Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Myth: Russian Economic Growth" video.

- 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
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
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
@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
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
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
@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
@ЕржанЖанабердинов-р4ш Capital controls should be done in moderation. You do not want useless and harmful speculative foreign capital creating inflation bubbles followed by deflationary crashes. You do not want tax evasion. You do not want foreigners to buy up the crown jewels among the high tech companies in your country. However some foreign money is good for a country. If they build new factories, create good well paying jobs and make long term commitments and bring foreign technologies into the country. Russia have just stolen assets from the west - everything from Carlsberg to 500 passanger planes. This will have long term negative consequences for the country as foreigners will be very hesitant and wait many many decades before they can come back. And stealing russian peoples savings in dollars, pounds, and Euros is also sacrificing the future for short-term gain.
1
Not true. https://youtu.be/tY3cysKDNZI?si=Zzb_z1q_kqcjM_q6
1
@dragodragic4180 Indeed, and starting with the Great depression was a great asset for Hitler. That made the German people less picky about their own standards of living and was happy to get any kind of job. And Hitler gave people jobs and wasted Germanys money on military spending. Normally would people have protested, because they would not liked seeing taxes go up to pay for a larger military and see other government services shrink. But now did the economy recover from the great depression and all money made in the recovery flowed into the military instead of into peoples standard of living improvements.
1
Hyperinflation happens to countries at war and socialist regimes. It doesn't happen to modern industrialized manufacturing super powers. Russia is a 3rd world country while USA isn't. USA can print billions of dollars and foreigners worldwide happily take that money and save it in their bank accounts. But there are not much demand for rubles. People rather trade that money away for something else instead. Worldwide demand for it is weak. So due to the law of supply and demand do I consider the russian currency much weaker as there are no demand that can suck up any extra money printed, and that means that there will be inflation. "Too much money chases too few goods" is another explanation of what the word inflation means... and given russias weak manufacturing sector is there no way it can counter more money printing by spitting out more goods like manufacturing economies of the west. All russia can make money off is from selling raw materials like oil, natural gas, and coal
1
He went to a French grocery store chain in Russia. And because it had shopping cart escalators there, is russia justified in invading their neighbouring country says Tucker Carlson. By that logic are Australia justified in invading New Zealand. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tvrxyoscst4?feature=share
1
He was using PPP as a measurement. Which is of course an incredibly silly way of measuring and comparing things. Its like when the Swedish government skipped measuring unemoployment in percentage points like the rest of the world, and began calculating it in absolute numbers instead and ignored population growth. So I guess that Nigeria with this method then must be the most succesful economy in the world as they create hundreds of thousands of new jobs each year... (and the rapid population growth in Nigeria is something that we should of course ignore)
1
@kobbetop Of course. But since when have Putin ever cared about the truth? He said stupid stuff that are probably intended for consumption by the people home in russia that will not fact check his statements.
1