Talk:Economy of Russia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV and unencyclopedic language in the lead

I removed (and removed again) content in the lead that I found unencyclopedic and POV. Reasoning is as follows:

1. I removed the Russia is unusual among the major economies in the way that it... because it makes the sentence unnecessarily long. To call a country "unusual" is also not befitting for an encyclopedic article.
2. I removed Poor governance means that... since equating poor governance solely due to illicit trade is indeed questionable.
3. I removed However, these gains have been distributed unevenly, as the 110 wealthiest individuals were found in a report by Credit Suisse to own 35% of all financial assets held by Russian households. I removed this because of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Wealth is unevenly distributed in about every country in the world. Just recently, the BBC stated: wealth of richest 1% equal to other 99%. So why is Russia being singled out here? In fact, the Gini coefficient of the USA is worse than in Russia. Where's the neutrality in that?
4. I removed There were fears of the... which is vague and contains WP:WEASEL wording.
5. I removed the bit about how the Russian economy ...is expected to shrink further in 2016. per WP:CRYSTALBALL since Wikipedia should not predict the future. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

1. 1 - do sources describe the situation as "unusual"? If yes, then it stays, if no, then it goes. I didn't see it in the source so I removed it as well. However, this is something that is frequently discussed in sources so it might come back.
2. 2 - take it up with the source. It says "weakly governed countries such as Russia and India" and explicitly links these to illicit trade outflows.
3. 3 - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. In fact, there's plenty about inequality in the article on the US economy and even its lede (maybe even too much, based on a quick look) so... where's the neutrality? Russia's not being singled out, you just jumped to the conclusion that it is, which sort of shows your POV.
4. 4 - ok, whatever.
5. 5 - no, you're misusing WP:CRYSTALBALL. That applies to Wikipedia editors. Including reliably sourced forecasts which are notable is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We need more than just a vague interpretation of Russia's governing prowess within that source. How is it poor? Just because of illicit trade? Or vice-versa? For every source you could pull that says Russia's government is poor, I could probably find more that says Russia's government is centralized and powerful, let alone authoritarian. But these are all vague concepts. Poor or strong, doesn't belong in the lead. My neutrality was based on the fact that the entire world has record-breaking wealth inequality. You can mention wealth inequality in almost every country in the world. Removing relevant material from the USA article certainly does single-out Russia now does it not? Believe me, I'm sure you can fine many sources other than Oliver Stone that can verify that information. You just had to try. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment. The source says that Russia's illicit trade is based on poor governance. What else do you want? And you seem not to understand the difference between "poor governance" and "poor government". A government with "poor governance" may not be "poor" and in fact may actually (and often is) "centralized and powerful" and "authoritarian"

Are you trying to remove this info simply because you don't understand what the text/source is saying? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

As to inequality, there's still plenty of info about wealth inequality in US in that article. So again, not clear on what your point is. Why shouldn't inequality be mentioned in the article on "Economy of Russia"? Can you actually provide a decent reason? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: I think you're misunderstanding the difference between WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. Neutrality is not determined by editors when reliable secondary sources are clear on what they depict as salient and determining factors on any subject covered by an encyclopaedic resource (i.e., Wikipedia). We don't WP:CENSOR articles because we don't think it's very nice to say rude things about the economies of nation-states. Neither do we exclude relevant information about wealth distribution. This is an article that falls under the broader scope of 'economics'. Please feel free to read other articles about economics: natural resources, industry, productivity, the quality of living standards... and wealth distribution are the fundamentals of economics and articles about economies. Impartial means that we don't write op-ed pieces, not that we don't report what sources say. The observation by the sources are, themselves, impartial critiques. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

'Poor governance' is such a vague concept that it's hard to know what it entails other than the fact that illicit trade can be some sort of symptom of it. What's worse is that the sentence begins by saying "Poor governance means that..." which makes it appear that Russia is entirely poorly governed. Even if sources do say this, such wording cannot be added until we can clarify what that poor governance actually is. I also never said wealth inequality shouldn't be mentioned. I admit that I should have requested that information moved down since I now notice that there's not much information about it in the body. So to answer your question Iryna Harpy, inequality could be mentioned in the article but mentioning it in the lead may undue for the reasons I have already aforementioned. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"'Poor governance' is such a vague concept that it's hard to know what it entails other than" - the source doesn't think so. They have a definition of it, which, if you actually bothered to read the source, you'd know. Anyway - the source say what it says, your opinion is your opinion, but on Wikipedia reliable sources trump individual editor's opinions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A report by the Global Financial Integrity cannot provide us with a definitive understanding of what poor governance is. We'll be going back and forth just to find the answer. In this case, all we can grasp from the source is that there are symptoms of poor governance but there's no signification of what "Poor governance" actually is. So to dismiss Russia entirely as a poorly governed country is simply wrong and undue. So I must ask: what does poor governance mean? Are we really willing to say that an entire country is poorly governed when we really can’t prescribe a fixed definition as to what that means? If we don’t get a grasp as to what poor governance means, other than the fact that its symptoms result in illicit trade, than we risk misrepresenting Russia as a poorly governed country entirely, which may or may not be true. These are serious matters which may need wider community input. I think WP:NPOVN may be a good avenue in that regard. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) You are conducting your own personal original research in contravention of Wikipedia policy. And you are trying to dismiss a reliable source simply because you don't like what it says. The concept of "governance" is actually fairly fundamental in the relevant literature (political science, economics, public policy). And while it seems like you've now glanced at the source (which is an improvement over opining on it without even bothering to look at it) you still seem not to have read it. The authors state clearly how they measure governance. And where they get their data. If you want to we can change the wording from "Poor governance" to "High level of corruption" - that might be more understandable to readers - since that is the primary indicator of governance used in the paper. Which you really should read before rejecting it out of hand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Response to edited comment: read the paper. Come on! Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop these remarks of bad faith by saying I didn't read the report. Besides, that's really not the point. It doesn't take a report by the GFI to give us an understanding of what "poor governance" means. But now we're getting somewhere with the high level of corruption proposal, though I think this too is a bit of a stretch since the report doesn't directly state that Russia has a high level of corruption. The report says "governance-related factors (such as corruption)" which means it uses corruption as an characteristic of governance or the lack thereof. Unless there's an inference you've attained from other parts of the article that I'm not seeing here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're asking questions which have straight forward answers that can be found in the report. You are confusing concepts such as "government" and "governance" which can also be easily clarified by consulting the report. This applies to the claim that the report only says "such as corruption". The source describes the phenomenon and then provides an explanation. And we follow sources, not personal theories and speculations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel I was quite clear in making that distinction. But I also fear that this discussion is now going in circles. To sum up my thoughts: if we can't get more specific than "Poor governance", I'll have to make my way to the NPOVN for some additional input from the community. The key here is consensus at this point. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for input at NPOVN or anywhere else, that'd be great. Or would you be fine with changing to that to "high corruption"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I like where were going with that because it's more specific, but it still raises some fundamental issues. I don't think we can say illicit trade solely occurs due to high levels of corruption (i.e. smuggling, terrorism, and the black market may also promote illicit trade as well, and there's sources that point to that). And as far as I can see, the source does not go so far as to say that either. Even if the source did say that, I don't think that should be a defining characteristic we should adopt. That's why it's dubious to say so in this article, especially in the lead. Therefore, that's why it's best to leave that part out. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Compromise: Not surprisingly, since there's absolutely no information about the illicit trade in Russia in the body of the article, I suggest we remove the "Poor governance means that" part and leave the "Russia also has the second-largest volume of illicit money outflows, having lost over $880 billion between 2002 and 2011 in this way." However, we can elaborate in the body of the article as to what may be the cause of illicit trade in Russia. There we can talk about levels of corruption, smuggling, and all that good stuff. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't exactly predict 2016 results, it's February http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/russia/brief/monthly-economic-developments, oil prices remaind low. Russian ministry draft sees economy shrinking in 2016 http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/15/russian-economy-ministry-draft-sees-economy-shrinking-in-2016--sources.html

Crimea takes big money from the government producing almost nothing.Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Russia-Ukraine trade war

http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-ukraine-trade-war-update-economic-embargo-has-70-more-products-added-list-2272314 Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Cargo Russia-Poland ceased http://en.news-4-u.ru/cargo-transportation-between-russia-and-poland-ceased-from-1-february.html Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Syria war

Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Trade stats monthly vs yearly

The trade stats in the infobox should be yearly stats of the previous year. Not arbitrary monthly stats like January+February of the current year, that's useless, confusing and misleading.

That makes no sense and defeats the whole purpose of the infobox. It's supposed to provide a general overview of the most important economic statistics at a glance, and those are always provided as yearly figures. If you want to add monthly trade stats, do so in a table down in the article, but not in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.38.16 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

Please remove the "the Crimea" from the right side table titled EXTERNAL under import goods. Crimea is a peninsula not an import product. 75.155.134.146 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Done — Qweedsa (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What is going on with this article?

Who the hell is editing this? Why would anyone want to know export of Russia for 2 months???When the normal practice is the whole year(example Economy of the US) . Also with your GDP is an estimated value.(Look at your source) Honestly it shouldn't be like that. It should give you the last !!actual!! known value ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.59.96.64 (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've been marvelling at that for some time. I'm not aware of articles on the economy of any other nation-state being changed on a monthly basis. This also creates undue pressure on regular editors to double-check sources to ensure that the changes to the content are correct. This is an encyclopaedic resource, not an economic journal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Rubble-Gas Parity information is missing

This info is missing in this article and it is material. (since that would make the ruble a global reserve currency) 47.17.20.247 (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Awful Article

This is probably one of the most biased articles on wikipedia at the moment. It needs to be fixed. There is broken english (especially lacking articles like "the"), removal of any negative facts about Russian economy (compare recent edits post november to pre-november edits), portrayal of only positive recent economic developments (despite Russia being in major recession) and discussion of "failed US policies" on an export caption for photos that is completely unrelated and uncited, again in broken English. Example reads ("As can be seen the US market for Russia is on Africa Levels significance thanks to failed US Policies and the delay of Russia joining the WTO. Russia is the most independent G20 country when it comes to dealing with US Foreign Policy.") I think its fairly clear the Russian government and/or pro-Russian groups are editing this page to portray a very one-sided portrait. Several economic facts portrayed here are either plain wrong, seriously misrepresented or about 5 years outdated. A significant number of facts are left completely uncited or cited incorrectly. One small example is public debt levels which claim a 2016 figure, but really reference a 2012 IMF report that has not been updated since then. Recent figures place estimates of debt to GDP at 17% and rising, not 12% and falling. The article also completely fails to mention that these low levels are due to Russia's default on its external debt in 1998, instead hiding that behind the link of "Russian Financial Crisis 1998" with no mention of what actually happened, either in history or public debt. This page needs to be protected and fixed immediately. It does not meet the standards of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.113 (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the graph with the "failed US policies" caption and a lot of other unsourced content. Could you add a link for an estimate of the debt to GDP ratio and I will add it? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

2014–present

Partially outdated, eg. The ministry projected growth of 0.5% for 2014 - who cares now? Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Retail sales in Russia - till 2011.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Almost nothing about Siberia

The page does not inform about economy of Siberia. It doesn't say anything about demographic problems of Siberia, too.Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

GDP growth 2017

The page about economy of the USA informs about GDP growth in 2016, Q3. Here - 2017 already. Either every country quotes data for 2017 or none.

Compare similar discussion 2016, above.

Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

GDP per capita

$8,000 (2016) (nominal)[3]
$24,000 (2016) (PPP)[ 

It was 2015 forecast.Xx236 (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Public finances

There only the federal budget is shown. Russian Federation has a three layer budget system and it would be more correct to show the consolidated budget. Please, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_budgets_by_country and here: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8 . Also revenues of Federal budget are not shown on right (if there are estimates for 2014 year), am I right?. Look here http://minfin.ru/ru/statistics/fedbud/# and here http://minfin.ru/ru/statistics/conbud/ . Thanks in advance. 94.231.134.142 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia's economy isn't fantastic

From reading the intro, apart from a short section mentioning Russia's recession you'd get the impression that Russia has a fantastic economy. It's economy has never been in good shape, with its economic booms being primarily rooted in world oil & gas prices rather than domestic strengths. The truth is that Russia is not a developed country, its modest GDP per capita (by Western standards) would be even lower if it wasn't an oil state (in 2013 oil & gas were 68% of the value of its exports). It is plagued by endemic corruption and stuck in the middle income country trap. It is so lacking in the fundamental social and cultural pre-requisites that characterise developed countries that it unlikely to ever be a first world economy in any foreseeable future. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Economic history needs an expert rewrite

I just wasted time reading the 'Economic history' section, which surprisingly has limited to no information about actual Russia economics and reforms, most of the text reads as a rant against the downside of early years reforms emphasizing terrible the experiment was. Then in recovery section we skips to 2009 with miracle recovery, then in 'Putin's first presidency' we have yet again miracle workings no info why, with achievements attributed to Putin i.e. during Putin presidency double gdp, in Putin years in office industry grew by 75%. While failings attributed not to Putin but the government i.e. "the government failed to contain the growth of prices"

Please add some expert source and re-edit this section to be informative and balanced. Here is start [1] --84.111.101.105 (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I added some tidbits [2] to balance this Ad section, but it still needs some expert rewrite for the whole section. --84.111.101.105 (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I looked into your edits. You "balanced" the article with anti-Putin propaganda. Anders Aslund is a charlatan with an axe to grind against Russia and its government. He is not an expert source at all.

Russia's market reforms of the early 90s were a disaster: suffice to say real GDP fell by 40%. (Aslund describes this period as a "heroic decade." lol) Russia's corrupt privatization schemes created a small clique of politically-connected billionares - the oligarchs, who promptly invested their wealth abroad (Aslund calls it a "success") Putin tamed the oligarchs and returned Russia in the top 10. The man deserves some credit.

It's plain ignorant to claim, that Russia owes its one and half decades of strong economic growth to "monetization and devaluation" - I will revert these stupid edits.Keverich2 (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The so-called growth in the Russian economy in the early Putin period was primarily an increase in world oil & gas prices and their spill-over benefits to the Russian economy. The Russian economy (and Putin) cannot be credited with these improvements 121.73.7.84 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2017

In the end, the Russian population pays for this corruption.[77] For example, some experts believe that the rapid increases in tariffs for housing, water, gas and electricity, which significantly outpace the rate of inflation, are a direct result of high volumes of corruption at the highest levels.[78] In the recent years the reaction to corruption has changed: starting from Putin's second term, very few corruption cases have been the subject of outrage. Putin's system is remarkable for its ubiquitous and open merging of the civil service and business, as well as its use of relatives, friends, and acquaintances to benefit from budgetary expenditures and take over state property. Corporate, property, and land raiding is commonplace

- that paragraph really smells of anti-putin political bias.. the first large part about russia is all about putin 2001:1970:5A5C:E100:E8BE:1A36:D39:7EAE (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 15:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economy of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304192618/https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/sympo/03september/pdf/M_Suhara.pdf to https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/sympo/03september/pdf/M_Suhara.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091221103059/http://www.minfin.ru/en/ to http://www.minfin.ru/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2017

Cryptc (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Economy of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404144353/http://www.gks.ru/bgd/free/b04_03/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d06/53.htm to http://www.gks.ru/bgd/free/b04_03/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d06/53.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160808023744/http://www.gks.ru/bgd/free/b04_03/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d06/123.htm to http://www.gks.ru/bgd/free/b04_03/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d06/123.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304192618/https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/sympo/03september/pdf/M_Suhara.pdf to https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/sympo/03september/pdf/M_Suhara.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091221103059/http://www.minfin.ru/en/ to http://www.minfin.ru/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference to an outdated Credit Swiss report

In the introduction part of the article, there is a reference to an outdated Credit Swiss report that says Russia "deserves to be placed in a separate category." in terms of inequality. In fact according to recent Credit Swiss report Russian inequality is the same as that of United States, in both cases very high.

Ref: http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=12DFFD63-07D1-EC63-A3D5F67356880EF3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei social (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Extremely anti-Russian

Extremely anti-Russian article as everything about Russia in wikipedia. I would not bother to read, you will get disstorted and untrue image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Whats is the point of this article?

I don't get it - what is the point of this article? Why don't you simply write - Russians are inferior to us (Europeans, Americans, etc.) and should be exterminated? At least it will be honest and much shorter then all this anti-Russian slur you call wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Typo/missing information

The value of the merger/acquisition with the country of origin listed as singapore has some random date instead of the actual value of merger in itDany0 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Moscow International Business Center2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

Amend source for: "As of 2018 it is estimated that Western sanctions may have reduced Russian economy by as much as 6%.", as original is broken. Correct URL: "https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-16/prospects-for-russia-s-sanctions-bruised-economy-are-dim-chart" 144.32.240.36 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

FOREIGN CURRENCY RESERVES Russia´s forex reserves are $ 427 bn. according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-exchange_reserves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.180.7 (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Extremely biased and unsubstantiated.

The Corruption subsection is very biased. It's content mostly cites one source, which is not WP:NPOV, seems to have anti-Russian bias and once again doesn't seem to be that WP:VERIFIABLE. Looking at the whole article, it looks like this page has a lot of anti-Russian bias, and content that is not suited for an encyclopedia ("In the 1990s, businessmen had to pay different criminal groups to provide a "krysha" (literally, a "roof", i.e., protection). Nowadays, this "protective" function is performed by officials. Corrupt hierarchies characterize different sectors of the economy", looks like an opinion or something that's really subjective).

103.13.242.215 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"As of 2019 export of natural resources accounted for 60% of country's GDP" is bullshit

In the cited article it says that all the natural resources that were discovered in Russia/that Russian soil holds, are estimated at 60% of GDP. Saying that Russian exports of natural resources in 2019 alone accounted for 60% of the GDP is just *** ridiculous Bananka123 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

So is someone going to change this false citation? It has been almost half a year since this error has been pointed out. Again: The article says elsewhere that oil and gas are only 11-15% of Russia's GDP, not 60%. The quoted article talks about the value of oil and gas RESERVES, not oil and gas EXPORTS. 81.36.210.39 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Unemployment rate is flat out wrong.

The stated unemployment rate in this article is over 55%. When you click the source it leads to a graph that says that the employment to population ratio is 55%. This means that babies and children are counted as unemployed, which is inaccurate and incorrect. A simple google search reveals that the russian unemployment rate is in the ballpark of the 4-8% range rather than greater than 50%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.140.28 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Gdp PPP is 5th in the word now

Change it RussianEditor1945 (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

Russian GDP according to the source in the page, as for 2020 is 1.42 trillion, not 1.7t, stop posting fake infos. DMXIntrosy (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah

Tayyab Ahmad67 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done KRtau16 (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

suggestion:

change everything to past tense imo. 🇺🇦 73.254.193.124 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia asserts everything with a reliable source. It looks like Russia still has an economy, but is being harshly sanctioned. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 21:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia ranks as one of the worse countries for ease of doing business! Ranked as one of the highest for corruption

Most of the information in this article is false. Russia is ranked as almost last in terms of the ease of doing business, ranks as one the most corrupt. 2601:547:C280:1C50:90CB:77B6:A3C:BBD4 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ease of doing business index was not updated within the last week or so. And it takes time for data to be published. And yes, the economy is crumbling and this article will need updates, but the situation is changing rapidly, it will take time for this to be reflected. Mellk (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Forex reserves

• 16% are held in us dollars.
• 32% in euros
• 13% in yuans

(June 2021)

• $300 billion (out of $640 billion reserves) are frozen abroad (2022)

• rubble down 40% against dollar (year-to-date)

• $132 billion in gold.

source: https://news.yahoo.com/russias-finance-minister-admitted-country-035159374.html

172.58.236.124 (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand, it was 80 rubles per dollar before, it's 56 rubles per dollar now, how is it 40% down?

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

The last sentence of the introduction states "Russia has one of the lowest external debts among major economies, although its inequality of household income and wealth is one of the highest among developed countries." This should be changed as Russia is not classified as a developed country Twa0726 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This needs to be updated to represent post-Ukraine realities.

The following are recommended additions:

1) Invasion of Ukraine Presumably one paragraph, this would essentially give a brief, 1-paragraph background and lead to the main article.

2) International Sanctions

This section should include:

A) Background --> preparation for sanctions and Fortress Economy. Notably, this section needs to have info on Crimea and Russian-Ukrainian altercations since then, the sanctions they endured, and at least a small section dedicated to Russia's chief banker (that lady has done some amazing things w/ their economy). Anecdotally, it should also briefly talk about her wearing brooches to reflect her views, her lack of a brooch and black, funeral-like attire following the sanctions, seizures, and SWIFT, her pledge to resign if certain economic policies were adopted (iirc price control and capital restrictions to prevent $ from leaving the country, possibly also nationalization; idk less lazy would have to look it up). A good segue into the next section would be news articles about her argument w/ Putin where she reportedly said he'd taken the economy into the sewer. B) International response --> Most notably, an explanation of the sanction types, and analysis on how they're expected to affect Russia. IIRC, as of this writing, Russia was expected to grow 3% this year (2022). Some predictions are now estimating a shrinkage of ~12%. A chart showing the value of the ruble vs dollar as it fluctuated then suddenly dropped ~40% would be a good graphic here. C) Being kicked off of SWIFT. This should include an explanation of SWIFT. D) Western seizure of Fortress Economy Assets (~40% of their $630 billion in assets intended to resist) E) Russian inability to replace international tech. There was a survey done that showed ~80% of Russian manufacturers said they imported b/c there was no domestic alternative, or b/c the domestic alternative was of such poor quality it didn't adequately suit their needs. F) Bond market closing. G) Nationalization of intl assets w/in Russia, to include aircraft, and other countermeasures (plus why they're likely to cause far more harm to Russia in the long run than they can possibly help in the short term). It should also be explained why nationalization of factories and other high-tech assets (such as aircraft) won't work in the long run. Along those lines, an explanation of what nationalization typically does to foreign investment and why these countermeasures are ensuring that investment will not return to Russia from the west in the foreseeable future wouldn't be out of place. Side note - it's probably worth noting that the world may diversify from the dollar more; Russia and China have complained for ages that the US - especially w/ European help - could tank an economy w/o firing a shot due to intl reliance on the dollar. These sanctions have proven that they were correct. H) Oil, natural gas, and other raw material exports I) Wheat and food. Both H) and I) should have intl implications

3) The cost of war. Somewhere it talks about how expensive this was for Russia per day before you even consider the effect of sanctions. This should include the massive equipment losses Russia has suffered, the loss of life they're experiencing, and the expenditure of difficult to replace equipment such as guided Iskander missiles (as of this writing, they've largely been reduced to dropping dumb bombs, and some analysts belief that is b/c they're running low on high-tech munitions).

4) The hypothetical cost of occupation. --> I have yet to read a single assessment that says that Russia has the troops to occupy the Ukraine. Imagine Afghanistan, but instead of the most powerful military in the world, it's up against the paper tiger that Russia has proven to be... and instead of being supported by intl insurgents with relatively little in the way of high-tech assistance, it has the full backing of NATO. If Russia were to muster the troops necessary to hold and subdue the Ukraine, it would be a PR and economic nightmare

5) Long-term prospects. Some analyses say that if the war lasts until the end of the year, the Russian economy will wipe out all post-Soviet gains (gains since 1989). An explanation of how and why would be appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.93.6.15 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

UK IS NOT IN THE E.U. ANYMORE The U.K. is not part of the E.U. so you cannot add both for data in Main export partners and Main import partners. It should be EU in one side and UK in another side.--47.62.45.147 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The latest import/export data used in the infobox is from 2019. The United Kingdom ceased to be part of the European Union in 2020, which is why both are represented together in the total number.

˜˜˜˜ TorreAzzurro (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Sanctioned hit economy

Pretty sure now with the war and the sanctions from the West Russia’s economy and per capital income has decreased Nlivataye (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note: WP:Notaforum172.58.239.118 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Can someone add a mention of this -

- this https://cepa.org/rattled-russia-re-embraces-the-command-economy/

and

- this https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2022/3/31/russias-post-invasion-political-economy “working to transform Russia’s autocratic market economy into an autarkic command one.“ Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

They face a formidable threat so may feel unable to embrace market conditions because they are too free, perhaps. Today Defence Secretary Austin came out with their revised goal. It is no longer about Russians leaving Ukraine but about weakening Russia to the point that she may not recover in the foreseeable future. This is an economic goal and probably ought to be included. It can be difficult to decide how much free market is good, and how much government management. If the mixture is not producing good enough results people look for change. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:A0FE:CEBA:D7D5:7CB1 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Regional differences

There is a number of economic data lists describing regions. Some summary would be needed. Does such page already exist?Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove "Ease of Doing Business Index"

This index was discontinued by the world bank due to manipulations and should in my opinion be removed from the infobox.

(see Ease of doing business index "The report was discontinued by the World Bank on September 16, 2021, following the release of an independent audit of the data irregularities. The audit documented how bank leadership pressured experts to manipulate the results of the 2018 and 2020 Doing Business Reports.") Infty1000 0110 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm going to remove the entry of the "Ease of doing business entry" now. Feel free to bring any counterarguments to restore it. Infty1000 0110 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand this article. What is the current GDP of Russia?

It says here " In 2022, there have been heavy sanctions due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine that will likely result in steep recession. Since early 2022 many official economic statistics are no longer published." but yet they published the results for 2022 showing 2.1 trillion?

GDP Increase $2.1 trillion (nominal, 2022 est.)[5]

Increase $4.6 trillion (PPP, 2022 est.)[5]

Russia having suffered such heavy sanction couldn't possibly have grew so much in their economy. How did Russia GDP jump from 1+ trillion to 2.1 trillion? Thelordofsword (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Update economic statistics

Update economic stats by the new data given by IMF. Stuntneare (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It shows Russia's GDP at 2.1 trillion? How is that even possible with all the heavy sanctions and with so many Russian people leaving?Thelordofsword (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2022

Russia is not the 9th largest economy. It is the 11th from 2 out of 3 sources. DorfmanAdam (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia was in the top 10 before 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelordofsword (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia should still be in the top 20 largest economy.Thelordofsword (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This article is pretty massive. Where specifically in the article is the claim of Russia being the 9th largest economy, and which of the sources specifically are claiming it's the 11th at this time and not the 9th? —Sirdog (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Data timeline description is wrong

The Data timeline description says:

>>> Data The following table shows the main economic indicators in 1980–2021 (with IMF staff estimates in 2022–2026). <<<

But if you look into the table entries (also in the linked source) then it start 1992 and not 1980. 2001:9E8:34FD:D200:68DB:9C6F:8970:ECE6 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Russia is protectionist

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-protectionism-idUSBRE9BT0GP20131230 Russia was most protectionist nation in 2013

https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/news/eu-and-us-criticise-russia-over-protectionist-measures-for-its-pharmaceutical-industry EU and US criticise Russia over protectionist measures for its pharmaceutical industry

The subject is ignored here. Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Russia’s economy enters recession with 4% contraction

https://www.ft.com/content/e4f0cb9b-695c-4cc3-92c8-f8371de2ac38 Russia’s economy contracted for the second quarter in a row. Xx236 (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Is Russia a G-20 member?

There are some problems. Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a thing called Google. It exists. At least I hope it does for you. Calesti (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There is such thing like Rhetorical question. Putin has not participated in the Bali meeting and the "G20 nations condemned Rusisia's invasion". So the membership needs additional explanation. [3] Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh but, Putin didn't come to Indonesia, Russia must have gotten kicked out of G20!!! Please, show me a reliable source which has claimed that Russia has officially left the G20. It will not, of course. "Condemning" the invasion is symbolic. Yes, the ninth-largest economy in the world is STILL a part of the G20. Such a shocker!! I'm waiting for more of your incredibly helpful and valuable "questions" to the talk page, let me give you a suggestion, is Russia still a part of the WTO? Calesti (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, stupid. It's American propaganda trash, what else do you expect, reliable information? 2A02:A45E:72A7:1:527B:9DFF:FED0:561 (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia is (still) a member of G20#Members and World Trade Organization. DMBFFF (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

G20 is mostly about economy, see below my comment about Russian protectionism. This is not a forum to demand removal of Russia, but to describe Russian policy and influence of the war on Russian economy.

FWIW, the price of oil seemed kinda low during the Gorbachev and Yeltsin years, kinda higher during the Putin years.

File:Graph price of oil 1861 to 2020 WID data.png

DMBFFF (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

I need to add more details on Russia's natural resources. 104.156.17.186 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide specific changes. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Russia Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)