• zephyreks@lemmy.mlOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is war good for the Russian economy? Seems like Russia’s economy is running at its hottest pace in years.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stuff being blown up still counts towards production, but it doesn’t actually add any value. Changing tanks in storage to tanks blown up on the battle field isn’t actually good for the economy, it just looks like it for some metrics.

      • zephyreks@lemmy.mlOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        You could say about the US during WW1/WW2, but look at their economy leading up to each war and following it.

        • Aidinthel@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          The US economy (and much of the rest of the world) actually went into recession after ww1. Then after ww2 you have to consider that the US was one of the very few industrialized countries that didn’t get its cities blown up. The war was ‘good’ for the US mostly because it was much worse for everyone else.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But not during the war. The US did well after the war because Europe and Asia were wrecked by war and America wasn’t.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dedollarization is good for their economy. They’re actually increasing exports in some sectors of their economy despite the SWIFT lockout.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah that’s tricky, I’d rather accelerate brain drain. But Russia has used immigration as a weapon before, targeting propaganda and sympathies in areas Russians immigrate to.

            But Russians are still getting out somehow, conscription is a great motivator.

              • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                They aren’t, but Russia has used their presence as one. What was one of their justifications for invading Ukraine? The Russian speaking population and historic ties in the easternmost regions of Ukraine. They’ve also shipped millions of people into Crimea to shift the demographics and public opinion there.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The Russian speaking population weren’t just immigrants though, those were people born in Ukraine who spoke Russian as their native language. Kinda different.

                  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Some definitely, but not all. And it’s multigenerational too. The USSR moved people around a lot too for demographic control to minimize separatist tendencies.

      • taanegl@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s also very good for Xi Jinpeng. The central kingdom shall rise again.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s kinda orientalist.

          Dedollarization is good for China, but they’re hardly some kind of mystical asiatic kingdom.

          • taanegl@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was being facetious.

            Besides, BRICS is probably going to default to Yuans. Like would you pay in Brazilian pesos, Russian Rubles or Indian whatever the heck that currency/economy is?

            I don’t believe they’ll conclude that dealing with 5 or more currencies at the same time as being effective, especially when said currencies come from dumpsterfire economies.

            I can also tell you that they will not be going for the EURO, and with all the debt to China… where does that lead them?

            Trade cannot stop. That was the point of SWIFT and that is the point of BRICS.

            But now I’m being presumptuous, which one is want to do on the internet.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hypothetically it might make sense to pay pesos for Brazilian seed oil and rubles for Russian fossil fuel, as this would ensure no trade deficits exist between countries, but China is so much more productive than the rest of them that it might just default to Yuan. I’m still optimistic about the possibility of trade in national currencies, though.