this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
57 points (79.4% liked)

World News

39183 readers
1951 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An influential global body has forecast Russia's economy will grow faster than all of the world's advanced economies, including the US, this year.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) expects Russia to grow 3.2% this year, significantly more than the UK, France and Germany. 

Oil exports have "held steady" and government spending has "remained high" contributing to growth, the IMF said.

Overall, it said the world economy had been "remarkably resilient"

"Despite many gloomy predictions, the world avoided a recession, the banking system proved largely resilient, and major emerging market economies did not suffer sudden stops," the IMF said.

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 57 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Russia is keeping the economy going by burning money on the war.
Maybe 3.2% growth is a bit better than expected, but investments can't be good with high National Bank interest rates, and AFAIK inflation is still hurting consumers in Russia. Consumer spending remains high, mostly because essentials is a high share of consumption.

Just because Russia has decent economic growth on paper, doesn't mean the economy is actually good or healthy if it's based on deficits.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Russia is keeping the economy going by burning money on the war.

The only way one can make money from a war is by selling weapons to others and not fighting it yourself. How can making explosives and throwing them away produce anything of value for their own economy?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The only way one can make money from a war is by selling weapons

Increasing the economy does not mean they make money, in this case it's rather that they spend money.
When the government pump money into weapons production and other military spending, that increases the economy immediately, then people get paid and buy other stuff.
In general government spending increases the economy.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

But that money has to come from somewhere. Money printer go brrrr means massive inflation

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Money printer go brrrr means massive inflation

It does. But that inflation doesn't hit instantly. Russia is banking they can weather this storm of their own making by draining their soverign wealth fund, emptying their Soviet stockpiles, and applying dizzying interest rates of 16%. These are short term boons that have very profound long term downsides for Russia.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's pretty old school thinking.

As though your village only has so many carrots so giving everyone twice as much money means carrots will cost twice as much.

These days the thinking is, if everyone has a little money then more people will grow more carrots to sell.

The extra money floating around motivates people to produce value in order to win some of that cheddar.

Of course, this only works up to a point.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

Of course, this only works up to a point.

Ah yes I recognize this economic model.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 0 points 7 months ago

No mate, check the Americans for a masterclass on making money from a war you start:

https://www.npr.org/2003/12/22/1559574/examining-halliburtons-sweetheart-deal-in-iraq

[–] Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world 50 points 7 months ago (1 children)

government spending has remained high

War will do that.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 8 points 7 months ago
Let's have a war
It'll jack up the Dow Jones
  -Fear, circa 1981
[–] realitista@lemm.ee 34 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Building things and then blowing them up increases your GDP but it provides negative benefit to your society. All of that labor is wasted just for products that are destroyed and cause destruction.

And wage growth will be very robust if you force 1 million of your best workers to flee the country and then kill or cripple 300,000 more workers on top, and then create tons of jobs to build stuff that gets blown up instead of things people can actually use for something productive.

Neither of these metrics tell the real story for a wartime economy. Subsidizing useless production that gets blown up has to take largely from state coffers, robbing from essential services for the population.

And if you lose your revenue streams like oil because your refineries and pipelines keep getting blown up and you lose customers to sanctions, and you take workers from useful sustainable jobs with real benefit and move them to building things you blow up instead, eventually you will have to choose between any services for the population and funding the war.

You don't get tax revenue from state spending that you blow up. Take it far enough and you'll just run out of money for the war and will have to enter hyperinflation to keep printing the money to fund it.

These trends are under way in Russia, they spend 40% of their national budget on war already. They lost 20% of their refining capacity in the last couple months alone. It will take a while to reach a full disaster, but they can't continue this way indefinitely. They will hit the wall at some point in the next decade.

[–] Justas@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A lot of unseen costs of this war will take decades to be seen.

Reduced education spending? Less qualified workers to create added value.

Reduced social services? More people getting sick and dying.

Reduced infrastructure spending? Increased prices of transport and goods.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

Yes. Enshittification on a national scale.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of numbers going up.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It will take a while to reach a full disaster, but they can't continue this way indefinitely. They will hit the wall at some point in the next decade.

I'm curious to see if/how much those effects will be diminished by the war effort sabotage by the right will dampen the impact over the coming years

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

It's having a big impact right now. If they keep it going for another year, Ukraine will be in serious trouble.

[–] reddit_sux@iusearchlinux.fyi -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The question is not whether Russia will hit a wall, the question remains whether there will be a Ukraine before that happens. Russia just like big corporations is too big to fail.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 7 points 7 months ago

It all depends on NATO. NATO countries have 20 times the GDP of russia and 5 times the population. If NATO stays in, Russia will lose. If they don't, Ukraine will lose.

[–] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

Collapse incoming

[–] minibyte@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, born in Bulgaria. Bulgaria considered 16th Soviet Republic.

Probably just a coincidence.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 9 points 7 months ago
[–] Granixo@feddit.cl 4 points 7 months ago (4 children)

But how will Oil exports remain sustainable once most of the population uses EVs?

[–] JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz 16 points 7 months ago

Will not happen anytime soon.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 4 points 7 months ago

In 30+ years

[–] Justas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

A lot of oil is used to produce energy or heat homes and to produce plastics. Moving towards renewables and better home insulation will have a much stronger and faster positive effect on reduced oil consumption than a move to EV's would.

[–] reddit_sux@iusearchlinux.fyi 3 points 7 months ago

You will still need to charge those EVs, electricity production is still dominated by production via burning of hydrocarbons, by-products of oil.

[–] merthyr1831@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Turns out the intl sanctions have just shifted Russia towards domestic industries and massive govt spending, invalidating half a century of propaganda against domestic spending and indigenous industry, oops!

Yes, the war has its negative impacts hidden by this metric, but Russia did the objectively correct thing by not scrambling to replace lost intl trade. Compare with the UK that hasn't made up for lost intl. trade since brexit and is still suffering for it.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yep. When you spend your sovereign wealth fund on massive quantities of military hardware, your GDP goes up. The negative is that you quickly drain your sovereign wealth fund and you aren't investing in the future of your country. This money could have gone to getting the last 20% of Russians indoor plumbing, but it instead went to refurbishing tanks to get blown up in Ukraine.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

A flame that burns twice as bright

Burns only half as long

My eyes are growing weary as I finalize this song

Sooooooooo

Sit back, have a cup of Joe

And watch those wheels go round

Cause those damned blue collar tweekers are running this here town!

🎵🎶

Hyyyyuh

🎵🎶

Hyyyyuh

🎵🎶🎵🎶🎵🎶🎵

HYYYYYYUH!

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Maybe other governments should take note and have high government spending?

I'm actually serious. Let's remove low density from cities build high density housing and loads of public transport. Spend money to decrease costs to population, thereby further increasing growth with more disposable income.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 2 points 7 months ago

Please no, not like that. Their government spending is only on things that go BOOM!

[–] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

While we are suffering with stagnant wages and inflation Russia China and Mexico were the only countries that had positive wage growth the last few years