Russian Economy General News: #12

Scorpius wrote:In January-November 2021, the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation was executed with a surplus of 3 trillion 839.5 billion rubles, it follows from the reports on the website of the Federal Treasury.

Consolidated budget revenues as of December 1 amounted to 42 trillion 641.3 billion rubles, expenses - 38 trillion 801.8 billion rubles.

Around $55 billion annual surplus in dollar terms. Time to start spending some of that surplus. Demographically incentives for first child born to a married couple by age 22, second child by 28, incentives for each additional child. Critically, the incentive should be scaled to the regions birthrate - highest payouts to low birth rate regions lowest to high birthrate regions. Measures would have to be put in place to disallow people moving regionally to receive higher gains.

That is not practical. It is better to have a uniform policy instead of fighting artificially induced migration pressure. No policy can be
optimized to the hilt because there are always impacts. It is like whack-a-mole in some respects.

The key is for the money to be tied to children but limited per family. So the money should not be used by welfare mothers pushing
out bastards to gain financially. This happens in welfare states like Canada and the USA. These children are victims of abuse and
Russia does not need to grow its population in this fashion since such children are vastly more likely to engage in crime and have
almost no education when they grow up. So no subsidy for single-mothers and the husband must have 5+ years of association
with the female. She should not be able to get a fake husband to skirt the restrictions.

People run around like chicken little screaming about the "collapsing" demographics of Russia. It is better to have fewer people who
were raised in proper families and contribute to society than to pump out rotten meat.

Quality and not quantity...

I would say investing money into real nutrition and health that is not funded by businesses with vested interests... lets get some science that is interested in human welfare and health rather than corporate greed.

I mean look at the trillions of dollars in funding most big pharma companies got from governments to develop vaccines and now they wont let others produce the vaccines for themselves....

Arrow wrote:

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5173592

In 2021 Russia exported $191 billion US in value added production (not raw materials and energy). This is an 18% increase
over 2020. The pandemic opened up new demand for Russian products. Such exports were $161.3 billion in 2020 which
was a 4% increase over 2019. In 2019 they were $155.1 billion and $154.3 billion in 2018.

Kazakhstan imports almost as much as China from Russia, close to $15 billion. This makes it a rather important country to prevent
NATzO regime change. China wanted to send troops to fight the coup attempt but lacked the legal basis which
the CSTO already provided.

Is the plan to bankrupt Russia working? The economic state of play is very different now to even just a few decades ago

FULL ARTICLE: https://www.rt.com/russia/546669-west-economic-sanctions-backfire/

While it's a decent article, that professor sucks at understanding russias economy.

kvs wrote:That is not practical.  It is better to have a uniform policy instead of fighting artificially induced migration pressure.   No policy can be
optimized to the hilt because there are always impacts.   It is like whack-a-mole in some respects.  

The key is for the money to be tied to children but limited per family.   So the money should not be used by welfare mothers pushing
out bastards to gain financially.   This happens in welfare states like Canada and the USA.   These children are victims of abuse and
Russia does not need to grow its population in this fashion since such children are vastly more likely to engage in crime and have
almost no education when they grow up.   So no subsidy for single-mothers and the husband must have 5+ years of association
with the female.   She should not be able to get a fake husband to skirt the restrictions.  

People run around like chicken little screaming about the "collapsing" demographics of Russia.   It is better to have fewer people who
were raised in proper families and contribute to society than to pump out rotten meat.

Your right, however you got to admit Russia with a educated and sound-minded population of 450 million or perhaps even 700 million would be a real force of nature on the global scale. No need for welfare mammies, however Russia would be one of the few nations to benefit greatly and positively from climate change for a variety of reasons.

miketheterrible wrote:While it's a decent article, that professor sucks at understanding russias economy.

He is a Canadian you know.

franco wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:While it's a decent article, that professor sucks at understanding russias economy.

He is a Canadian you know.

So am I. And KVS. It's still easy for both of us just to look up statistics too.

I've always wondered why these so called specialists and professionals have such a hard time being honest and using open source statistics and data, instead resort to using their own narrative?

miketheterrible wrote:

franco wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:While it's a decent article, that professor sucks at understanding russias economy.

He is a Canadian you know.

So am I. And KVS. It's still easy for both of us just to look up statistics too.

I've always wondered why these so called specialists and professionals have such a hard time being honest and using open source statistics and data, instead resort to using their own narrative?

So am I and at least another half a dozen or more posters. He is one of a couple Canadian academia "Russian experts" who are not haters.

miketheterrible wrote:While it's a decent article, that professor sucks at understanding russias economy.

I will second that motion

In 2014, the Russian economy was struck by a double-whammy. First, the oil price collapsed. And second, Western states imposed a series of sanctions in response to events in Ukraine. The immediate impact on Russia’s economy was dire, sending GDP plummeting.

The ruble devaluation nullified the oil price drop since Russia's economy operates on rubles and not dollars. The
cancellation was rather spectacular. The key is that Russia is not import dependent like a banana republic which
it is routinely painted as. This includes the oil sector, which operates on Russian products and not imports. Hence
the factor of two oil price drop (roughly) was offset by the factor of two (roughly) exchange rate increase vs. the
dollar.

The GDP impact was in 2015 and was a recession driven by the short lived inflation spike that disappeared by March
of 2015. Russia still imports consumer goods so there was an inflationary shock from the ruble devaluation. But
this shock lasted less than six months and demonstrated conclusively that Russia has no inflationary instability.
If it had such instability the shock would have produced waves of inflation events even in the face of the high
interest rates set by the CBR. In no country and in no period where inflation was structural (e.g. the US in the
1970s and early 80s, the UK, Latin America, etc.) has simple dialing of the interest rate shut it down completely.
High interest rates also exert an upward price pressure so this regulatory tool is not a simple on off switch but
is a nonlinear-effect parameter.

franco wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

franco wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:While it's a decent article, that professor sucks at understanding russias economy.

He is a Canadian you know.

So am I. And KVS. It's still easy for both of us just to look up statistics too.

I've always wondered why these so called specialists and professionals have such a hard time being honest and using open source statistics and data, instead resort to using their own narrative?

So am I and at least another half a dozen or more posters. He is one of a couple Canadian academia "Russian experts" who are not haters.

I think your post was worthwhile and am I not going to bash this academic. His career is always in danger if he does not toe the propaganda
line against Russia. It takes character to show real academic independence.

The problem with forum posts and email is that they can sound extremely harsh even though the "sender" is not popping a vein.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Your right, however you got to admit Russia with a educated and sound-minded population of 450 million or perhaps even 700 million would be a real force of nature on the global scale. No need for welfare mammies, however Russia would be one of the few nations to benefit greatly and positively from climate change for a variety of reasons.

I agree. But the problem with government do-gooderism is that it ends up doing lots of damage. The fertility rate under 1.0 and not over 2.3 as is
needed for growth is a universal characteristic of developed urban societies. Children are a financial and physical burden on the parents. I think
even a financial incentive will not be enough. It basically requires a one-child policy in reverse, where parents are forced to have three and more
children. In Russia such a policy would not fly. Regardless of what idiots in America think.

miketheterrible wrote:While it's a decent article, that professor sucks at understanding russias economy.

How so? Do you disagree with his conclusion that sanctions an not an effective tool against Russia?

kvs wrote:

I agree.  But the problem with government do-gooderism is that it ends up doing lots of damage.   The fertility rate under 1.0 and not over 2.3 as is
needed for growth is a universal characteristic of developed urban societies.   Children are a financial and physical burden on the parents.   I think
even a financial incentive will not be enough.   It basically requires a one-child policy in reverse, where parents are forced to have three and more
children.   In Russia such a policy would not fly.   Regardless of what idiots in America think.  

2.3 birth rate is just zero growth. One is headed to disaster. Govt policy can go a LONG way to improving birth rates. Low cost child care, large tax incentives and emphasis on schooling and activities to reduce the chance kids will go astray in todays complicated world. Another option is immigration but I am not sure if Russians would be comfortable with this idea. In any case Russia is headed at full speed to a demographic disaster, but for now any notion that the US can threaten Russia with sanctions will prove to be a failure. And I think this massive failure will also resonate on the future of NATO. I think the hope of German and Russian relations improving is very in the near future. And that should mean a reduction in US influence in Europe which is a GOOD THING. Time for Germany to grow a pair and lead Europe esp with those annoying Brits out of the EU.

Nope, i am not gonna take this bait.

mnztr wrote:

kvs wrote:

I agree.  But the problem with government do-gooderism is that it ends up doing lots of damage.   The fertility rate under 1.0 and not over 2.3 as is
needed for growth is a universal characteristic of developed urban societies.   Children are a financial and physical burden on the parents.   I think
even a financial incentive will not be enough.   It basically requires a one-child policy in reverse, where parents are forced to have three and more
children.   In Russia such a policy would not fly.   Regardless of what idiots in America think.  

2.3 birth rate is just zero growth. One is headed to disaster.  Govt policy can go a LONG way to improving birth rates. Low cost child care, large tax incentives and emphasis on schooling and activities to reduce the chance kids will go astray in todays complicated world. Another option is immigration but I am not sure if Russians would be comfortable with this idea. In any case Russia is headed at full speed to a demographic disaster, but for now any notion that the US can threaten Russia with sanctions will prove to be a failure. And I think this massive failure will also resonate on the future of NATO. I think the hope of German and Russian relations improving is very in the near future. And that should mean a reduction in US influence in Europe which is a GOOD THING. Time for Germany to grow a pair and lead Europe esp with those annoying Brits out of the EU.

The best predictor of population growth is actually the religiosity of the population. The Amish population doubles every 17 years.

calripson wrote:

mnztr wrote:

kvs wrote:

I agree.  But the problem with government do-gooderism is that it ends up doing lots of damage.   The fertility rate under 1.0 and not over 2.3 as is
needed for growth is a universal characteristic of developed urban societies.   Children are a financial and physical burden on the parents.   I think
even a financial incentive will not be enough.   It basically requires a one-child policy in reverse, where parents are forced to have three and more
children.   In Russia such a policy would not fly.   Regardless of what idiots in America think.  

2.3 birth rate is just zero growth. One is headed to disaster.  Govt policy can go a LONG way to improving birth rates. Low cost child care, large tax incentives and emphasis on schooling and activities to reduce the chance kids will go astray in todays complicated world. Another option is immigration but I am not sure if Russians would be comfortable with this idea. In any case Russia is headed at full speed to a demographic disaster, but for now any notion that the US can threaten Russia with sanctions will prove to be a failure. And I think this massive failure will also resonate on the future of NATO. I think the hope of German and Russian relations improving is very in the near future. And that should mean a reduction in US influence in Europe which is a GOOD THING. Time for Germany to grow a pair and lead Europe esp with those annoying Brits out of the EU.

The best predictor of population growth is actually the religiosity of the population. The Amish population doubles every 17 years.

Yes but they don't use electricity in their homes...

franco wrote:

calripson wrote:

mnztr wrote:

kvs wrote:

I agree.  But the problem with government do-gooderism is that it ends up doing lots of damage.   The fertility rate under 1.0 and not over 2.3 as is
needed for growth is a universal characteristic of developed urban societies.   Children are a financial and physical burden on the parents.   I think
even a financial incentive will not be enough.   It basically requires a one-child policy in reverse, where parents are forced to have three and more
children.   In Russia such a policy would not fly.   Regardless of what idiots in America think.  

2.3 birth rate is just zero growth. One is headed to disaster.  Govt policy can go a LONG way to improving birth rates. Low cost child care, large tax incentives and emphasis on schooling and activities to reduce the chance kids will go astray in todays complicated world. Another option is immigration but I am not sure if Russians would be comfortable with this idea. In any case Russia is headed at full speed to a demographic disaster, but for now any notion that the US can threaten Russia with sanctions will prove to be a failure. And I think this massive failure will also resonate on the future of NATO. I think the hope of German and Russian relations improving is very in the near future. And that should mean a reduction in US influence in Europe which is a GOOD THING. Time for Germany to grow a pair and lead Europe esp with those annoying Brits out of the EU.

The best predictor of population growth is actually the religiosity of the population. The Amish population doubles every 17 years.

Yes but they don't use electricity in their homes...

So Greta should be loving em, right?

miketheterrible wrote:

franco wrote:

calripson wrote:

mnztr wrote:

kvs wrote:

I agree.  But the problem with government do-gooderism is that it ends up doing lots of damage.   The fertility rate under 1.0 and not over 2.3 as is
needed for growth is a universal characteristic of developed urban societies.   Children are a financial and physical burden on the parents.   I think
even a financial incentive will not be enough.   It basically requires a one-child policy in reverse, where parents are forced to have three and more
children.   In Russia such a policy would not fly.   Regardless of what idiots in America think.  

2.3 birth rate is just zero growth. One is headed to disaster.  Govt policy can go a LONG way to improving birth rates. Low cost child care, large tax incentives and emphasis on schooling and activities to reduce the chance kids will go astray in todays complicated world. Another option is immigration but I am not sure if Russians would be comfortable with this idea. In any case Russia is headed at full speed to a demographic disaster, but for now any notion that the US can threaten Russia with sanctions will prove to be a failure. And I think this massive failure will also resonate on the future of NATO. I think the hope of German and Russian relations improving is very in the near future. And that should mean a reduction in US influence in Europe which is a GOOD THING. Time for Germany to grow a pair and lead Europe esp with those annoying Brits out of the EU.

The best predictor of population growth is actually the religiosity of the population. The Amish population doubles every 17 years.

Yes but they don't use electricity in their homes...

So Greta should be loving em, right?

Well someone is getting lot's of loving Greta, not so sure Of course she probably wouldn't be so angry

They are far from useless. Actually, the most productive workers you will ever find and highly skilled craftsmen. Lancaster County where they live, is the highest producing non-irrigated county in the United States for agriculture. Contrary to popular opinion, they can use electricity in their homes and businesses. They just can't be connected to an outside power grid because they refuse to be dependent on the outside world. The average Amish family is entitled to over $3,000 a month in free government handouts which they refuse. Also, I have never encountered any Amish woman named Greta although in fairness as a guy you deal with the men not with the women.

My larger point about Russian demographics is family size and birthrates are an indication of a culture and society's optimism and outlook for the future. Trust me, if Russians had a high birthrate, Western strategists would be apoplectic. As far as religion, it is difficult to find examples of cultures and societies that persist successfully through time without some form of religion or unifying belief system. The same people who understand biological evolution reject cultural evolution - religions wouldn't exist almost universally across cultures and times if they didn't serve an important function. Modernity rejects this notion and the cultures that embrace modernity and its inevitable consequences including 37 different genders and narcissistic self-absorption will fade into oblivion.

Putin announced the minimum level of unemployment in Russia

The unemployment rate in Russia continues to remain at a minimum of 4.3%. This was stated by the head of state Vladimir Putin.

“Unemployment in our country is kept at historical lows - 4.3%,” the Russian President said at a meeting with the heads of leading Italian companies via videoconference.

Earlier it became known that the maximum amount of unemployment benefit, which will be paid to a Russian citizen in the first three months, from January of this year will be 12,792 rubles. The minimum amount of this social payment in the country will be 1,500 rubles. ■

NOTE: in addition there are 8-9,000,000 migrant workers.

With the massive projects in the Arctic and Siberia coming up... Russia could need a few more people.



Next headline on CNN: Russia wil invade Ukraine to steal young men and women!