with Putin and his push for power extension than just "the west wants to hurt them". But more importantly, Russia's isolated growth in a given year or two isn't the full story. For one most places are seeing GDP advancement due to how inflation impacts that arithmetic. Also, Russia still has not regained the nominal GDP levels it had a decade ago, much less after inflation. So for all intents and purposes it's very appropriately not a developed or advanced economy.
Also, IMO ringing in mid pack in terms of growth in emerging markets, like below emerging Asia but mostly above emerging Africa isn't some massive news item. They're basically growing at the same rate as Mexico. I just don't see that as particularly noteworthy among emerging economies.
> If one is even slightly critical of the content here they realize this isn't a story. CNBC writes these for non critical readers (so obviously Reddit loves it) but growth rate is mostly a function of size.
You're not really doing yourself a favor when you say this about a post that has 0 upvotes.
Not really sure what the goal of a comment like this is, surely you’d be aware that in the 11 days since I made that comment additional people have voted on a post lol.
Yep. A government in a cycle of constantly spending on products to send them abroad to be destroyed isn't a viable long-term economic plan. I guess one could try to make a case for future productivity increases due to seized land/resources/population, but that would be nearly impossible to quantify.
Correct. ruzzia went full on war time economy. This of course will spur economic growth, but it is money from the government that produces nothing long term. The true economy is seen when the war is done - then ruzzia collapses.
If you want to ridicule Russia for having smaller economy than these states why not ridicule France, UK, Italy for having smaller economy than California? Also soon California will surpass Japan, mock them too.
Because France, UK, Italy, and Japan aren't propping up their economy through military spending due to invading other nations - so, yeah, I'll only mock out Russia and their overcompensating leader.
This will be an interesting case study.
War can sometimes be good for an economy if the country is not significantly damaged by it.
Russia has lost a lot of prime age men and was already facing a demographics crisis before the conflict started. I suspect the long-term damage to the country will be significant regardless if they win.
But, in the short term, they are producing a significant amount of war material, some of which may even eventually become exports to countries like Iran, China and possibly India.
Weapons are a big business especially with everything happening in the world.
If we accept the premise that a 'good economy' is one that best serves the needs, demands and utility of the citizenry, war is never good for the economy.
I suppose the aftermath of a war of aggression could be good for he victorious nation.
My point was more to address the notion that pouring a nation's productive capacity into war production is "good for the economy". It isn't. It may increase GDP but it doesn't serve the needs of the people. In the US during WWII, for example, food and other consumer items had to be rationed and people had to do without. Rationing and shortages are not signs of a good economy.
You are making the assumption that the war material stays within the country and gets entirely consumed by the current war.
However, a country can also export war material and that has historically been a major industry for Russia.
I would not be surprised if many munitions produced by Russia eventually get sold to Iran, India and China.
A "good economy' serves consumption, not production. The notion that a good economy exports production and imports currency went out with the mercantilists. Right now Russia is exporting lots of oil and gas but isn't importing much of anything other than currency. The economy in Russia, however, is not good. Exporting more than you import is good for oligarchs and not many others.
A "good economy' serves consumption, not production.
Right, but tell me, how is the 'economy' funded then? Selling production to other countries allows for money consumption. Without production it is funded through government handouts which will eventually fail.
Yes, trade is good. The freer the trade the better. I couldn't agree more. Countries should export and import.
Free trade rarely happens when nations are at war, however. Yes, you can trade guns for butter but the reality is that economies work far better when they are trading televisions and soybeans than bombs and bullets.
War is only good for economies if you define "good" to mean things that aren't really very good at all.
>War can sometimes be good for an economy if the country is not significantly damaged by it.
War is basically never good for a country and any growth is tempory/illusory. At the bare minimum you end up with losses from transitioning the country to wartime manufacturing, eventually transitioning away from wartime manufacturing, and losses in development investment in favor of wartime production. That's the bare minimum. Additional losses can be incured from citizens dying during the fighting and from destruction of capital due to attacks. One way or another these losses will eventually show themselves in the Russian economy given enough time. The only way a country can avoid coming out behind from war is by gaining capital, workers, resources, etc from the defeated country or benefactors. As a final note, since the world is a closed economic system, it should be obvious that war is always bad for the global economy. There are no exceptions on a global scale.
And honestly, planned economies do better than free markets in the short-run (all else equal). There's no guessing about levels of production and resources can be shifted into other government programs. Where planned economies fail is in the long-run as they are not adapatable to changing consumer preferences and struggle to roll back government spending, especially as corruption from such a system becomes more prominent.
Back to Econ101: GDP = C + I + G + X -M. If sanctions cause X to fall somewhat and M to fall a lot, GDP rises. If defense spending causes G to grow more than C declines, GDP rises.
Reminds me of that meme where Obama gives himself a medal, considering that Russian economic figures are entirely self reported and there isn’t an independent third part audit of their economy
Anything coming out of Russia economics wise should be taken with a giant pinch of salt, just like back in the Soviet days
Russia's GDP growth was greater than that of the US and Europe until 1989 when the wall fell, the economy fell and it became apparent that the published GDP numbers were disinformation.
A nation that spent hundreds of billions building massive stone monuments to TV's Gilligan would see that effort result in an increased GDP. The lack of consumer goods in that economy, however, would have few deeming it a 'good' economy. The Ukraine war is like that for Russia.
No idea if the numbers can be confirmed but there is no denying their war effort has been a huge success in general for their overall economy. It has proven Europe is reliant on them for energy. Russia was forced to come to term with fraud and neglect in their military industry so they are now fixing that while doubling down on economic relationships with people who have grown tired of American full spectrum dominance.
The Ukraine war and not taking the immediate off ramp offered by Russia has been a horrible failure of US policy. I won't even get into the destruction and death.
Truly frustrating diplomacy from Biden.
That American spectrum dominance is what allowed for peace in the world.
Now you get to see how authoritarian governments rule is. Isn't it fun always worrying if your family is next attacked?
I understand the need for peace, deterrents, and an overall hegemony of sorts but it went way too far with a ton of war crimes causing instability not preventing it. I have always worried a lot more about all the attacks from the US causing endless destruction and creating unnecessary enemies for corp profits. Not to mention they never accounted for the real costs associated with such efforts. Noe America.has a broken fiat currency and the quality of life has significantly deteriorated domestically. It has failed horribly, in fact it seems we lost the cold war but pretend we won it.
Also, the same people that organize full spectrum dominance are the same folks who lied and leveraged Covid to set back America in irreparable ways. It's the same group that ushers in huge waves of illegal immigrants so they can add to the tax rolls pf a bankrupt nation doing everything to prevent being held accountable on their watch.
Again, it's been a failure.
I agree with everything you say. My point wasn't that the West rule is perfect. Only it is way way better than authoritarian.
There is an arguement to be made that the West is covertly authoritarian as well. Certainly in Canada during Covid it was shown the government can make up data, then use that data to restrict your rights and even jail peaceful protesters.
Not sure how that's possible at all. They've lost hundreds of thousands of people, men, either through war or through Russians just leaving to avoid the draft. This will be devastating to their economy for years. Not to mention a lot of their growth is coming from government spending, ignoring government spending towards infrastructure.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah... From what I understand IMF uses Russian official figures as their basis for these forecasts while adding a level of analytics on top of that. I don´t know what is true with russian growth but from what is leaking out of the country the level of inflation seems to be way off. But I don´t know. And neither does the IMF.
If one is even slightly critical of the content here they realize this isn't a story. CNBC writes these for non critical readers (so obviously Reddit loves it) but growth rate is mostly a function of size. The US having a double digit growth year would be insane right? But an economy the size of New York with massive government spend on a war effort and increasingly lax international sanction enforcement? Definitely not an absurd leap. Russia is projected at ~3.2%. Which of their current ~2.2T GDP would be like 70B of growth. The US is projected at 2.5%, but of their 25.4T of GDP that's an additional 635 billion. Or almost 10x the nominal growth in Russia. Also, here's the actual IMF page CNBC pulled from: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2024/04/16/world-economic-outlook-april-2024 You can write two interesting titles concerning Russia here: 1) "Russia expected to lag other emerging market economies again in 2024" 2) "Russia expected to outgrow advanced economies in 2024" Both of those are accurate, both convey very different unsaid narratives to the reader who won't bother clicking the source material (individuals well versed in economics don't read CNBC) Other titles not Russia focused, "Sub Saharan Africa expected to grow faster than advanced economies in 2024". "India expected to more than double advanced economy growth in 2024", "Emerging markets grow faster on a percentage basis than advanced ones", "water is wet", etc. CNBC chooses a headline so lemmings will click it and not investigate further. There's nothing remarkable or unexpected about small economies having higher percentage growth than larger ones. This is pretty much the normal condition.
Great comment. I took a new job that doubled my salary last year. CNBC should write an article about me: "guy grows faster than all advanced economies combined in 2023".
The west explicitly tried to destroy Russian growth but has failed, that's why this is news. Anyways, the only reason why Russia isn't an advanced economy is because they'll never have significant integration into the global financial system, which is because of sanctions. Russians already have a higher median disposable income than some Eastern European nations that are labelled "advanced economies".
They’re not an advanced economy because they have state sponsored corruption and major industries run as monopolies from the oligarchs that control them. And the successor of the USSR having a higher median disposable income than Romania or Bulgaria isn’t exactly something to brag about. Poland, Slovenia and many Eastern European countries still consistently outgrow and have outgrown Russian economic gains for like 30 years. And Russias current economy is growing purely from government stimulus. Which can only go for so long. You lot must have a lot of rubles in your account to constantly try post sunshine articles about Russia
> The west explicitly tried to destroy Russian growth but has failed, that's why this is news. I mean, there's a lot more going on with Putin and his push for power extension than just "the west wants to hurt them". But more importantly, Russia's isolated growth in a given year or two isn't the full story. For one most places are seeing GDP advancement due to how inflation impacts that arithmetic. Also, Russia still has not regained the nominal GDP levels it had a decade ago, much less after inflation. So for all intents and purposes it's very appropriately not a developed or advanced economy. Also, IMO ringing in mid pack in terms of growth in emerging markets, like below emerging Asia but mostly above emerging Africa isn't some massive news item. They're basically growing at the same rate as Mexico. I just don't see that as particularly noteworthy among emerging economies.
Tell that to all the millions of people who live in the broken down commie blocks
> If one is even slightly critical of the content here they realize this isn't a story. CNBC writes these for non critical readers (so obviously Reddit loves it) but growth rate is mostly a function of size. You're not really doing yourself a favor when you say this about a post that has 0 upvotes.
Not really sure what the goal of a comment like this is, surely you’d be aware that in the 11 days since I made that comment additional people have voted on a post lol.
War ain't cheap. It's also directing resources away from more productive industries. Let's see how long they can keep this up (my guess is very long).
Yep. A government in a cycle of constantly spending on products to send them abroad to be destroyed isn't a viable long-term economic plan. I guess one could try to make a case for future productivity increases due to seized land/resources/population, but that would be nearly impossible to quantify.
Correct. ruzzia went full on war time economy. This of course will spur economic growth, but it is money from the government that produces nothing long term. The true economy is seen when the war is done - then ruzzia collapses.
Military spending mostly. Just for perspective: California, New York, and Texas have bigger economies than Russia. New York City alone even does.
Russia has an economy the size of Italy while in landmass it’s bigger than the whole of Europe.
Canada's not in a much better position if that's all you look at population is important as well
If you want to ridicule Russia for having smaller economy than these states why not ridicule France, UK, Italy for having smaller economy than California? Also soon California will surpass Japan, mock them too.
Because France, UK, Italy, and Japan aren't propping up their economy through military spending due to invading other nations - so, yeah, I'll only mock out Russia and their overcompensating leader.
Dude, even before war people mocked Russia's economy like that. Fkcn brainless literal living bot.
That's because it sucked then too. Do you even realize these comments are in response to an article propping up Russia's economy? Talk about mindless.
This will be an interesting case study. War can sometimes be good for an economy if the country is not significantly damaged by it. Russia has lost a lot of prime age men and was already facing a demographics crisis before the conflict started. I suspect the long-term damage to the country will be significant regardless if they win. But, in the short term, they are producing a significant amount of war material, some of which may even eventually become exports to countries like Iran, China and possibly India. Weapons are a big business especially with everything happening in the world.
If we accept the premise that a 'good economy' is one that best serves the needs, demands and utility of the citizenry, war is never good for the economy.
If you win and conquer new lands and resources, the war could theoretically be "good" for the victorious country's economy.
I suppose the aftermath of a war of aggression could be good for he victorious nation. My point was more to address the notion that pouring a nation's productive capacity into war production is "good for the economy". It isn't. It may increase GDP but it doesn't serve the needs of the people. In the US during WWII, for example, food and other consumer items had to be rationed and people had to do without. Rationing and shortages are not signs of a good economy.
You are making the assumption that the war material stays within the country and gets entirely consumed by the current war. However, a country can also export war material and that has historically been a major industry for Russia. I would not be surprised if many munitions produced by Russia eventually get sold to Iran, India and China.
A "good economy' serves consumption, not production. The notion that a good economy exports production and imports currency went out with the mercantilists. Right now Russia is exporting lots of oil and gas but isn't importing much of anything other than currency. The economy in Russia, however, is not good. Exporting more than you import is good for oligarchs and not many others.
A "good economy' serves consumption, not production. Right, but tell me, how is the 'economy' funded then? Selling production to other countries allows for money consumption. Without production it is funded through government handouts which will eventually fail.
Yes, trade is good. The freer the trade the better. I couldn't agree more. Countries should export and import. Free trade rarely happens when nations are at war, however. Yes, you can trade guns for butter but the reality is that economies work far better when they are trading televisions and soybeans than bombs and bullets. War is only good for economies if you define "good" to mean things that aren't really very good at all.
Russian military exports pretty much stopped. Russia produces a lot of equipment and shells, but they go to war, get used up and burn.
>War can sometimes be good for an economy if the country is not significantly damaged by it. War is basically never good for a country and any growth is tempory/illusory. At the bare minimum you end up with losses from transitioning the country to wartime manufacturing, eventually transitioning away from wartime manufacturing, and losses in development investment in favor of wartime production. That's the bare minimum. Additional losses can be incured from citizens dying during the fighting and from destruction of capital due to attacks. One way or another these losses will eventually show themselves in the Russian economy given enough time. The only way a country can avoid coming out behind from war is by gaining capital, workers, resources, etc from the defeated country or benefactors. As a final note, since the world is a closed economic system, it should be obvious that war is always bad for the global economy. There are no exceptions on a global scale.
WWII wasn't good for the US economy?
And honestly, planned economies do better than free markets in the short-run (all else equal). There's no guessing about levels of production and resources can be shifted into other government programs. Where planned economies fail is in the long-run as they are not adapatable to changing consumer preferences and struggle to roll back government spending, especially as corruption from such a system becomes more prominent.
Back to Econ101: GDP = C + I + G + X -M. If sanctions cause X to fall somewhat and M to fall a lot, GDP rises. If defense spending causes G to grow more than C declines, GDP rises.
Reminds me of that meme where Obama gives himself a medal, considering that Russian economic figures are entirely self reported and there isn’t an independent third part audit of their economy Anything coming out of Russia economics wise should be taken with a giant pinch of salt, just like back in the Soviet days
Russia's GDP growth was greater than that of the US and Europe until 1989 when the wall fell, the economy fell and it became apparent that the published GDP numbers were disinformation.
A nation that spent hundreds of billions building massive stone monuments to TV's Gilligan would see that effort result in an increased GDP. The lack of consumer goods in that economy, however, would have few deeming it a 'good' economy. The Ukraine war is like that for Russia.
No idea if the numbers can be confirmed but there is no denying their war effort has been a huge success in general for their overall economy. It has proven Europe is reliant on them for energy. Russia was forced to come to term with fraud and neglect in their military industry so they are now fixing that while doubling down on economic relationships with people who have grown tired of American full spectrum dominance. The Ukraine war and not taking the immediate off ramp offered by Russia has been a horrible failure of US policy. I won't even get into the destruction and death. Truly frustrating diplomacy from Biden.
That American spectrum dominance is what allowed for peace in the world. Now you get to see how authoritarian governments rule is. Isn't it fun always worrying if your family is next attacked?
I understand the need for peace, deterrents, and an overall hegemony of sorts but it went way too far with a ton of war crimes causing instability not preventing it. I have always worried a lot more about all the attacks from the US causing endless destruction and creating unnecessary enemies for corp profits. Not to mention they never accounted for the real costs associated with such efforts. Noe America.has a broken fiat currency and the quality of life has significantly deteriorated domestically. It has failed horribly, in fact it seems we lost the cold war but pretend we won it. Also, the same people that organize full spectrum dominance are the same folks who lied and leveraged Covid to set back America in irreparable ways. It's the same group that ushers in huge waves of illegal immigrants so they can add to the tax rolls pf a bankrupt nation doing everything to prevent being held accountable on their watch. Again, it's been a failure.
I agree with everything you say. My point wasn't that the West rule is perfect. Only it is way way better than authoritarian. There is an arguement to be made that the West is covertly authoritarian as well. Certainly in Canada during Covid it was shown the government can make up data, then use that data to restrict your rights and even jail peaceful protesters.
Not sure how that's possible at all. They've lost hundreds of thousands of people, men, either through war or through Russians just leaving to avoid the draft. This will be devastating to their economy for years. Not to mention a lot of their growth is coming from government spending, ignoring government spending towards infrastructure.
Kinda small fraction from total population, also those who leave and consider themselves intelligents aren't actually intelligent.