Rising Economy of Russia >>

[adidas]

I have another way of measuring the rising economy of a given country. I measure it with the average wage for the average profession. I know that in Russia ,teachers which is an honorable profession get's paid up to 100 Euro per month. That's not the ideal payment for me but maybe I am wrong as I have this read from the news here in US.

[1715051573]

1715051573

[1715051573]

1715051573

[1715051573]

1715051573

[1715051573]

1715051573

[1715051573]

1715051573

[wpd]

Russia was always the economic power on the world stage no matter all the problems and crisis she has. And it will be very importan financial and economic player in the future too. But the cold war is over long time ago and Russia shouldn't be considered as enemy anymore.

They aren't seen as an enemy, but it is important to still be wary

[Sithara007]

I have another way of measuring the rising economy of a given country. I measure it with the average wage for the average profession. I know that in Russia ,teachers which is an honorable profession get's paid up to 100 Euro per month. That's not the ideal payment for me but maybe I am wrong as I have this read from the news here in US.

That was the salary 20 years ago. But Russophobes love the outdated data.

http://www.rferl.org/a/russian_teachers_protest_wage_levels/24352883.html

In 2011, a secondary school or kindergarten teacher's average salary in Russia ranged from $370 to $480 per month.

[deisik]

I have another way of measuring the rising economy of a given country. I measure it with the average wage for the average profession. I know that in Russia ,teachers which is an honorable profession get's paid up to 100 Euro per month. That's not the ideal payment for me but maybe I am wrong as I have this read from the news here in US.

That was the salary 20 years ago. But Russophobes love the outdated data.

http://www.rferl.org/a/russian_teachers_protest_wage_levels/24352883.html

In 2011, a secondary school or kindergarten teacher's average salary in Russia ranged from $370 to $480 per month.

In fact, I'm more inclined to agree with Mr. Adidas

It is your data that is actually skewed (and maybe even outdated) since teachers' salaries are paid in Russian rubles, not in dollars, and they didn't rise much since 2011. In 2014 the Russian ruble devalued more than 2 times within a short period, and even if we take your figures (i.e. 400 dollars), right now the salary of a teacher would equal only 200 dollars, which is not very far from 100 Euro. In big cities, payments are obviously higher but in rural areas it is quite close to that. The matters are mended somewhat by the fact that most teachers are actually overworking and taking more class load than just 1 FTE (full-time equivalent)

[Xester]

When Vladimir Putin became President, Russia was effectively bankrupt as it owed more money to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) than it had in foreign currency reserves. Since then, Russia has achieved a virtual macroeconomic revolution to the point where it is one of the largest creditors of U.S. debt in the world. Its nominal dollar GDP has increased by more than a factor of six, and has the potential to reach more than $2 trillion by 2010. Russia would become the largest economy in Europe and the fifth largest in the world following the United States, China, Japan, and India by 2020 if goals would have been achieved.......

I have made a comment on this post and I remember clearly that I mentioned that Russia will be one of the biggest country in the world in terms of economy. But I never Imagined that they were on the verge of bankruptcy before. This just shows that Putin was a good president and an expert on economics. If he was not the president of Russia how will they came back up again.

[deisik]

When Vladimir Putin became President, Russia was effectively bankrupt as it owed more money to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) than it had in foreign currency reserves. Since then, Russia has achieved a virtual macroeconomic revolution to the point where it is one of the largest creditors of U.S. debt in the world. Its nominal dollar GDP has increased by more than a factor of six, and has the potential to reach more than $2 trillion by 2010. Russia would become the largest economy in Europe and the fifth largest in the world following the United States, China, Japan, and India by 2020 if goals would have been achieved.......

I have made a comment on this post and I remember clearly that I mentioned that Russia will be one of the biggest country in the world in terms of economy. But I never Imagined that they were on the verge of bankruptcy before. This just shows that Putin was a good president and an expert on economics. If he was not the president of Russia how will they came back up again

In August 1998, the Russian government defaulted on their GKO bonds (which loosely match the US Treasury bonds). It was rather a technical default (due to current currency reserves running dry), but it is essentially the same as if the US government refused to pay outstanding interest on their debt, i.e. interest on the Treasuries. Unsurprisingly, the Russian ruble collapsed 3 times overnight. On the eve of the collapse (i.e. August 16th) the US dollar cost around 6 rubles, in about a week after defaulting one dollar was worth almost 20 rubles

Putinomics is mostly based on high oil prices, without such prices, the Russian economy is stagnating

[Sundark]

Russia is no producing anything, they have no factories, brands, patents. They have land and enormous amount of natural resources.
Vast oil reserves (but still not as big as Venezuela, Canada or UAE), gas, coal, diamonds, timber.
But building economy on oil and gas export is fine for now but what about the future, how many years will pass until there will be no oil to sell?
It is hard to estimate if this will happen in 10 or 40 years, but fortunately it won't be Putin's problem anymore.

[deisik]

Russia is no producing anything, they have no factories, brands, patents. They have land and enormous amount of natural resources.
Vast oil reserves (but still not as big as Venezuela, Canada or UAE), gas, coal, diamonds, timber.
But building economy on oil and gas export is fine for now but what about the future, how many years will pass until there will be no oil to sell?
It is hard to estimate if this will happen in 10 or 40 years, but fortunately it won't be Putin's problem anymore

Personally, I wouldn't hope for that

At least, not for the nearest 20 years. Many people are fed up with Putin (I understand their pains), but he won't give up power voluntarily, there should be no doubts or illusions. Apart from that, he is pretty young for a president (Trump is 4 years older than Putin, just in case), and he certainly cares for his health. And in 20 year time they will likely develop an age-reversing technology and then...



And then we will have to live and cope with eternal Putin sticking around for centuries

[Hydrogen]

I think Putin could be a good President with good economic policies.

The main threats to russia's economy may be.

1) Economic sanctions imposed on russia by the UN/EU.
2) Banking cartels hate russia as its the only major power they do not control or have influence in.

If it wasn't for those two things, russia could be prosperous right now.

[panju1]

I think Putin could be a good President with good economic policies.

The main threats to russia's economy may be.

1) Economic sanctions imposed on russia by the UN/EU.
2) Banking cartels hate russia as its the only major power they do not control or have influence in.

If it wasn't for those two things, russia could be prosperous right now.

Economic sanctions against Russia in the past have hurt Europe, because Russia is a big economy and has the power to turn the tables on EU, by imposing reciprocal measures. Sanctions work best to isolate smaller economies.

[deisik]

I think Putin could be a good President with good economic policies.

The main threats to russia's economy may be.

1) Economic sanctions imposed on russia by the UN/EU.
2) Banking cartels hate russia as its the only major power they do not control or have influence in.

If it wasn't for those two things, russia could be prosperous right now

Sanctions imposed by the UN, what did I miss?

It seems that you meant to say the US, right? Though I don't think that those are the primary drivers of underdevelopment. And neither has Putin anything to do with that (i.e. not being prosperous), though. Too many resources is like a curse which puts people living off them into an idle mode of operation, so to speak. Look at Japan, for example, it doesn't have anything (it is just tiny) but has population quite comparable to that of Russia while its level of economic development and overall well-being by far surpasses Russia's

[Sithara007]

I think Putin could be a good President with good economic policies.

The main threats to russia's economy may be.

1) Economic sanctions imposed on russia by the UN/EU.
2) Banking cartels hate russia as its the only major power they do not control or have influence in.

If it wasn't for those two things, russia could be prosperous right now

Sanctions imposed by the UN, what did I miss?

It seems that you meant to say the US, right? Though I don't think that those are the primary drivers of underdevelopment. And neither has Putin anything to do with that (i.e. not being prosperous), though. Too many resources is like a curse which puts people living off them into an idle mode of operation, so to speak. Look at Japan, for example, it doesn't have anything (it is just tiny) but has population quite comparable to that of Russia while its level of economic development and overall well-being by far surpasses Russia's

The case with Japan is different. Japan has been a super-power since the 19th century, and until 1945 none of the other nations could defeat them in a military conflict. Japan became an economic super-power by building on top of this strong base. The WW2 temporarily caused a blip in the Japanese economy, but they were able to survive.

[deisik]

I think Putin could be a good President with good economic policies.

The main threats to russia's economy may be.

1) Economic sanctions imposed on russia by the UN/EU.
2) Banking cartels hate russia as its the only major power they do not control or have influence in.

If it wasn't for those two things, russia could be prosperous right now

Sanctions imposed by the UN, what did I miss?

It seems that you meant to say the US, right? Though I don't think that those are the primary drivers of underdevelopment. And neither has Putin anything to do with that (i.e. not being prosperous), though. Too many resources is like a curse which puts people living off them into an idle mode of operation, so to speak. Look at Japan, for example, it doesn't have anything (it is just tiny) but has population quite comparable to that of Russia while its level of economic development and overall well-being by far surpasses Russia's

The case with Japan is different. Japan has been a super-power since the 19th century, and until 1945 none of the other nations could defeat them in a military conflict. Japan became an economic super-power by building on top of this strong base. The WW2 temporarily caused a blip in the Japanese economy, but they were able to survive

And what does it change in the end?

You could say that they had been milking the whole Asia before the WWII (just like what the British Empire did), but it's been over 70 years after the war ended. But they have remained strong and likely became even stronger. What's the cause of that? As an aside, the Soviet Union had defeated Japan (twice) in local clashes even before Japan attacked the US in Pearl-Harbor. If there had been a full-fledged war between just the Soviet Union and Japan alone back then, the latter would be crushed within months. Likewise, today Japanese military is virtually non-existent but it is due to their loss in the WWII (remember they still lost that war)

[hurain]

I think Putin could be a good President with good economic policies.

The main threats to russia's economy may be.

1) Economic sanctions imposed on russia by the UN/EU.
2) Banking cartels hate russia as its the only major power they do not control or have influence in.

If it wasn't for those two things, russia could be prosperous right now

Sanctions imposed by the UN, what did I miss?

It seems that you meant to say the US, right? Though I don't think that those are the primary drivers of underdevelopment. And neither has Putin anything to do with that (i.e. not being prosperous), though. Too many resources is like a curse which puts people living off them into an idle mode of operation, so to speak. Look at Japan, for example, it doesn't have anything (it is just tiny) but has population quite comparable to that of Russia while its level of economic development and overall well-being by far surpasses Russia's

The case with Japan is different. Japan has been a super-power since the 19th century, and until 1945 none of the other nations could defeat them in a military conflict. Japan became an economic super-power by building on top of this strong base. The WW2 temporarily caused a blip in the Japanese economy, but they were able to survive.

i do not think that japan was ever super power. although  they have very strong economy but the do not even have such a define amry and that is the reason that they were defeated in world war II

[CROYA86]

Russia was always the economic power on the world stage no matter all the problems and crisis she has. And it will be very importan financial and economic player in the future too. But the cold war is over long time ago and Russia shouldn't be considered as enemy anymore.

rue that Russia is one of the world's economic power, what now since bitcoin enter the Russian economy seems stronger, more investors from Russia entered bitcoin for sale and purchase of coin

[Hydrogen]

Sanctions imposed by the UN, what did I miss?

It seems that you meant to say the US, right? Though I don't think that those are the primary drivers of underdevelopment. And neither has Putin anything to do with that (i.e. not being prosperous), though. Too many resources is like a curse which puts people living off them into an idle mode of operation, so to speak. Look at Japan, for example, it doesn't have anything (it is just tiny) but has population quite comparable to that of Russia while its level of economic development and overall well-being by far surpasses Russia's

If I remember right, economic sanctions were imposed on russia years ago. Maybe as far back as 2014? Those sanctions took a toll on russian and european economies which can be measured in the billions of dollars range.

The suicide rate in japan does surpass the suicide rate in russia. In terms of overall "well-being" an argument could be made for russia having an advantage over japan.

I don't know what ratios of wealth or wage equality look like in either of those countries but that could also be a good metric to gauge "well-being" as could average number of hours worked per day, which I would guess definitely falls in russia's favor.

There's no doubt japan's technical sophistication is probably than russia's, at least outside of weapons of war. But that sophistication comes at a high cost in terms of japanese historically working and studying ridiculous hours to gain a small advantage.

There was a documentary done years back where impoverished africans from the poorest communities visited america and commented on how they felt sorry for americans they got to know, because all they seemed to do is work & not have time for anything else.

In that, I do kind of disagree with textbook definitions of what a nation's "well being" mean.

[Sithara007]

And what does it change in the end?

You could say that they had been milking the whole Asia before the WWII (just like what the British Empire did), but it's been over 70 years after the war ended. But they have remained strong and likely became even stronger. What's the cause of that? As an aside, the Soviet Union had defeated Japan (twice) in local clashes even before Japan attacked the US in Pearl-Harbor. If there had been a full-fledged war between just the Soviet Union and Japan alone back then, the latter would be crushed within months. Likewise, today Japanese military is virtually non-existent but it is due to their loss in the WWII (remember they still lost that war)

Apart from limited influence in Korea and Manchuria, Japan didn't had much dominance over the rest of Asia.

Somewhere I read that the Japanese military is even stronger than the Chinese PLA. I believe they would rank among the top 5 armed forces in the world, unlike the other US allies such as Germany and the UK.

[deisik]

And what does it change in the end?

You could say that they had been milking the whole Asia before the WWII (just like what the British Empire did), but it's been over 70 years after the war ended. But they have remained strong and likely became even stronger. What's the cause of that? As an aside, the Soviet Union had defeated Japan (twice) in local clashes even before Japan attacked the US in Pearl-Harbor. If there had been a full-fledged war between just the Soviet Union and Japan alone back then, the latter would be crushed within months. Likewise, today Japanese military is virtually non-existent but it is due to their loss in the WWII (remember they still lost that war)

Apart from limited influence in Korea and Manchuria, Japan didn't had much dominance over the rest of Asia.

Somewhere I read that the Japanese military is even stronger than the Chinese PLA. I believe they would rank among the top 5 armed forces in the world, unlike the other US allies such as Germany and the UK

You must have read it from me actually

There were some discussions on this matter springing up here and there a few years ago when someone started to claim that Chinese military is one of the strongest. I challenged that point by arguing that while the Chinese army might be greater in numbers than any other army in the world, the Chinese folks are not good fighters overall (despite all their "Sun Tzu"). There is nothing wrong with that since only a few nations still cut it as good warriors, and Japanese is one of them. So if they were given such an opportunity (though this is not possible since Japan is still basically an occupied territory), they would conquer China again. There were some minor armed clashes between China and the Soviet Union over border disputes in the late 1960s, and they all ended with miserable defeat of the Chinese military (despite their heavy outnumbering)

[Dimelord]

When Vladimir Putin became President, Russia was effectively bankrupt as it owed more money to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) than it had in foreign currency reserves. Since then, Russia has achieved a virtual macroeconomic revolution to the point where it is one of the largest creditors of U.S. debt in the world. Its nominal dollar GDP has increased by more than a factor of six, and has the potential to reach more than $2 trillion by 2010. Russia would become the largest economy in Europe and the fifth largest in the world following the United States, China, Japan, and India by 2020 if goals would have been achieved.......

I dont think russia would progress.Putin is just a dictator and he is only interested in strenghthening his armed forces.Nothing special has been heard from russia in recent times.

[deisik]

Sanctions imposed by the UN, what did I miss?

It seems that you meant to say the US, right? Though I don't think that those are the primary drivers of underdevelopment. And neither has Putin anything to do with that (i.e. not being prosperous), though. Too many resources is like a curse which puts people living off them into an idle mode of operation, so to speak. Look at Japan, for example, it doesn't have anything (it is just tiny) but has population quite comparable to that of Russia while its level of economic development and overall well-being by far surpasses Russia's

If I remember right, economic sanctions were imposed on russia years ago. Maybe as far back as 2014? Those sanctions took a toll on russian and european economies which can be measured in the billions of dollars range.

The suicide rate in japan does surpass the suicide rate in russia. In terms of overall "well-being" an argument could be made for russia having an advantage over japan.

I don't know what ratios of wealth or wage equality look like in either of those countries but that could also be a good metric to gauge "well-being" as could average number of hours worked per day, which I would guess definitely falls in russia's favor.

There's no doubt japan's technical sophistication is probably than russia's, at least outside of weapons of war. But that sophistication comes at a high cost in terms of japanese historically working and studying ridiculous hours to gain a small advantage.

There was a documentary done years back where impoverished africans from the poorest communities visited america and commented on how they felt sorry for americans they got to know, because all they seemed to do is work & not have time for anything else.

In that, I do kind of disagree with textbook definitions of what a nation's "well being" mean.

The sanctions were imposed by the European Union and United States

The United Nations couldn't possibly impose sanctions on Russia since that would effectively mean Russia imposing sanctions unto themselves. This is an unlikely event, by any means. Regarding suicide rates in Japan, it seems to be an obvious outcome of overpopulation. There is a whole scientific theory explaining this and other similar phenomena. For example, wars and epidemics should be considered as natural events aimed at preventing overpopulation (according to this theory). Right now when there are no more major wars and devastating diseases (like the Black Death in the 14th century), this function (of preventing overpopulation) went to big cities since in such cities people don't multiply. And therefore high suicide rates may be construed as just another such tool that nature invented to limit unrestricted population growth