Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Econ Lessons" channel.

  1. I can also add the Swedish conquest of Moscow in 1610 where the Russians were forced to accept a Swedish King as the new ruler of their country. But since Gustavus Adolphus younger brother was only something like 8 years old did his mother protest much and refused to let him go to Russia to become King there. So negotiations got drawn out, and the tide of war shifted and Sweden was attacked from Denmark. So Sweden had to give up some of its peace demands. But Sweden never the less won the war. And Karelia and Ingria fell into Swedish hands and Russia lost all its access to the Baltic sea with the peace in Stolbova in 1617.
    71
  2. The Confederate war economy is fun to study, because it is the perfect example to study on how to not design a war economy. They burned up all its piles of cotton on the beginning of the war before the northern blockade had become effective. The idea was that this would create worldwide cotton shortages and Britain would then be forced to join the war on Souths side. But that never happened, but instead did Britain start growing cotton in India, Egypt and elsewhere. And the south never got any export revenues for all the cotton they destroyed. They also refused to raise any war taxes which could have created a better balanced budget and it would have reduced inflation. But it rather pleased rich people than taxing them to take all chances of letting the Confederacy win the war. And the need for money for the military was fulfilled by money printing rather than war taxes.
    7
  3. It will not matter what he do. The russian economy could not bring a victory against such a big and powerful alliance. Taxes transfers resources from the private sector to the government. And even if russia taxed the civilian sector at 100% would it still not be enough resources. And this transfer of resources will of course create inblances with growing productivity in the military sector and lower productivity and higher prices and inflation in the civilian sector. Add to that all dead young men this war creates. Productivity levels and population levels will fall, which will result in a GDP drop. Shortages and bottle necks of stuffs will cause rising inflation. Lack of semiconductors, lack of foreign currency will cause problems. And russia no longer have the know-how how to make many advanced weapons systems like it had back in soviet days like AWACS planes
    6
  4. I have only met one Chinese person, so I know its wrong to base the opinion of 1.5 to 2 billion people on him only. But due to the lack of better information I now do it anyways. My impression from him was that Chinese are very very nationalistic and a bit arrogant towards other countries and look down upon our culture.. like for example Swedens relaxed attitude towards face masks during the pandemic. He saw the Chinese government as strong and doing what was necessary. My impression however, is that many Chinese was eventually fed up with the harsh lockdown in China last year and public protests was so strong that the government had to scrap all restriction as it no longer seemed able to guarantee regime security with huge protests in many Chinese cities all over the country. China had some imperialist ambitions. It has not been that so much for thousands of years, with a few exceptions like the invasion of Vietnam that of course ended with a failure (as it always does nor the Mongols, Japanese, French, or Americans could beat them either). However, since the introduction of Communism have China been quite imperialistic and aggressive. It joined the Korean war. It invaded Tibet. It invaded India. It have been shelling Taiwan. It invaded Vietnam to help their genocidal Maoist regime in Cambodia under Pol Pot. They was also at war with russia for a while. And they have been sabre rattling a bit over some pacific islands against Japan. And they did not respect the promise to keep Hong kongs democracy and self-determination that they gave the British in exchange of being given back that island. Chinas belt and road iniative is considered as a strategy of Chinese imperalist ambitions to seize control over habors and such by handing out shark loans to foreign countries. The Chinese themselves however claims that they only have noble ambitions. But personally do I guess that the truth lay somehwere in between. Chinese bots can be seen online, even if they are much less active than Rusbots. China is however a country led by a wiser leadership than russia. And its strong 10% annual GDP growth it had in the 1990s and early 2000s was probably key for the self-preservation for the regime. It had to create jobs and lift millions out of poverty to avoid food riots and such. And to be fair have the regime been quite succesful and won some popularity and support from the Chinese people. Today is the country however too technologically backwards and its navy too much low quality and small to win a war against USA. But the Chinese are aggressivly expanding its navy and military and they ruthlessly steals technology from USA, Europe and Russia. And to be fair, this is what every other country also would have done in their situation. They need to aquire modern technologies to make better products, increase military power, and to develop more production effiency and productivity in their economy so they can better compete on the world markets and lift millions of people out of poverty. The west is unhappy that they steal our technologies without paying. But the Chinese respond that we did the same to them when we took their technolgoies like gun powder, paper, book printing and the compass. Russia was very unhappy when they exported a small number of SU-27 fighter jets to China in the 1990s. And then they instantly saw the Chinese reverse engineer those planes and then copied then and mass produced them. Relations between russia and China remained salty for many years after that, but then China grow richer and could pay for their stuff and make the russians happy again. And Russia was starved of cash and happily sold more weapons to China. But personally do I doubt that this trade will go on forever. China is learning how to make weapons from russia, and in combination from all know-how they import from western countries are China soon becoming more technologically superior compared to russia and no longer need to import stuff from them as they can make better stuff themselves. China is a country that also abuse its economic power to bully and blackmail smaller countries. But Germany and France are to pre-occupied to sell stuff to the Chinese so they happily throw allied countries like Sweden and Canada under the bus when China uses its enormous force to bully those small democracies into submission. France and Germany are not only betraying USA by not helping them in the trade war against China. They are also betraying fellow EU countries and allies like Sweden with their selfish behaviour and cowardice. Indeed they are even harming themselves with their greed. The Chinese only allows foreign countries access to the huge Chinese market if they hand over their secret modern technologies to China. So the Chinese copies those technolgies and learn how to make cars just as good as the German ones and make cheaper copies of them with low chinese wages and outcompete western firms. Chinese money are flowing into Europe, and some say its a good thing. But when the Chinese buys up harbors like Hamburg then it is a national security concern. And when the crown jewels of future promosing high tech firms like Kuka industries in Germany gets bought up by China, then do China grow their economic potential on other countries expense with unfair competition, where China got free trade and free access to European markets where they can buy up European firms. But European companies are not allowed into the Chinese market without government permission.
    6
  5. - If the russian economy was healthy then it would have large numbers of Fortune 500 companies, as those gigantic companies often is the home of lots of technological know-how that leads to productivity increases in an economy. They also generate much profits. Russia have no such company outside of the fossile fuel sector, or banking related to it. To me this is a sign of failure, to establish any technological leadership in any field. - If the economy was healthy, then I don't think it would have a 15% interest rate. - If the economy was healthy, then the currency would be super strong and not lose value against the dollar when the interest rate is 15%. - If the russian economy was strong would the number of car producer not fall from 60 down to a dozen in just 2 years. - If the russian economy was healthy, then it would be diversified so it would not be fragile to economic shocks. The russian stock market took the most severe downturn of any economy during the financial crisis which can be interpreted as a symptom of this. Of course was the recovery fast. But the large volatility in itself is not healthy in my opinion, and makes long term planning and growth difficult. - If the russian economy was healthy, then I do not think that 25% of the population would lack indoor plumbing and men have an average life expectancy than that of Haiti. - If the Russian economy was healthy then I think that their government would have a lifting of western sanctions the top 1 priority for russia in the grain deal. If their economy is doing so well as they claim themselves, then why care about the sanctions? why not try to get something better out of the deal? Russia is a country with 144 million people like Mexico that makes the claim of being a super power while only having an economy the size of Spain, or New York City. Income per capita is also pretty low, which matters for a countrys military potential as could allow a substitution for labor with machines/industrial robots/tractors if you got a high average income in your country. And that can allow you to replace more farmers, and industrial workers with mechanization so that more men can be dressed in uniform and sent to the frontline to fight. Poor economies usually only can mobilize 40-60% of their GDP for war. While richer industrial countries like USA could easily mobilize 80% during WW2, and then did USA not even try their best to go all in. USA did actually begin to demobilize their war economy already in late 1943 before it had fully geared up, because it had realized that the axis had already lost the war. So orders for more weapons was cancelled - like the worlds biggest battleship of the Montana class. Economic strength do in itself of course not determine the outcome of a war. Sometimes do small economies beat larger ones. But economies with a low GDP per capita is usually more fragile and will break from economic pressures.. as could nicely be seen in World war 1... where the first countries to break apart was the weakest economies. First fell russia in 1917, then fell the Austro-Hungarian empire, and then did Germany fall before the richer Britain did. Russia is a country with much corruption. It have an ageing population and low birthrates. And having young men fleeing the country. And having young men die before they can make kids and contribute to the economy is a painful loss to russia. Losing 400.000 young men was the best part of the population for russia. Its said that for every 1 dead soldier are there 2 wounded - and one of them is severely wounded. This ratio is a rough estimation that is of course not true for every war. American medical care is certainly better than the russian one, so there are less fatalities and less amounts of smaller wounds that are left without treatment and become more serious problems. In Vietnam did USA have 6 wounded soldiers for every 1 soldier killed. And I think it is highly unlikely russia ever will come close to such a ratio. So russia have thereby lost 400.000 young men in battle. Another 400.000 have ended up with losing arms, legs and eyes. And another 400.000 got minor injuries and will likely come home after the war with PTSD, alcohol problems and drug use as a coping mechanism as the non-existent state care for their veterans will offer them no help at all. And the result is more crimes, and more relationship problems and men beating their wives.
    6
  6.  @maxinabo  russia should give back ingria and karelia. its important to respect 1650s map.
    5
  7.  @maxinabo  Just because Ukrainians speak russian does not mean that they are russian. Americans today are not British. Just like Ukrainians are not russians even if they speak the same language. Zelensky speaks russian, but that does not mean that he is a russian. You may have that opinion, but that is probably not how he sees himself. Fact is that todays Ukraine voted for independence in 1991. And all areas, including Crimea voted for independence from Russia. In every area was the majority for independence from Russia. And with that should the issue have been settled once and for all. And the only way for Ukraine to becoming a part of russia again, should be if the majority of Ukrainians vote for voluntarily join russia again - something I cannot see happening anytime within the coming 200 years after russias genocidal war. It is a great irony that russia says it invades Ukraine to protect the russian speakers, but all it does is bombing Russian speaking cities like Odessa, Kharkiv and Bakhmut into ruins. 98% of all buildings of Mariupol has been destroyed and possibly as many as 200.000 civilians have been killed. So I do not call it liberation when russian speakers gets killed by the russian army, and their homes gets looted and destroyed. This war is just tragic and unnecessary. Russia should just go home. Nothing good comes from prolonging this war. And the russian speakers in Ukraine does not want russia there.
    5
  8.  @maxinabo  Many people in USA did probably see themselves as British after USA had become independent. And even more did before USA declared independence. 22.4% of the people in Ukraine saw themselves as russians in 1989 (altough that number should be taken with a grain of salt, as the term "russian" means different things to different people). Today however is this number likely much lower. Indeed the desire to rejoin the motherland is totally gone by now. Perhaps not so strange I guess. If I lived in Mariupol and had my entire family killed and my entire town where I grew up destroyed, then would I also not feel happy about the russian invasion. I might have been in favor of russia before the war, but after what russia had done to Mariupol, and in Bucha and Irpin is there simply no way I would have anything but contempt for Putins regime. Russian occupied Donbass have also become a place of constant electricity black outs and open daylight robbery by mafia gangs. A place where people can get killed for just waving an Unkrainian flag, and kids gets into trouble if they just speak Ukrainian at school. This is not liberation. That is what we call opression, lack of freedom, and anti-democratic rule.
    5
  9. That is just silly russian coping. Sweden did beat russia on the battlefield. Sweden won that war. And yes you had your own civil war that helped you lose that war, but that does not change the fact that it was a military victory for Sweden. Just like 1917 was a military victory for Germany over your country. If explaining away other countries victories with inner weakness - like you do - is the norm, then have Sweden not lost a single war. With your standard did Sweden never lose Finland to Russia, because your country only won because of a civil war in Sweden.
    5
  10. Sweden fought alone against an alliance of countries with a 40 times larger population for 21 years during the great northern war, and still did it at many occasions come close to victory. I would say that the russian army was as much garbage back then as it is today. Just look at its track record. The Swedes did beat the Russians at Narva in 1700 37.000 Russians fought 10.500 Swedes. Russia lost 9000 men and 20.700 men was captured. Sweden lost 667 dead. In 1701 came the battle of Düna. The Russian and Saxon forces outnumbered Sweden 2 to 1, and had the advantage of a strong defensive position behind a river. Russia lost the battle with 1300 dead and 700 men captured. While Sweden lost 100 dead. Next came the battle of Rauge in 1701, where 7000 Russians faced 2000 Swedes. Russia lost the battle and lost 2000 men. Sweden lost 50 men. The next humiliation was the battle of Saločiai in 1703. Here 6000 Russians stood against 1,100 Swedes. Russia lost the battle with 1500 men killed and over a thousand flags fell in enemy hands, while only 40 Swedes died. In 1704 was a Russo-Polish force of 15.000 men beaten up by a Swedish force of 3000 men (plus 2000 Lithuanians) in the battle of Jakobstadt. Sweden won the battle, and lost 238 men, while the Russian-Polish side lost 2300 men dead and 500 men were captured. At Gemauerthof in 1705; did 7000 Swedes fight a Russian force of between 13.000 or 20.000 men. Sweden won the battle with 1900 men in casualties, while Russian losses numbered 5000. In 1706 did a Russian-Saxon force of 20.000 men go into battle against 9400 Swedes in the battle of Fraustadt. Sweden won the battle with 400 Swedes killed in battle, while the Russian and Saxon losses were 7377 dead, and 7,900 captured. At the battle of Grodno, in january did a Swedish force of 800 men attack a Russian force of 9000 men. Sweden won the battle, and lost only 11 men killed. While Russian losses was higher: 150 men killed and 50 captured. The battle of Holowczyn took place in 1708, 12,500 Swedes went into battle against a Russian force 28.000-40.000 men strong. This dangerous river crossing by Swedish forces, became the favorite victory of the Swedish King Charles XII. Sweden lost 265 men killed, while Russian losses numbered 2000 men. A few weeks later was it time for the battle of Malatitze. A Swedish force of 5000 men fought 13.000 Russians. Sweden won the battle, losing 1050 men killed or wounded, while Russian losses was 2,700 men killed or wounded. Then a month later came the battle of Rajovka in september 1708. 2.400 Swedes fought against 10.000 Russians. Sweden won the battle, and lost 100 men killed while Russia had 375 of their men killed. In January 1709 was the battle of Oposhnya, where 2000 Swedes fought against 6000 Russians. The battle ended with a Swedish victory. 19 Swedish men were lost while Russia lost 450. 12 days later came the battle of Krasnokutsk–Gorodnoye. 2.500 Swedish riders went to battle against a Russian force of about 5000 to 10.000 men strong. The battle ended with a Swedish victory, with 132 Swedish soldiers lost while Russia lost 1200. 1719 was the battle of Stäket where 1200 Swedish soldiers defeated a Russian force of 3000 men. Sweden lost 101 men while Russia lost 500. So which army was the better one? I would argue that the Swedish army was clearly the better one. Russias army was garbage. It fought only against 1 enemy unlike Sweden. And yet did it performed so poorly. And almost every war russia fought is like this. World war 1 is like this. World war 2 is like this. The current war in Ukraine is like this. High losses and a snail phase of advance are what is typical for the russian army throughout history.
    5
  11. I think the Ukrainians have given much value for our money for all Swedish military aid given to them. It is an obligation for us to help Ukraine, but it is also in our self-interest. Can we repair the country, then we do not have to see refugee waves coming to other countries in Europe and causing problems such as housing shortages, shortages for jobs, integration problems, the need for more doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen as the population grow and so on. A strong Ukraine is also a good market for selling our products to. And it can contribute a lot with to us with their plentiful cheap resources and food. We are stronger togheter militarily and economically our fellow western democracy. It makes me sad to have to see them fight this war alone and sacrifice their own youth, and their men and blood for a war they never wanted. So the least we could do is to help them in every other way if we do not wanna fight this war ourselves. Its simply a moral obligation. And yes money will be wasted in theft, corruption, bad planning and so on. But that happens in all big buisness as well. And I never heard anyone say that our grocery store firms should be shut down because 3% of their products goes to waste due to shop lifting, or food pass its expiration date, or because someone working at the store accidentally drops a few glass bottles into the floor so they get destroyed. Our grocery stores can still make a profit and provide valuable things to society. And indeed even extremely corrupt dictatorships can improve lifes for their citizens. Suharto stole half of his countrys national wealth and put it on to foreign bank accounts. But thanks to strong GDP growth of his country was life improved also for the average citizen a lot under his rule. So I do not think we should cut all foreign aid and turn our backs on corrupt countries. And especially not for Ukraine for us Europeans, as this country is in our own neighbourhood, and is soon a member of our EU club. Its also a young fellow democracy needing our help and deserving of it. Ukraine belongs to the same cultural sphere as us Europeans, so its our obligation to help them. India says that they do not care about Europe. So if they don't care Ukraine, then we should care about them as no one else do. And frankly, if thats the attitude people outside the western world have. Then I rather cut aid to the middle east and Africa and shove that money into Ukraine instead. Then can India pay for helping the middle east instead, as this area is not near us geographically or culturally. I do not understand why my Swedish tax money should have to go to Hamas.
    4
  12. Reminds me a bit of the opioum wars. I am not saying I support this idea. Because I do not of course.
    4
  13. ​ @gnice8765  Russia was created by Swedish vikings from a place in Sweden called Roslagen. Those Swedish vikings from Roslagen who did row oars on viking ships was called "Rus". And those vikings founded Kievan-Rus - which is considered the first Russian and Ukrainian kingdom. So Sweden created Russia, indeed the name "Russia" comes from "Rus". Indeed in Finland are Sweden still today called Routsi, refering to this old group of people. And when it comes to your anglosaxon heritage, could it be said that it was much formed by the Scandinavian vikings. Admittedly mostly Norwegian and Danish vikings, but still Scandinavians none the less. And this was back in a day and age when the differences between the 3 kingdoms Sweden, Norway and Denmark was insignificant in regards to culture and language. It was mostly just an issue about which King ruled over which piece of land, and what team of men followed and obeyed those Kings. Indeed half of all words in the English language are of viking origin. Words like "window", "sky" and thursday (the God Thor's day). The Danish rulers possesed enormous amounts of power during the viking age and many comtemporaries liked Adam of Bremen considered the Danish King equally powerful to the Holy Roman emperor. So the long lasting impact on England should not be underestimated. The vikings also found America long before Christopher Columbus did. You say Sweden would be nothing today without russia and USA. I say that you could just as well argue that America and Russia would be nothing like today without Swedish influence.
    3
  14.  @gnice8765  "You claim WW2 was not won by Russia bc they lost more ppl than any other country. The human loses do not determine the winner." I think you have misunderstood me. My claim was rather that russia did survive the nazi onslaught thanks to the help that the western allies provided. Without this aid would russia likely have lost the war on the eastern front. If russia did not get millions of food rations, would the country have been forced to produce all that food by themselves instead or starve to death. If russia did not get planes, locomotives, trucks and tanks... then it would have been forced to produce all those things by themselves. And that means that russia would have needed more farmers and industrial workers and could not have afforded to field so many soldiers because they lacked food and weapons for them. And with the huge manpower losses russia suffered could they unlikely have afforded to keep on fighting this war like they did because they were beginning to run low on manpower already by 1944. Indeed only an increase in tank production by late 1943 helped russia to decrease its infantry losses during mass assaults against german lines. In an alternative universe without allied help, do I think it is extremely unlikely that russia could have kept on fighting the germans on their own hand. For the reasons mentioned, but also because of the force multipliers it meant to have access to radios (which was extremely scarce in russia), american high quality aviation fuel (russian fuel was low quality), explosives (which russia was in short supply of), and enormous amounts of military trucks that allowed the russian army to be more mobile than before and more mobile than their German enemy. British tanks was also more reliable than russian tanks that was built for a short life expectancy in mind. This made the Valiant tank very popular training tank for russian tank crews.
    3
  15. To me it seems like Peter often changes his views 180 degrees. Sometimes in just a week
    3
  16. They seem to be interested in increasing the standard of living of its people, while russia don't. On the contrary, I would say. Russia do seem to want to have poor and uneducated underclass that don't know to fight for its rights, which is easy to manipulate with propaganda, and which is willing to risk their lives for a small sum of money in one of the regimes evil pointless wars. China on the other hand do invest in education, job creation is a high priority for the regime, and the country do what it can to alleviate the worst poverty.
    3
  17. In the world of internet spam, yes. On other fronts no.
    3
  18. And is russia a super power? No. Having nukes does not make russia a super power. Just like North Korea and Pakistan are not super powers. Having 144 million people does not make it a super power anymore than Mexico is not a super power. Having a GDP the size of Spain does not make it a super power, indeed if we look at the number of fortune 500 companies, industrial manufacturing output per capita, number of innovations and so on then the country looks even more behind the curve... and would perhaps rank only as the 18th largest economy in the world and so on. And then haven't we even included all negative externalities from enviromental pollution. This country with the worlds 4th largest carbon footprint despite its tiny population. This country with the most toxic radioactive lake, and Chelnabinsk (aka "Tankgrad") which is the town in the world with the most polluted air. The country do have an aircraft carrier. A small and crappy one, but still. However having an aircraft carrier does not make Italy a super power. And nor are Japan with its advanced helicopter carriers any super power despite its enormous economic and technological superiority. And having a large army does not make russia a super power any more than North Korea is.
    3
  19. Japan also tried that model. But it turned out that they did not need to own resources to do well. They could just get what they wanted through trade instead. Today is Japan probably the most well being society in the world. A historic world record in GDP growth of 6% over a decade. Good income equality. Low crime. Long life expectancy. Clean enviroment. Technological progress. Tonnes of export. High speed rail.
    3
  20. Jesus said "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemy" and ended up nailed to a cross. As an atheist I regard this philosophy as a failure. Violance in self-defence is justified. We live in a world were evil people happily harms and murder innocent people if they can get away with it with little or no consequences.
    3
  21. Germany did defeat russia in 1917
    2
  22. China have harsh capital controls. Western Europe had a strong and healthy economic growth 1945-1970 despite very harsh capital controls. So I wouldn't say that capital controls in themselves are a bad thing. Sometimes they are necessary, as to protect the country from swift inflows and outflows of money from other countries that can cause massive inflation and deflation and destabilize and destroy the economy - like what happened to the Spanish and Irish housing market during the Eurocrisis, or what happened to Sweden in the 1990s, or what happened to the Asian economies during the asian crisis. The only asian country untouched by the Asian crisis was China thanks to its harsh capital controls.
    2
  23.  @petardetar5191  It can go on forever if it continues like it do now when the assets of the american people grows at roughly the same rate as the national debt. If you earn 100 times more than someone else, then it is no problem with borrowing 100 times more either. And the american people are just borrowing money from the american people. And when you tax, then you take money from the american people and give to the American people. But for some reason do rusbots not understand this. I have said this so many times that I have begun to suspect that they do not want to understand.
    2
  24. For the economically illeterate I can tell you that its normal operating procedure for a government to go into debt. The government goes minus so that the private sector can go plus. Its simple as that - double entry bookkeeping. When someone goes into a bank and take a loan, then someone gets a minus on their account and the other one gets a plus. The US government goes into minus and the American people goes into plus. There is no problem. People who worry about the national debt are economically illeterate. Simple as that. Stupid people or fear mongerers.
    2
  25.  @DIA1020-o8k  Reducing the Great Northern war to one battle is like when an American watch a movie about D-day and think it sums up the entire world war 2 😂😂 Russia lost one humiliating loss after another. And your best reply you can come up with is to brag about a battle russia won against an enemy they outnumbered with more than 2 to 1 in manpower and more than 28 to 1 in artillery. A Swedish army that lacked food and gun powder and had to attack a fortified position out of desperation. And even if the Swedish cavalry screwed up the battle plan from the start, did Sweden still come close to winning the battle. Peter the Great himself even prepared for a retreat and wrote a letter where he thought that the battle was lost. Gangut was a tiny victory with no significance for the war. It was a propaganda victory and nothing else. Russia won the battle by pure luck and no skills at all, as the lack of winds prevented the swedish ships from manouver. A tiny force of 1 pram and 6 galleys was lost. Thats all. The fact that the russian navy feels the need to brag so much over such tiny victory do I think says a lot about how few successes that navy must have throughout its long history. Otherwise its mostly just humilitations like Svensksund 1790, Tsushima 1905 and the war of Ukraine that comes to mind. Anyways, back to the topic of the Great Northern war. The Swedish high sea fleet did remain the most powerful one in the baltic sea even after the victory. Russia could dominate the shallow waters in the baltic sea with mass produced galleys built with low quality junk wood. But it stood no chance against the Swedish navy in the deeper waters where bigger warships were superior. Sweden did not have the resources for fighting a two front war against both Denmarks high seas fleet and the russian galley fleet. And most contemporaries in the 1700s Europe believed that Sweden would rise again after the loss in the Great Northern War. That would never happen because the corrupt incompetent nobility took a strong grip of power for the coming 100 years of the country and brought it towards ruin rather than recovery. They did behave much like russians today. Our nobles were filled with revanchism - just like Putins fanboys that are angry over the loss in the Cold War. There was a lust for military glory - like in russia today. There was an obsession about becoming a great power again - like in russia today - and the idea of peaceful future with economic development and civilian investments was getting contempt from the rich ruling class. The idiotic Swedish nobles brought Sweden into the seven years war against Prussia - for it was totally unprepared. Logistics was terrible, leadership was poor, thousands of muskets were totally unusable because of corruption. So even if the enemy had somehow ceased to exist, would the Swedish army have been unable to move forward more than a few kilometers because the logistics was in such a crappy shape. Much like the russian army outside Kyiv in 2022. The war ended with humiliation for Sweden. And the national debt grew into levels higher than it was after the 21 year long Great Northern War. Sweden was stupid enough to start a war it was not prepared for. And brought economic ruin upon itself. A lesson also other countries could learn from - like russia. Sweden would probably have been better off without more wars, even if I think that the war of 1788 against russia could have been succesful if the Swedish officers had not commited mutiny and treason against the King. After all was nearly all of Swedens empire still intact after the end of the Great Northern War. Finland was still part of Sweden. And the same goes for the German provinces. Swedens conquests from Denmark was still all in Swedish hands. So the empire was mostly pretty much intact after the war.
    2
  26. It depends on what your life goals are. If you want to have a nice car - then you might have to work 5 years in your life. And eat pizza at a nice resturant every friday - then you might have to work 5 years of your life. If you want a life with go skiing every winter and travel a few weeks to the sun every year - then you might have to work for say 10 years of your life. And you want a nice house - then you have to work another 10 years of your life. And then you want 3 kids - then you might have to pay for them for 15 years or so. And then you need another big house with space for your enlarged family - then you might have to work another 15 years of your life to pay for it. And then you might wanna have other stuff as well.. white whares etc So in the end do you might have to work a large part of your life to pay for all those things. Some people do not wanna pay for those things. They move to a country with low taxes on labor and work their asses off the first 10 years after they finished collage. And then they can retire afterwards at their 30th birthday if they just skip all the mentioned luxuries mentioned above and live cheaply instead and get much free time.
    2
  27. Putin reminds me of his own favorite Tsar Nicholas who started the Crimean war despite Russias backwardness and despite England and France was the richest high technological industrial superpowers of their age. And the reason why Tsar Nicholas and Tsar Putin believed in victory was the same. The west was decadent, materialistic, lazy, too comfortable, individualistic, unwilling to sacrifice blood and sweat, and unmanly. While Russia was manly, stubborn, brave, they were used to hardships, they were patriotic and understood the meaning of self-sacrifice for the greater good. It was believed that those virtues would compensate for russias technological, economical and manpower disadvantage. But Putin despite his love for history have failed to see that he is not the first one to have this faulty belief that wars could be won only by superior morality. Tsar Nicholas lost the Crimean war for Russia. Hundreds of thousands of people died for nothing for this childish man that had some silly fantasies about being a succesful conqueror King. Russia lost that war. Japan in World war 2 thought that the superior Japanese soldier would beat the industrial might of the decadent, comfortable, westerners that were unwilling to die for their country or for anything. But Japan had their asses kicked and lost the war anyways. And this was despite the Japanese undoubtably were fanatical and literarly fought til the last man and never surrendered, and japanese soldiers continued to fight for the emperor even decades after the war had ended on some remote pacific islands. So if not even fanatical Japanese bushido warriors could defeat the industrial might of the west, or German military professionalism. Then do I hold no doubt that russia will lose its future wars against the west. The russian soldier is less willing to fight than his western counterparts and more willing to surrender. And the lack of industrial might is even worse than that Germany had against USA. And nor do russia hold any manpower advantage like it had in previous world wars. Russias hopes and dreams are unrealistic. Putin just do the same mistake as previous Tsars. And russia will pay a high price for this for many decades to come.
    2
  28. I think this question if it is good or bad is irrelevant for the discussion here. Here is the thing, Putin and Trump try to win support by proclaiming they are the defenders of the Christian faith. You and I as non-religious people might not care about this issue as we are non-religious. However people like us are a tiny minority in many countries, including USA and Russia. To many is this issue relevant because they are religious. However neither Trump or Putin live like Christians and they act contrary to Christian values, so they do not deserve the support from Christian voters. Indeed, Putin is not a Christian at all, and no matter how many homophobic and anti-woke things he say will ever change that fact. He has broken against the basic Christian commandments. And nor does he feel any regret, shame or guilt over it. On the contrary. He will happily start a new war in the future as soon as this war is over and he have rebuilt his military. Putin is thereby no just non-christian. He is anti-christian. He supports murder, theft, lying, corruption, and opression. Jesus spoke about love, compassion and forgiveness of past sins.
    2
  29.  @DominicFlynn  You do not seem to understand MMT. MMT does not support the idea of reckless money printing. It considers money printing as a good thing only as long as it doesn't cause inflation. And to reduce inflation do economists use various tools like increased taxation or higher interest rates for example. What you propose now is more money printing to solve the problem of higher interest rates. But the problem for russia is the opposite. They raise interest rates to prevent inflation, because it would be seen as a prestige loss if the ruble fell like a rock in its value. If there was a strong global demand for this currency there would have been no need for capital controls, confiscations, high interest rates and such to prevent inflation. To me this is a sign of weakness of the russian economy.
    2
  30. I am an atheist, and I agree with your conclusion 100%. He just use religion as a tool to get votes. Reminds me of his disusting speech he held at a stadium the first weeks of the war where he said the famous Bible quote that is deeply inbeded in russian military historical tradition: “There is no greater love than this: that a person would lay down his life for the sake of his friends.” Putin used this quote in his speech to honor the sacrifice the fallen soldiers, in order to get applauds from the people. But the truth is that he was the man who send all those soldiers to their deaths. Without Putin starting this war would there had been no need for anyone to die for someone else. Everyone could stayed home played with their kids or dogs, kissed their wife, played minecraft and eaten pizza and having a good time instead. Putin choose the path of war and hate.
    2
  31. I don't think the word "mad" is accurate. I think he is aware of what he is doing. He knows it is wrong and evil and do it anyways. To me that just makes him an evil person. He also got an exagerated belief in his own greatness. That makes him a bit stupid in my opinion. But I do not think he is a madman doing crazy stuff. It is at least not like he considering a nuclear war or thinks that a frontal assault against Nato would have any chance of victory for russia. He is a person with a biased worldview that has taken decades to form, and he is not capable of changing this worldview in just a few years. He will however realize that he miscalculated when he strongly assumed that the democratic west is weak and decadent and too comfortable and materialistic to be able to win against an united and determined russia. Japan also had such beliefs that they could win against USA despite their enormous superiority in military power, superiority in natural resources, manpower, industrial capacity, technology, and so on. Japans attack was foolish and unrealistic. They got crushed in world war 2 despite Japanese soldiers were extremely brave and willing to self-sacrifice and never surrender. The Russian soldier is nowhere near the fanatical willingness to fight that the Bushido japanese had. And still Putin believe that he could win against the west somehow. He considers democracy just as weakness and something that hostile powers like his own could exploit and manipulate unpunished.
    2
  32. They take their own last currency reserves to prop up their currency a few more months. I see that irresponsible behaviour a bit like a parent plundering his childrens bank accounts to provide his own private company with some cash. But his company have been runned with a loss since the start. And all hopes that it will turn around is just wishful thinking.
    2
  33. You want to go beyond just selling raw materials, and also sell more advanced stuff. Learn from Sweden development in iron ore and timber. Sweden have iron ore that it can mine → around that Sweden built a steel industry → from the steel industry did Sweden start to also make machine tools → from the machine tool industry did Sweden begin to also make ships, airplanes, cars, trucks → this led to more demand for steel from the Swedish steel industry so it expanded even more → the ovens in the steel industry needed electricity, so Sweden decided to build hydroelectric power dams and nuclear plants → the know-how in electronics made Sweden a world leader in civilian nuclear power in the 1960s → and from electronic products did Sweden move into making mobile phones from Ericsson Sweden have timber → But instead of just cutting down a tree and selling the tree to another country, did Sweden decide to make more money from the tree. So Sweden began making paper from trees. And that paper could be sold to other countries for a higher profit → Paper production needs lots of chemical to make, so this led to the creation of a chemical industry in Sweden → During World war 2 was Sweden neutral, but could not import medicine from other countries because the war had cut off all trade, so in a desperate situation was Sweden forced to make its own medicine and the government asked the chemical industry for help - and that led to the birth of Swedens pharmaceutical industry with companies like Astra, Pharmacia and Kabi. So today as you see have Sweden got a very diverse and knowledge based economy. The demand for medicine is nearly endless. Sweden makes worldclass weapon systems with everything from fighter jets to submarines to tanks. And as a world leader in nuclear energy was Sweden close to making its own atomic bomb. The country was also the largest shipbuilder in the world after World war 2. Losec made by Astra did become the worlds most sold medicine when it was introduced in the 1990s. Ericsson grew to the largest company on the Swedish stock market surpassing Volvo during the same time. So the country have constantly tried to develop further and further up the value chain instead of just being content with selling timber and iron to other countries. Sweden export gigantic amounts of iron ore. 90% of all iron in the EU comes from Sweden. Just the mine up in Kiruna alone produce enough iron each day to make 13 Eiffel towers! But despite this do this industry only make up 1% of Swedens economy today. So if Sweden had not diversified its economy would it certainly have been very much poorer today.
    2
  34. Russian Orthodox christianity is just as much fake as Russian Communism was. The Soviet union was never truely Communist. The Soviet union also had a strong mixture of Russian imperialism in it and a small dose of moral conservatism / Orthodox Christianity. Stalin criminilized homosexuality. Romanian communists banned abortions. Marx wanted to abolish the nuclear family, but the Soviet union never did that as far as I am aware. And the idea that all countries and cultures are equals was never really a thing in the Soviet union that tried to russify its colonies - Like Königsberg, Eastern Ukraine, Viipuri and so on. Stalin deported ethinic minorities in the caucausus to Siberia to scatter communities and let their native culture die out. So there was never just pure noble ideas in the Soviet union. It was always mixed with Russian imperalism and ethno-nationalism. And Putin is just a successor of this russian tradition as I sees it. Perhaps he wants more russian nationalism and a bit less communism. And his religious thinking does not seem deeper than just being anti-woke.
    2
  35. Russian state tv claims that russia have never lost a war throughout its history. And that it have never started one either. But neither of those claims are true. And taking Kyiv will never happen. Not even with a 100% mobilization. Russia simply does not have the resources for that.
    2
  36. As David Graeber points out in his book debt the last 5000 years, are credits an older innovation than money. Barter economies mostly only exist in the fantasy land of theoriticians like Adam Smith, and not in the real world. Say that I got a nice book you want but all you have to offer me is a smelly t-shirt that is not in my own size. Then we have a double-coincidence of wants problem. A problem economists say is difficult to solve without money. But that is just nonsense. We can behave like the natives at Borneo or the Amazon jungle that don't have money. I see that you like my book, and I give it to you. And then you can walk back to your own village as a happy man. And a few days later I come and visit you and I look at your possessions and take out something of roughly equal value to the book I gave you. I then say "nice dinner plates you got". And you say "you like them? then you can have them! I want you to take them my friend. That is the least I can do for someone who gave me such a nice book!". So what we have done here is not really barter. I gave you a loan. And you repaid that loan when you were able to do so, and when you had something to offer me. And nor did we need any money to make these transactions with each other.
    2
  37. No one here in the EU notice much of this war. Its more Putin that cries that the western sanctions (which he claims are 100% ineffective) must end.
    2
  38. Its military was difficult to maintain also during the Cold war, it was always the more technologically backwards opponent that built primitive stuff at a low quality and its equipment is therefore ageing less well than that made in the west. At the end of the Cold war did it become difficult to maintain this collossos. Having an army based on quantity meant that the male workforce was dressed in uniform and therefore became economically unproductive. Also focusing large parts of the economy around military production made the economy unproductive in improving life in general. And wasting what little of what remained of the economy on Lenin statues, space programs, propaganda, parades and such did not help.. and in the long run would it make the east bloc struggle economically. This obsession of prestige also harmed its military capacity. The country built useless aircraft carriers for prestige reasons when it should have built small ships for coastal warfare instead. Now with a declining population and aged equipment will russias military situation only get worse. Fewer men will remain in the workforce if the country decides to keep its old Soviet military model. Reforming the army and go from an army of large numbers to a smaller force of more quality will take much money and investments. And now when russia have lost their best military gear in Ukraine do I think it is fair to say that 20 years of progress in has been wiped out. Much costs of maintaining old Soviet junk has of course been removed, as tanks have become burning wrecks in Ukraine. But this military is still too large for russia to afford. And losing a few million men to combat deaths, wounds, braindrain do make the current negative trend even worse for russia. Its population is ageing and needs upkeep, but the young people are becoming fewer, and the military cannot suck up all of them. And there are no Soviet satellite states that can share the cost of burden like back in the cold war. The country needs to replace old rusty AK-47 and steel helmets with kevlar helmets, and body armor. And Soviet tanks needs to be scrapped and replaced by T-90 tanks and T-14 Armata. And while SU-35 is a good plane by todays standards, do the future not look good for the russian air force as it still haven't built a single 5th generation fighter jet, while other countries are developing their 6th generation fighter. This is a bad omen for them. And even after billions of Indian money and years spent are their SU-57 still not finished, and it will probably never be. It cannot compete with F22 or F35 in terms of stealth. Indeed, I would argue that even the old Gripen E is superior to it in most things, including stealth, while also being cheaper.
    2
  39. Natural resources can be a great aid of economic growth if they are used correctly - as in the case of USA and Sweden. The problem for russia is that they have never bothered to climb up the ladder of industrialization to make manufactured goods. Simple ones in the beginning like perhaps beer, toys, milk and such. And then make a bit more technologically advanced stuff once they have learned to master the simple levels of industrialization. And then the final step is to become a world champion in making high tech products that few other countries can produce.. like jet engines or nuclear reactors and be a world leader in those fields. Russia needs to use mercantilism to create those new companies. 144 million consumers is a good start. Paying for importing machinery and new production technologies can be done with fossile fuels, that is a good start. Corruption is a problem, but on the other hand did corruption not stop China from growing into the workshop of the world. But the oil income must be invested for the benifit of the country, and not for the benifit of the corrupt and incompetent ruling elite and wasted on wars and military spending. Industralization is key in lifting a country out of poverty. Because the industrial sector have much higher productivity levels than agriculture , mining or service sector jobs. During the industrial revolution could the cotton industry increase its output 400 fold. A skilled worker could produce maybe 2000-3000 cigars per a 16 hour workday. Today do we have industrial robots that can spit out 6000 cigarettes per minute. Such productivity level increases cannot be done in other parts of the economy. If you tell a hairdresser to cut 400 times more people per hour, you would probably not end up with good haircuts. A chef could probably not make 400 times more meals per hour. And a hen could not lay 400 times more eggs in a year, and there is a limit how much you can increase milk production from a cow, or how much wheat you can reap from an acre of land in a single year. Another benifit with manufacturing goods is that when you make products that people wants but not many got the know how or the ability to produce it - then you have less competition and can charge higher prices for your products. While competition is very hard on the world markets when you try to sell a ton of salmon, coal or copper. But not every country knows how to make a smartphone or a patriot missile. Russia cannot perhaps compete on world markets today with their inferior products. So increasing exports is hard for now. It is however easier to cut imports of foreign manufactured goods if they learn to make some simple manufacturing goods themselves and sell it to russian consumers and block imports from foreign countries with tariffs. That will help russia improve its balance of trade. And it would help to nurture new companies. And when they have grown large and strong enough to fight conquer shares of world exports, then can the government cut down on its subsidies and tariffs and let the companies stand on their own feet. And instead can the government focus on creating new high tech sectors.
    2
  40. I am still waiting for russia for creating something equal to the internet. seems like their military spending does not create any civilian spinoffs... no apple, microsofts, google, or amazon.
    2
  41.  @peter-pi8bc  One of the most common expression from Jesus is "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!" (Matthew 23:27). Strangely enough have this expression became forgotten. But I guess that people in power - like Putin - do not want people to call him a Pharisee, because that is what he is. Someone who just acts very religious so that other people should give him respect and see him as an honourable person, while he in fact do not care one bit about God. He just follow religious rituals and have not spent 1 minute of his life wondering about the deeper meaning in the religious texts of what is means to be a good person or how God wants us to follow him. For Putin is nothing about religion, and everything is about superficial displays of piety in front of the tv cameras. Aside from that do he not care one bit about Christianity. For him it is just a tool to get peoples support for his regime and to gain popularity.
    2
  42. I feel like Stockholm is so vulnerable on the east coast. It needs a defensive barrier like in the past... when Finland and the Baltic states and Leningrad oblast belonged to Sweden, plus some north German provinces and Polish towns.
    2
  43.  @amraceway  BRICs is no monolithic unity. Brazil is on the rise and so is India, and China is undeniably an economic gigant. But russia is irrelevant. Those countries also have opposing interests. China and India do see each other as rivals for example. And China is making itself unpopular in Asia by taking all Mekong river water for themselves for their hydroelectric powerplants so all fish farms, and agriculture in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia is left without water. The conflict about territorial waters in the pacific is also a topic that have made China going into collision course with Japan, Taiwan, Phillipines, Vietnam and others. And the only way China gets support in the UN for its view on Taiwan is through paying out bribes to countries in Africa and Latin America. There are also reason to believe that many BRICs will leave this club and join the west in the future. India is a democracy opposed to China and do regard russian military equipment as increasinly outdated as it cannot build a 5th generation fighter aircraft for example, and thereby have to ask for western help instead against China. And as countries becomes developed rich countries do their views upon IMF policies and intellectual property rights change - like it did in South Korea and Japan when those countries went from poor to rich. So I think it is likely that more countries will feel more in common with the west than with the club of 3rd world countries in the future.
    2
  44. You are correct that russia is at war with the west. For that reason should all enemy proganda be banned in the west.
    2
  45. You focus on superficial stuff. Jesus would have called Pharisee behaviour, and just held all this in deep contempt. In all more important stuff are Moscovia failing. Murdering, lying, stealing, kidnapping children, feeling lust to steal ones neighbours property, wife and children. What is not so important are lighting candles in church like Putaine does. What is important however is being good at heart.
    2
  46. The bot comment is written in English because its lingua francua. the dollar is still the world reserve currency by far, Nato is the most powerful military alliance in history, the countries that supports Ukraine makes up 60% of the world economy. Look where patents, nobelprizes and fortune 500 companies come from you will further see that wests economic and technological dominance is total. Russia got nothing to offer the world by comparison.
    2
  47. Nationalists exists in all countries. They exaggerate their own countrys importance and turn a blind eye to embaressing set backs. Russian nationalists do this however to an extreme degree not seen in any other country in Europe - which is why I regard every russian "history book" as worthless sci-fiction. They ignore all genocide and opression. They do not call World war 2 for World war 2 in Russia. For russians did world war two not start in 1939 with Germany and Russia invading Poland, the Baltics and Finland. But instead do Russians use the term "The Great Patriotic war" and say that world war two began in 1941, and they ignore everything that happened before that year and pretend that Russia somehow was the defender and victim in this war, and not the aggressor that criminally helped to start this war. Nor have Russia apologized for the wars and occupation of Finland. No attempts have been done to deal with the crimes of the Soviet union like Germany did with their Nazi past. And russian history ignores military failures. For them did nothing happen during the Great Northern War until the battle of Poltava in 1709 which they won. And they try to pretend that they did not lose 19 out 20 battles for the rest of that war despite having 4 times numerical superiority against a country with limited manpower reserves that was fighting a two front war against an enemy coalition with a population 40 times larger. Russian nationalists refuse to talk about the war with Finland, and even less about all battles. But instead they narrow everything down to the peace settlement in their attempt to make the russian military look competent, while everyone in the world knows that they got themselves completely humiliated against Finland in 1939 and in 1944. Russian nationalists produce fake statistics in an attempt to make their own combat losses against Nazi-Germany seem less humiliating for Russia. And they try to pretend that lend lease played no role at all for Russias victory. But fact is that Russia suffered the worst military defeats in history in humiliating military disasters like the battle of Kiev in 1941, where 600.000 troops were captured by the Germans in just a single battle. Any other army in history would have lost the war after suffering such hard losses. But the russians have not performed impressivly in other wars either. They lost the Crimean war. They suffered a humiliating loss in the russo-japanese war. World war 1 was a catastrophic defeat for russia. Russia failed to conquer Poland in the 1920s. They lost the war in Afghanistan. They failed in Chechenya. The Georgian army did do well against the russian forces, but a small country with 3.8 million people with no western help stood no chance against Russia. So not so much of a victory to brag about for Russia. Indeed defeating Finland when it was the poorest country in Europe, and now doing so badly against Ukraine today (the country with the lowest GDP per capita in Europe) is not that impressive either. Its a country that has always brought stone age equipment to war. During the Great Northern War (1700-1721) was Russia and Sweden the two most oldest equipped armies in Europe, and the only ones still using pikemen and big heavy muskets with bayonets built for close combat with bayonets rather than lighter muskets for firing that was easier to carry. During the Crimean war in the mid 1800s, did Russia not have any industrial base so its troops were often equipped with muskets from the early and mid-1700s as they lacked modern muskets to fight against Britain and France. During World war 1, did the Russian artillery quickly run out of ammunition after the first months of the war. And for the rest of the war could russian industry only produce a tiny number of shells each month. A German artillery piece on average fired more shells in 2-3 days than what a russian one did in a month. And so few rifles were made that many russian units often had to share 1 rifles for 2 men, and do attacks in the same style as in the movie "enemy at the gates". And such meatwave attacks are still common in later wars, such as World war 2 and in the war in Ukraine. Not only have russia lost most wars it have fought the last 200 years. It have usually been beaten further back in history, and its few victories were usually won when it fought in coalitions with other countries - like against Poland, Sweden and Napoleon. Russian nationalists loves to call russia for "the destroyer of great armies" but Charles XII still had a good chance of winning the Great Northern War even as late as 1718. The performance of the Russian army against Frederick the Great was rather one of humiliation in my opinion. The battle of Zorndorf have falsely been remembered as a russian victory, while in reality did Russia lose that battle. Kunersdorf was a great defeat for Frederick, but what russian nationalists forgets to mention is that Frederick did crush the Russian army in that battle and forced it into a wild retreat and demoralized it for months to come. The Prussians did run behind the russian army and chasing it, and then did the Austrian army under Laudon see an opportunity for a counter-attack against the scattered and exhausted prussian troops and inflicted a painful defeat on Frederick. So did Russia win a great victory in this fight? Nope. They suffered a humiliating defeat, but could participate in the victory parade after the battle anyways. Also Gross-Jägersdorf was really just non-victory for Russia in the seven years war. So they had nothing positive to show for their participation in this war.
    2
  48. Being worried is pointless. If the problem can be solved, then why worry? And if the problem cannot be solved why worry? So being worried is a pointless feeling.
    2
  49. Its a quick way to get noobs to stop overestimating the power of the russian economy. But you are correct that the comparison is flawed. I would say that many other things matters too. Economic power in this world also depends on the number of Fortune 500 companies that a country have, its GDP per capita, its patents and innovation, its GDP per workhour, the amount of industrial robots per 100.000 workers, the structure of the economy where I consider manufacturing to be a superior activity compared to resource extraction, farming and banking. And then do other things matter too.. like the amount of corruption, health of the population, infrastructure etc. If all those measurements are taken into account, then I do not think that Russia even deserves a place among the worlds 20 largest economies. But Italy do.
    2
  50. And yet is the rouble falling in value compared to the dollar. And not just a little bit. I mean it falls like a stone dropped from an airplane. In places like Bankok you need something like 290 roubles for every 1 dollar you wanna trade
    1