• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    For the record, I very much agree that military industry isn’t the best way to develop the economy. Ultimately, any effort that goes towards producing weapons is effort that could be directed towards improving the lives of the people in the country. It’s just that you can get away producing a lot of useless stuff before there’s a serious drag on the economy. Incidentally, military industry is just one example of this. I generally agree with Graeber’s bullshit jobs thesis stating that a lot of work is basically just make work with no useful social purpose to it.

    Russia is actually fairly centralized at this point. They pretty much had to move back to a planned economy after the war started.

    A 2023 World Bank study gives a pretty good overview. In particular, it distinguishes between businesses of the state (BOS), that are at least 10% government owned by some government, and state owned enterprises (SOE), which are majority owned or more, and controlled, by the government.

    Top line result is shown in the following chart:

    And here’s another chart showing SOE in Russia compared with China https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/state-owned-enterprises-global-economy-reason-concern

    Russia’s high levels of SOEs is not far behind China by many measures.

    Central bank plays a big role in Russia as well, and has large influence over the funding of the private enterprise. FT even moaned about state directed economy standing up to sanctions back in 2022.

    And I agree with your assessment that the authors most likely did use the guns vs butter model as the basis for their argument. It’s not without merit, but I the devil’s always in the details. With the world changing as rapidly as it is, I think it’s pretty hard to make any predictions regarding what’s going to happen a year or two down the road. We’re kind of in terra incognita here.

    • TranscendentalEmpire
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s just that you can get away producing a lot of useless stuff before there’s a serious drag on the economy. Incidentally, military industry is just one example of this. I generally agree with Graeber’s bullshit jobs thesis stating that a lot of work is basically just make work with no useful social purpose to it.

      I agree, but I feel the real danger of tooling your economy towards military production lies within its inherent inflexibility. Oftentimes it’s easier to convince people to turn ploughs into swords than swords back into ploughs.

      Russia is actually fairly centralized at this point. They pretty much had to move back to a planned economy after the war started

      Yes, but they’re still tackling the ghost of Yeltsin. A lot of the centralization is still being organized under the control of the people who rose to power during the implementation of shock therapy. I think they probably should have cooked those particular geese before the war.

      With the world changing as rapidly as it is, I think it’s pretty hard to make any predictions regarding what’s going to happen a year or two down the road. We’re kind of in terra incognita here.

      Yeap, we’ve definitely been cursed to live in interesting times. Thanks for the discourse. It’s not very often you can air out some conflicting ideas without someone throwing a hissy fit. Cheers.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I very much agree, once you create the structures necessary to feed the war machine, there’s a lot if incentive to keep them in place. Although, it is worth noting that the problem is worse in the private sector where there is constant need for profit. State owned infrastructure can be repurposed or mothballed much easier. In fact, this article from the guardian mentions that one of the reasons Russia was able to ramp up military production was because they had mothballed factories around for this exact eventuality

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/rate-of-russian-military-production-worries-european-war-planners

        Also agree that Russia is still dealing with all the problems that resulted from mass privatization. In my view, that’s the biggest challenge for Russia going forward. Amusingly the west effectively ended up doing capital controls for Russia via sanctions. It would’ve been an unpopular measure with the oligarchs if it came from the government, but since it was imposed externally, they had little choice but to get with the program.

        And I enjoyed the discussion as well. I find when there is good faith disagreement, that typically means that people are looking at things from a different perspective or they rely on different information to form their view. Having a discussion to figure out the reasons for disagreement tends to enlighten both parties, and the end result is we both get a more nuanced understanding of the subject. So pleasure was all mine. :)