Russia Economy Thread

[Gloire_bb]

You might call it whatever you want. But the Soviet Union had the world's second largest economy from WW2 until its collapse in 1991.

The irony is that Russia, PPP wise at least (nominal is heavily influenced by currency, aka financial flow restrictions), didn't really fall *that* badly when compared to the rest of the world (3.5% of the world 2024). Especially since Soviet relative was decreasing through 1980s anyway (Japan&Asian tigers displaced stagnating Soviet block...and that's before China even).

Largest single factor of former SU's relative economic fall is really Ukraine - factor of 4 when compared to 1990(1/3 of RSFSR in 1990, less than 1/10 2024).
Maybe more even than relative fall of this entire space. Speaks something about quality of governance in

Russia will never be an economic power per se because its oligarchy

Russian oligarchies/authocracies/monarchies never were at the forefront of governance. They, most of the time, weren't governed too badly - or Russia wouldn't exist in shape and form it still keeps.

It, of course, holds a special award for substandard governance in 1970-1980s - but this is more of an exception, not norm.

 

[gelgoog]

In the 1970-80s the Soviets got addicted to oil&gas export revenues. As simple as that.
But a lot of the major achievements of Soviet heavy industry were made then. Like the Il-76, An-124 Ruslan, Energia-Buran, Tu-22M, Tu-160, etc.

People talk a lot about how there was under investment in the Soviet civilian sector but that was because it was largely outsourced to other COMECON countries. You see much the same in the US today.

 

[Sinnavuuty]

You might call it whatever you want. But the Soviet Union had the world's second largest economy from WW2 until its collapse in 1991.
With 287 million population it had the third largest population in the world behind only China and India.
If you checked metrics like steel and electricity production it was behind only the US.

Right now Russia is still behind in automation of manufacturing. But after 2022 with the rise in salaries this seems to be finally changing.

The USSR was indeed the second-largest economy in the world, even called the Second World because of it, but it was a stagnant society—those were words spoken by Putin himself in his interview with Oliver Stone.

 

[Sinnavuuty]

Yes, the trend is there, and you are correct to point to it; the usa has been on a decline since the 60s relative to the rest of thge world. However, it's not inevitable and could be reversed. First, the usa need to destroy the russian economy "through the ukraine war"; and the second, to destroy the chinese economy "through taiwan trap". Meanwhile, EU is being deindustrialized naturally. As for India, the usa can do what it did to Japan to india under the accusation of "mistreating ethnic and religious manorities".

You missed my point. The US will eventually lose its hegemony (primarily economic) because, since WWII, Europe was destroyed, Asia was in tatters, and the Middle East was backward. The fact that the USSR had a clearly deficient economy, and many other countries ended up following this line of economic thinking, further leveraged American hegemony at a time when practically the entire world was suffering from the events of the mid-20th century.

The situation is very different today and will be even more different tomorrow. The US will eventually lose its hegemony because the bipolar world that transcended the debate over the best economic system ended in 1991, and now all countries (or the most geopolitically relevant ones) are modernizing and adopting more efficient economic policies, with several emerging countries capable of overthrowing Western economic hegemony.

 

[Sinnavuuty]

Russian oligarchies/authocracies/monarchies never were at the forefront of governance. They, most of the time, weren't governed too badly - or Russia wouldn't exist in shape and form it still keeps.

It, of course, holds a special award for substandard governance in 1970-1980s - but this is more of an exception, not norm.

The fact that Russia has maintained its vast territory does not necessarily mean that its economic model is adequate or efficient. It is not.

It wasn't in the Russian Empire.
It wasn't in the Soviet Union.
It still isn't in modern Russia.

Yes, modern Russia is much more efficient than in previous eras, but it is still far from ideal, and part of this ends up being due to the incompetence of the Russian oligarchy itself. When I refer to the oligarchy, I mean both the economic and political ones. Just look at the siloviki, for example. I don't think Sergei Shoigu is competent in all the areas he ended up managing; he was, in fact, a complete failure.

 

[Sinnavuuty]

People talk a lot about how there was under investment in the Soviet civilian sector but that was because it was largely outsourced to other COMECON countries. You see much the same in the US today.

The USSR's civilian sector eventually became a black market that absorbed nearly 40% of the USSR's entire GDP.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It was from this black market that the oligarchs who bought Russian state-owned companies emerged.

 

[gelgoog]

Khrushchev banned the artels i.e. worker cooperatives which made consumer goods during Stalin's time. The largest ones were nationalized and the smaller ones were just closed outright.
Khrushchev also stopped the practice of distributed tractor depots. In Stalin's time the mechanized farming equipment was held at depots where it was maintained. The farms just leased the tractors. When they made the farms own the tractors what ended up happening was the farms couldn't maintain them properly, they lacked the skills and parts, and most of the machinery that existed on paper was actually idle.

 

[HighGround]

The USSR was indeed the second-largest economy in the world, even called the Second World because of it, but it was a stagnant society—those were words spoken by Putin himself in his interview with Oliver Stone.

What does that even mean?

 

[manqiangrexue]

Yes, the trend is there, and you are correct to point to it; the usa has been on a decline since the 60s relative to the rest of thge world. However, it's not inevitable and could be reversed. First, the usa need to destroy the russian economy "through the ukraine war"; and the second, to destroy the chinese economy "through taiwan trap". Meanwhile, EU is being deindustrialized naturally. As for India, the usa can do what it did to Japan to india under the accusation of "mistreating ethnic and religious manorities".

LMFAO Every one of those is going in the opposite direction for the US. This is what the US dreams about when it has to take drugs and alcohol to escape the reality it's in. It sounds like Japan in a sake stupor, "One day, we will be imperial Daimyo of world! First step, cut off China's head with katana and use powerful body like Gundam. Then, pretend to be Russia's Chinese friend and borrow all Russian nukes. Then, use Chinese and Russian nukes to get revenge on America, nuke into ash!!! Then not return anything to Russia and rule world with remaining nukes! Banzaiii!!"

 

[Gloire_bb]

The fact that Russia has maintained its vast territory does not necessarily mean that its economic model is adequate or efficient. It is not.

Longevity of a highly contested system is by itself a sign of certain level of efficiency. Insufficiently efficient systems collapsed.
Russia(Moscow) is literally that Gu that ate all others in a completely defenseless jar, as eastern european geography doesn't provide any natural barriers other than scheer distance(which you first had to somehow claim, by conquering everything in that space). It's also a holder to the entire Northern Asia, by faaar the longest existing trans-Asian empire. Previous ones measured in decades, Russia is centuries - at this point, well over even longest Chinese dynastic cycles.

Note, that most nations that contested Russian eminence in the past, either don't exist anymore, or reemerged as "border principalities" out of Russian own internal turmoils.

Yes, modern Russia is much more efficient than in previous eras, but it is still far from ideal, and part of this ends up being due to the incompetence of the Russian oligarchy itself. When I refer to the oligarchy, I mean both the economic and political ones. Just look at the siloviki, for example. I don't think Sergei Shoigu is competent in all the areas he ended up managing; he was, in fact, a complete failure.

Yet Russia was the first country ever to succesfully defy (to a laughing degree) western economic bombing.
And that was actual economic block (which you consider the worst), rather than military one.
Aka your point crumbles at its base...

And since it is verifiably wrong(by actual world performance), we go to the premise. Russia isn't really an oligarchy, it's a mandated(timely national elections happen; they don't give choice, but they provide regular updates to system's legitimacy, in almost tsardom fashion) siloviki aristocracy with strong central government. And it is this way since early 2000s, when financial capital(oligarchs) lost any power to influence Russian government.
Since then, Russian oligarchy is western talking point, one that made them to fail so miserably in measuring economic resilence of Russia as system. Which is ironic, because actual factual oligarchies, pretending to be liberal democracies, tend to sit to Russia's west...