Jump to content

Talk:Economy of Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.30.180.7 (talk) at 00:41, 2 October 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1

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

Europe and asia

can you ad that counted as a whole its the 4th largest economy in asia and fifth largest in europe--Sinny55 (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By what GDP parameter, nominal or PPP? GreyHood Talk 12:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Does anyone have a source to prove that macroeconomic policies helped to prevent the Russian economy from going into further recession? Abhijay Talk?/Deeds 00:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

World Bank or IMF

I've read both tables but people insist on using the IMF table. However, the WB table seems to boosts Russia economy much further than that of the IMF that seems to downplay it, even though the WB has recorded this earlier. The question is, which one would be right? As far as I know, Russia hasn't experienced negative growth since 2012. Wouldn't that make it's GDP bigger rather than smaller? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.16.52 (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the wolrdbank is the right one why? Because they updated PPP exchange rates rates from 2011, imf uses 2004 figures for russia.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/faq.htm#q4c

A. The Purchasing-power-parity (PPP) between two countries is the rate at which the currency of one country needs to be converted into that of a second country to ensure that a given amount of the first country's currency will purchase the same volume of goods and services in the second country as it does in the first. In the WEO online database, the implied PPP conversion rate is expressed as national currency per current international dollar. The advantages and disadvantages of using PPP-based exchange rates rather than market exchange rates are discussed in the Finance & Development article "PPP Versus the Market, Which Weight Matters?" (March 2007) and Box 1.2 of the September 2003 World Economic Outlook (WEO). For the latest PPP weights revision, please see Figure 1.16 from Chapter 1 of the April 2008 WEO. For 2003 PPP weights revision, please see Box A2 from the April 2004 WEO. For the 2000 PPP weights revision, please see Box A1 from the May 2000 WEO. The International Comparisons Program (ICP) is a global statistical initiative that produces internationally comparable Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimates. The PPP exchange rate estimates, maintained and published by the World Bank, the OECD, and other international organizations, are used by WEO to calculate its own PPP weight time series. Currently, WEO PPP exchange rates are based on the ICP’s 2005 round but these will be updated upon the release of the 2011 round of estimates. For more information, you can go to the World Bank’s ICP page at http://www.worldbank.org/data/icp.

-the worldbank uses updated ppp exchange rates only for OECD countries and Eurostat countries as well as Russia which was the closest country to join it at that time. Thats why you see eastern european EU countries and especially Turkey and Russia having higher ppp numbers in world bank because they were the first who got their ppp exchange rate updated. And even China could overtak the US in PPP terms. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101626562 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEaHyiAIsZE But if you listen to the news you can hear that china and all other developing countries got their ppp rates updated too, so when WB updates all countries to 2011 ppp rates you will see china and india and especially saudi arabia having bigger gdp in ppp. So yeah World Bank is the way to go because eventually the IMF has to update their 2004 numbers to 2011. Why havent they done it before for russia? I dont know they are just mentality retarded institution i guess, but its pointless to change it because many people are too retarded to get it and keep constantly going back to IMF numbers. I have constantly had debates explaining that to people all the time, and they still dont get it.--Crossswords (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the IMF webcite:
The IMF is not a primary source for purchasing power parity (PPP) data. WEO weights have been created from primary sources and are used solely for purposes of generating country group composites. For primary source information, please refer to one of the following sources: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, or the Penn World Tables.
I think that settles it. IMF is basically telling everyone to use the WB numbers instead.Keverich2 (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article needs to be rewritten!

...starting with the opening section: way too much space devoted to Russia's troubled economic history; just describe its current condition. I suggest the passages that deal with economic history should be moved to the relevant section

Overall the article reads more like an essay, than an encyclopedia piece - not very informative at all.Keverich2 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be removing outdated, unsourced stuff

This article is poorly written and seriously outdated. Large sections are no longer relevant anymore. Many parts are barely comprehensible, as if someone made a translation from Russian into English using googletranslate. None of this stuff is particularly informative and it's just clogging up space.Keverich2 (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weird section and I don't understand its purpose. Doesn't look like it belongs to this articleKeverich2 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC643%7CRussian+Federation&source=1%7CITC) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Russia. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Russia by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economic indicators

Hello everyone, I would like to add two indicators to the statistics in the box on the right side:

1) Trade balance latest 12 months in bn US$ 2) Current account balance latest 12 months

Both numbers are the current data availabe on: http://www.economist.com/node/21604509

Does anyone object to this? ~~ Be1981

I think that table needs annual data, and from a more relible source than Economist.Keverich2 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The Economist Intelligence Unit compiles the data, and Haver Analytics sources them, which also works for the US census bureau; see https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/national_economic_indicators/ "Data for charts provided through Haver Analytics .."
Despite political tensions between Russia and the West and The Economist´s stance on V. V. Putin, The Economist and Economist Intelligence Unit are to be considered RELIABLE cause
a)it is a high-quality non-scholarly source and
b)they do fact-checking, have a reputation for accuracy and regularly publish corrections if they make a mistake
see also here: [[3]]


the numbers for Russia are
a) Trade balance latest 12-months +193.3 billion US$ (Jun)
b) Current-account balance of the latest 12 months =+51.5 billion US$ (2nd Quarter 2014)
c) percentage of GDP = +2.9 % ~~ Be1981 13:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source for Russian macroeconomic statistics is Rosstat. They have the relevant annual figures available on their website, and I'll be sure to post them when I have time. The statbox should use annual, quarterly or monthly figures. Including the numbers for "the latest 12 months" is unusual. It would confuse people imo. Keverich2 (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist is a reliable source (see WP:RS). Rosstat does not fit WP:RS criteria for reliable sources. The Kremlin clearly has a vested interest in ensuring that Rosstat highlights the positive and ignores the negative. --108.45.56.173 (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

There are some problems with this edit.

  • "Russia is one of the few countries in the world with its own national internet search engine" makes it sound like a "national internet search engine" is an actual thing. It isn't. There are lots of countries, lots of search engines, and very rarely is there - or should there be - a 1:1 relationship between them. That's just silly. Google isn't the American national search engine.
  • The same goes for "Russia also has its own email services" and so on. These are all very common things on the internet, usually cross-border, and Russia is no exception.

If somebody really wanted to say "Russia has businesses that provide internet services X, Y, and Z", then that might be slightly closer to WP:NPOV, but it's still trivial. So what? Any big economy has businesses that provide common types of internet services. As it stands, we have spammy and nationalist content which overinflates the importance of mundane businesses and services. bobrayner (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any legitimate reason for restoring the spammy content deleted, please follow WP:BRD. Don't just restore the content without so much as an edit summary. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crossswords, why do you keep on restoring this incoherent spam? bobrayner (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the previous version, although I'm hardly convinced that Yandex isn't WP:OFFTOPIC or just plain promotional bloat for this article. Crossswords, you've already been asked to discuss the merit of this content yet, rather than discuss it, you continue to try to sneak it in without so much as an edit summary. If you think it's relevant, follow WP:BRD and please explain why. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
its a fact that yandex is the second biggest search engine in europe after google because google has monopoly almost everyhwere except in russia, china (baidu), south korea (naver) and japan & taiwan (yahoo) at least in the more industrialized world. Its no nationalistic talk pointing that out, the econimist even called russia an exception in europe.

http://www.economist.com/node/21555560 You could say that the headquarters of Yandex, Russia's biggest online-search company, symbolises the country's whole internet economy: a bit smaller than expected, but growing fast, and unmistakably Russian. The email stuff etc. was allready removed so i dont u derstand why you bring that up, and i changed national to homegrown it was just some mistunderstanding here. And yes google is spying for the NSA so it is a national search engine for the US in many ways, thats just one of the reasons.--Crossswords (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the clarification. Could we please stay away from the soapboxing about Google. This isn't supposed to be a venue for parsing the machinations of global hegemony. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#mediaviewer/File:Equivalent_countries_to_the_Nominal_GDP_of_federal_districts_in_Russia,_source_World_Bank_2012.png

For some reason I have hard time believing that map is from the cited source (World Bank) or they have some serious conspiracy with Russia, knowing in advance during year 2012 the Russian future plans. The plot in lower left reminds surprisingly much Crimean peninsula, which was invaded by Russia 2014, which means the map obviously can't be from 2012. I also seriously doubt that any international source would claim Crimea to be (de jure) part of Russia at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.34.216 (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to ask the creator of the map, Crossswords, what the sources are. There are none cited on the map at Wiki Commons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_federal_districts_by_GDP in this article the sources are, it was a map made by me in for this article made in 2014. I used Worldbank and another source who stated how big the economy of crimea was in 2012. At that time there was no 2013 data available from worldbank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_GDP I was inspired by a similar chinese article--Crossswords (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the map has been correctly removed by another editor. I don't see how the Crimean economy in 2012 bears any relationship to the RF in 2012. It most certainly doesn't even represent 'facts on the ground'. Please don't try to apply present 'facts on the ground' content retrospectively as if it were a reflection of the reality at that previous point in time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image. Higher or lower GDP than Russia

Hello Volunteer Marek, why are you keep deleting image which was here for years, and allways in the same format. You cannot without reason remove link to images, if they are not even marked as incorrect. If you think that data are in conflict because varies by source, please explain in which case on image page or contact creator, if user do not reply you can even delete it. This is the proper way. But still, I do not think that on image is something incorrect, or in conflict. Thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did give a reason. You cannot mix data from different sources. The IMF, the WB and the CIA use different methodology (the first two are similar, but definitely different from the third) and the numbers are not comparable. This is pretty basic. If you were writing a paper on gdp, you would not do this (without making some serious adjustments). For Wikipedia purposes the image violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. And I don't go to Commons. It's a creepy place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you say they are not comparable and cannot be mixed with CIA figures, we can delete all figures from CIA. As it is mentioned on image, data are from Worldbank (only where are no data, they are from CIA). So which country build the biggest worries for you - where are no data from WB, but CIA? I am willing to satisfy you, and take care of it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jirka.h23. For the purposes of Wikipedia, it's the IMF figures that have 'traditionally' been used for all nation-states. This has been a matter of parity/consistency, remembering that we have articles about all sovereign states, but the majority of these are maintained by regulars as there aren't contributors for these countries active (or even in an economic position to be active) on English Wikipedia. For example, I have my sticky fingers in a lot of pies, so I try to stay on top of a number of such articles like the Solomon Islands and quite a few other unrepresented/under-represented areas of Wikipedia.
I'll ping Crossswords on this issue. Last year s/he nearly got themselves into a position where they could have been blocked over using Worldbank stats. S/he was using Worldbank stats for the Russia article, as well as introducing them on this article. This was causing disruption because Worldbank and IMF figures, while gleaned their results using the same methodology, are slightly different with IMF data being more generic. This lead to Italy and Russia having the same ranking on one of the performance scales.
As I recall, I did consider that Crossswords (whose interest and some form of specialised knowledge appears to be in economics) had a compelling argument for the use of Worldbank data, but that using WB data for Russia alone was misleading for readers who have a reasonable expectation that, when looking at rankings and other data comparing economies across the globe, it should be uniform. Changing data/statistics for Russia alone is disruptive. Other editors also preferred to maintain the status quo.
Rather than have you waste time on developing an image representing IMF stats, this is probably a good time to consider whether proposing Worldbank statistics should become the community consensus norm to be applied across the board.
Naturally, if we choose to do this via an RfC, it can't be decided here. We'd have to have to find an appropriate venue (a crossroads article?) where a solid, representative number of editors/contributors are most likely to find it and be given an opportunity to voice their opinions. Let's wait on Crossswords to respond before the next step. Cheers!
P.S. Apologies for the response being so long. I couldn't think of a way of making the issue simpler as it's far more complicated than even this wall-of-text would suggest. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iryna Harpy. You are right that this should be decided in an appropriate place, I am not sure if here. I am not against IMF stats to be preferable, but if they are not included in an article, in my opinion WB data could be used.
However here we are talking about an specific image. If someone would prefer IMF stats, developing an image with IMF stats could be the way, but why not to include the one with WB stats, when the other is not yet avaible. The second thing is, that in my opinion, both stats will do not change anything on this image. If.Volunteer Marek thinks that two sources cannot be used (even in my judgment, they are not in conflict to each other) We could simply change description to either WB or IMF and leave this image as it is. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Jirka. I understand your position as your latest rework (per the description for the image you've provided) is based on Worldbank figues. I haven't had a moment to compare the WB data with your updated rendition, so please bear with me a little. I'll take a look at the WB stats you've provided for the image (being here, per the information you've provided), and provide a response ASAP.
Ultimately, the decision isn't really one for either you or I to make between us. Volunteer Marek has stated his opinion, and other editors involved in this article should also be given the opportunity to state their case as to whether it's appropriate or not.
If I don't get back to you on this issue in the next couple of days, please ping me. I'll be on holiday next week, so won't get an opportunity to comment again until the week after next. Do you really feel that the image is so important that it isn't something that can wait for a couple of weeks? If so, I'll make it a priority before I go away. If it isn't, I'd be grateful if you were prepared to leave it until my return. Apologies if this comes across as putting pressure on you. It's certainly not my intention to do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I will wait for your answer, however I can assure you that the update is correct, this is not the problem. If Volunteer Marek matters more sources, then, as I have suggested, it could be simply resolved by changing description to either WB or IMF (if it will be sourced). Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you make an image which consistently uses one set of figures (and IMF would be the preferred choice) then I got no problem with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jirka.h23 and Volunteer Marek. I've just returned and have noted that Crossswords hasn't chimed in. Under the circumstances, I have to agree with VM that IMF stats are the standard for Wikipedia. I don't see a reason for disqualifying WB stats, but any images would have to depict both as there are differences between the two (World Bank data/stats are more immediate, whereas IMF data is more generalised and easier to follow in terms of linear data that can be quickly and easily updated on a yearly basis for all sovereign states/countries). While IMF data draws on World Bank data, the two aren't mutually interchangeable.

Under these conditions, Jirka.h23, you'd be placed in a position of having to update the World Bank data image on a quarterly basis (at least... which is a big ask of you), while the IMF chart would remain the same until the next financial year. If you're prepared to do this, and keep it up, I wouldn't have any objections to both charts being depicted together under the one subheader. I would, however, recommend that they be created separately so that, should the WB data fall behind, that particular chart could be removed until it's updated.

While this could be understood as being appropriate for this particular article, only IMF data appears to be favoured for the broad-scope articles unless there is a change in community consensus across all nation-state articles.

Any other regular editor input regarding having two charts would be appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an separate image, using IMF stats. As was demanded. File is sourced. Hope it is resolved now. Happy editing to both of you. Jirka.h23 (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having finally found a moment to compare your new image file against the IMF data, I have no objections to your having introduced it to the article. Thanks for your hard work and patience, Jirka.h23! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is still a problem. First, the image should really state the year for which it is relevant. I just looked at the figures for 2014 and, unsurprisingly, the map does not accurately the situation anymore. Also, the original title of the map is 2009-2013. That means an average over those years. But the current map has only 2013, which is misleading. Basically, there should be a separate file/map for 2009-2013 and for particular years. I will upload an updated 2014 version shortly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, my pricture do not include any year of figures. I do not wish you keep adding it there, then we have to draw it there every year, this is very annoying. This picture shows newest real data which are valid now. You keep adding data which represent estimates, they are indicated by shaded cells. I do not wish you keep adding them to my picture - they do not represent real data, which I am seeking for at wikipedia. They can be arbitrarily changed by IMF many times throughout the year. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the 2013 numbers are also estimates. The 2014 are just as "real" as the 2013.
As I've stated before, it actually doesn't make much sense to use per-year numbers, five or so year averages would be better. But that's not what you wanted - you're the one who changed the original image.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also confused as to what you mean when you say "my pricture do not include any year of figures". You used 2013 numbers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"my pricture do not include any year of figures", I meant in the picture, it is annoying to draw it there every year. Why not to change it only in description? Marek, I do not want to use five year averages, per-year numbers look more accurate. However I have checked your data for 2014 and they looks ok. Lets keep it, because shaded cells are in 2013 as well. Also, why have you reverted caption "IMF" to "World Bank"? Could you return back IMF and delete year in the picture? Your changes should be also allways sourced. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, why did you changed description in image back again to World Bank? Why you do not source your changes? Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, good catch. I'll fix it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015

|per capita = $8,158 (April 2015) [1]
$24,009 (April 2015) [2] 92.44.108.94 (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Where is this to be added? Cannolis (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Report for Selected Countries and Subjects". Imf.org. Retrieved 15 April 2015.
  2. ^ "Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (PPP valuation of country GDP)". IMF. April 2015.

Sanctions

I found it odd that the sanctions in 2014-2015 and their impact on the Russian economy wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article. In fact the word sanctions doesn't appear once in the article. 143.165.48.50 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article, along with parallel articles, doesn't deal with WP:RECENTISM. There have been enough problems with articles related to Russia and Ukraine being dragged WP:OFFTOPIC and being used for political leverage. There are ample recent events articles dealing with the subject matter specifically, and this article is WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Irina, I do understand your point. However, this article is already filled with "recentism stuff" and I believe that he made a good point. We have a whole paragraph dealing with only the last year and even pushed into headline. I would say, that if you want to obey the WP:Recentism, this also do not belong here. I would have been for moving this below, where we can also mention sanctions as one of the reasons for this recession. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a lot of relevant information in International_reactions_to_the_war_in_Donbass, I suppose it would be just matter of rewording that to be more economy focused and adding here. In general I fully support the idea about updating the article with information on sanctions - I don't think it's very much "recentism" if the whole thing goes on for a year now. Kravietz (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of the sanctions with economic impact added. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did not mean to stir anything up, I understand how this could be a sensitive topic. The small paragraph you added seems appropriate in scope for now, thank you. Also to quickly address Iryna Harpy's concerns. Recentism: sanctions do seem to pass the "10 year test", in other words 10 years from now these sanctions will likely still be relevant and I think one small paragraph in this massive article will not tilt it too far towards recent events. OffTopic: sanctions are closely tied to and can heavily impact a country's economy and are not off topic. NotNews: sanctions of this scale are certainly not "routine news" and seem to easily meet notability requirements. I understand your reluctance to include information on sanctions, but please don't use Wikipedia policies as a stick to bat away information you may find distasteful. 143.165.48.50 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I accept that there is consensus among editors that updating the information is WP:DUE. My dominant concern is (and, for the moment, will remain) that, as with other articles, that the content be succinct and not used as a WP:COATRACK for POV-pushing. So long as we keep our eyes on the subject matter in order to contain the content, I have no formal objections. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome mention of sanctions, but would agree with Iryna Harpy's concern that we should watch out for POV-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit about forex reserves, however I did not add what the reserve is made of now, nor their importance. That requires more research using reliable sources. Anyone up for the job? TGCP (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd be reticent to add too much detail given the broad scope of the article. If anyone wishes to create an article on the current status of the RF economy (that'll pass scrutiny), they're welcome to try. For the purposes of this article, there's no need for a detailed analysis of the current status. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error - Reference 41

Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As of 31 December 2007, there were an estimated 4,900,000 broadband lines in Russia

2007 in telecommunication is the past.Xx236 (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture

A picture in an infobox should be neutral, it should describe the subject rather than create a propaganda image. The image of the Moscow International Business Center isn't neutral here, the economy of Russia is generally different than the MIBC. Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Several sections are unsourced (Banking, Agriculture), some quoted sources are old - 2006, 2007, some links are dead.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015

|revenue = $416.5 billion (2014 est.)[1] |expenses = $408.3 billion (2014 est.)[2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
  2. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

178.240.208.245 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Economy of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Archived page was bad redirect. Replaced with live version at sputniknews.com. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GDP growth

Hello ZinedineZidane98, please explain me where are your better sources than mine? As I have read document which was sourced before, I have found only comprason of last half a year and this half a year - which certainly does not mean GDP growth, or am I wrong? Anyway source from OECD is, in my opinion, definitely most precise we can find. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yeah I was little confused myself. Until I realized that the OECD website (https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=350) shows Quarterly growth, not year-on-year.... i.e., how much an economy has grown/shrunk in the last Quarter, not Q2 2015 when compared to Q2 2014.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a4b9944c-3f77-11e5-b98b-87c7270955cf.html#axzz3mOfN7M58
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-10/russian-economy-shrinks-4-6-as-oil-slump-risks-deeper-recession
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/10/russian-economy-shrinks-46-in-q2-compared-to-last-year.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/08/10/uk-russia-crisis-economy-idUKKCN0QF1JQ20150810
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-economy-contracts-4-6-second-quarter-151958069.html
ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's okay to put 1st quarter growth in there, then it's fine to put in 2nd quarter growth in there, no?  Volunteer Marek  18:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.... GDP Growth stats are customarily (and certainly on Wikipedia) given for 12-month periods. The most recent stats available for the 12-month growth rate in Russia report a 4.4-4.6% shrinkage (from Q2 2014 to Q2 2015). If you wanna start putting in Quarterly stats (3 month periods) then that's a whole new ball game. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if we have annual data (quarter to quarter) then that's better than just quarterly. I also think the paragraph in the lede beginning with "There were fears of the Russian economy going into recession from early 2014 ...." should be updated. Volunteer Marek  14:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, absolutely, lots of things need updating. I'm too lazy to do it just now... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, you should firstly understand the difference bettween: comparison between quarter (or half) a year and same period over last year, and the real growth of GDP in any period (2014, Q1 2015 etc.) What are Zinedine refering is the comparison (like comparison of Q2 2015 and Q2 2014), not the growth. What are we filling here, is the real GDP growth over some period. Marek, if you will provide realible source providing growth, not the quarter-year by year, I am surely not against it, I do not care if its gonna be quarterly or yearly data. However, it should be filled correctly. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... yes... that's what I said. Why are you repeating back to me the mistake that I pointed out to you, that you are making? You're the one who keeps re-inserting the incorrect figure (sourced to Quarterly growth stats, not year-on-year)... why are you doing that? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because last annual data we know, are that from 2014 (1). Last quarterly data are from Q1 2015 - 2. What are you refering to, in news agencies, are only comparison of Q2 2015 and Q2 2014, not real GDP growth in that period. Thats why I am inserting the last known data, and I do not care if they gonna be quarterly or yaerly stats. Do you understand now Zinedine? Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To make it more clear, please read for example: Measuring Economic Growth. (We need the "Quarterly growth at an annual rate" or the "The annual average growth rate". The quarter year-over-year rate is popular among among businesses to avoid seasonal variations, however it does not reflect real GDP growth in that period.) Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... whether you measure the 12 months from Jan-Dec, or July-July, it still measures the same thing: "real GDP growth". It's become popular in recent years in the press (and subsequently Wikipedia) to use the most recent 12-month period (Q1-Q1, Q2-Q2) simply because it's more up-to-date, and more useful - a lot can happen in three quarters, as it has in Russia. This is not some innovation I am attempting - you'll find it in the "Economy of..." articles for most of the world's biggest countries. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.. looks like you still do not understand difference between: comparison of 2nd quarter in 2015 and that of 2nd quarter in 2014 and the growth of 2nd quarter from last quarter (Q1 2015). No, it does not measure the same thing. You are refering to comparison of those two seasons, not to growth of this season. Please, how to make it more simply so you could understand? Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in that weird bit of Wikipedia again... ok, this is the last I will contribute to this conversation: both figures measure growth, they just take different dates as their starting point. Q2 2014 to Q2 2015 measures growth over a 12-month period, just as measuring from Jan-Dec (Q1-Q4) of 2014, measures growth over a twelve month period. The economy doesn't stop-and-start activity according to the date. Thankyou, and good-bye. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? There are not any data from Q2 2014 to Q2 2015, again, this is just the comparison of growth in the 2nd quarter of 2015 and that of 2nd quarter in 2014. No, it does not measure a 12-month period. For GDP growth in 12 month period, is allways used Jan-Dec period. Do you understand now? Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, explaination of differences between measures of GDP to ZinedineZidane is beyond my powers. Now I would now like to clarify practice how to edit GDP growth in infobox. What should get priority? In my opinion it should be the last "quarterly growth at an annual rate" or the "annual average growth rate" (for me does not matter if first data or second, or both), if those data are not avaible then the "quarter by year-over-year". Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's GDP incorrect?

Russia's nominal GDP on the article is listed as $1.175 trillion, the source is the IMF here. However, on the article List of countries by GDP nominal, Russia's GDP is listed as $1.860 trillion by the IMF. IMF source is here. Which one is the correct one? --AntonioR449 (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One link is an estimate for 2015, other is real data for 2014. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One is PPP, the other Current prices.Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So then is the one on this article correct? It seems to really be low-balling the Russian economy. Also, on both sources it says "Shaded cells indicate estimates". The $1.175 trillion is shaded, meaning it's an estimate. And the $1.860 trillion is not shaded, indicating it's not an estimate. So should the article's GDP be changed? AntonioR449 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One is 2014 one is 2015. Volunteer Marek  21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand correctly, the Russian economy has went from $1.860 trillion in 2014, to $1.175 trillion in 2015? 685 billion dollars, in other words a 37% contraction of the Russian economy? I'm not questioning it, I just didn't realize the sanctions have hit Russia so hard. AntonioR449 (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is due to the devaluation of the Rouble (which stands 1:1 with the (not) fall of Oil price at the pump in Russia) that the GDP expressed in Dollars felt 37%, in my opinion. The only real message of this fall is that Russian companies can be buy for relatively cheap by foreign capital, but, that would not happen with a world crisis going on and a positive account balance on the Russian side. In fact the capital is out-flowing, and the reason for this may be not because of the outlook on the Russian economy but because of the present state of neighbouring countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.183.107 (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian financial crisis (2014–present)

Russian economy currently is in a deep recession. But there is no a word about it in the article, for example in 2014–present subsection. 46.71.164.213 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.183.107 (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2015

GDP Values are wrong . According to provided source IMF website ( http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2013&ey=2020&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=91&pr1.y=11&c=922&s=NGDP_R%2CNGDPD%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPEX&grp=0&a= )

Russia 2015 GDP 1,235.858 billion dollars. Russia 2015 GDP(PPP) 3,473.780 billion dollars.

Please update the info. ДОброМАкс (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- ferret (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

DOING BUSINESS 2016 RANK 51 and 54 for 2015. This is wrong in the article! 208.185.6.7 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done /wiae /tlk 14:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

misunderstanding of WP:CRYSTALBALL

re: [4]. Please actually read WP:CRYSTALBALL before quoting it as policy. WP:CRYSTALBALL applies to Wikipedia editors not making predictions about the future. It does not prohibit reporting what reliable sources say about the future. This is particularly true about economic forecasts. And anyway, WP:CRYSTALBALL is about articles, not text in articles.

Please stop trying to WP:GAME policies which aren't even appropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Wikipedia does not predict the future" do you not understand? Athenean (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that perfectly fine. What you don't seem to understand is that this isn't *Wikipedia* predicting the future, it's a *reliable source* making a notable forecast. See the difference?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that when you put that in a wikipedia article, it is then wikipedia that predicts the future. Btw, I take it your silence on "There were fears" means you have understood that it's weasel wording. Athenean (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, because - one more time, it's not that hard to understand - the text has a source in it so the claim is verifiable and it's that source that makes the claim.
And you can take "my silence" however you want. I don't really care about whether it says "there were fears" or "it was at risk", I don't see much substantial difference there. So I kept your rewording. What I *do* care about is you pretending that it's about a couple of words, when in actuality you're 1) removing a bunch of well sourced text and 2) restoring horrendous grammar as you did [here. Both of these suggest that this isn't about some "fears vs risk" but rather you're just blind reverting and edit warring for the sake of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Syria war

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GDP per capita
$8,000 (2016) (nominal)[3]
$24,000 (2016) (PPP)[
It was 2015 forecast.Xx236 (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_Russia&oldid=803354074"