As a Ukrainian at war since day 1 – I don't buy it. They will sell their gas at discount to China until the very end. Military force is the only way to get them to the death zone.
> They will sell their gas at discount to China until the very end.
Yes and no. There's a minimum price they need to sell it, and somewhere in between they may not actually make enough between the minimum and sale price to actually fund their military. Nevermind the awesome job you guys are doing blowing up refineries and other industrial facilities. It'll be good when Europe stops importing Russian gas and steps up their seizure of sanctioned ships too.
Sanctions can and will work against Russia. Part of the strain they face today is due to these sanctions, it just takes awhile and in the meantime, unfortunately, there are people dying.
I favor harsher sanctions against Russia but let's not be too optimistic. It doesn't take much funding to recruit a poor, desperate guy from the outer provinces, hand him a surplus rifle, and send him into a human wave attack. In a perverse sort of way, killing off those guys might actually be reducing Russian government expenses.
If so then why are they paying millions of rubles to their people to voluntarily enlist to the assault meatwave?
Russians are killing their future for sure.
I think probably if Russia ran out of money for drones and missiles and could only support human wave attacks, Ukraine would be pretty happy.
[flagged]
What the fuck did I just read
"I have a dream" but version for Eastern Europe.
> Sanctions can and will work against Russia.
We hear this mantra since almost 5 years. I am not saying there should not be sanctions, but at some point the strategic lies need to end.
I don't think there are strategic lies here. Russia's war machine and their economy have taken a massive hit from sanctions. The news/media cycle and "experts" obviously want to make money and recycle the same stories and "any day now" kind of rhetoric, but that doesn't make sanctions any less of a great option.
It takes time.
Maybe you should update your epistemology and stop listening to the guys that said so; I listen to the experts who say (since 2022) sanctions hurt, but russia is like a big tree - even if you poison it, it won't fall on the next day; it doesn't help that russia has disproportionately big spy network - people will take more abuse before they rebel against their government.
I think shevy was pointing out that some experts have assured us since before the war that sanctions can and will cripple Russia any day now.
Their epistemology doesn't need updating; the politicians fibbing need to be ridiculed.
Russia has one of the biggest war chests in the world, huge reserves of carbon fuel that it can afford to sell under market rates, and is supported by China. It can sustain even hardest sanctions for a long while, lifting them certainly wouldn’t help.
> huge reserves of carbon fuel that it can afford to sell under market rates,
Under market rates sure, but it must still be profitable. China and India know that, so they're going to drive down the price to the extent they can so that it's just barely profitable. But you can't just profit from the oil and gas, you need to profit enough to buy fighter jets and tanks, and all sorts of other things.
When it’s your pretty much singular source of foreign income you have to make sacrifices.
Thank you sir, I wish your words will eventually come true
As a strong supporter of Ukraine, I would say ultimately wars are won or lost by economic forces (the side that can't afford it any more loses). That's how the USSR lost the Cold War, and all I can hope is that all of Europe really has your back in this one.
But that is historically not quite true.
World War 2 was not won due to the economy. And while it is true that the USSR "lost" the Cold War, they actually spent too much and entered a recurring debt from which they could no longer get out. There was no direct war here, which is different to e. g. world war 2 (at the least USA versus Germany). USSR and USA only fought some proxy wars.
World War 2 was won due to the economy. Only the Allied side had the economic strength to replace all of their material war losses and more. In some categories of munitions the USA out produced Japan by a factor of >1000. US Navy gunners could afford to fill the sky with steel because the had unlimited supplies. The enemy had to count every shot.
> World War 2 was not won due to the economy.
It was literally won due to the economy. The moment Germans failed to knock out Soviets and Japanese pulled Americans into the fight their days were numbered due to insane industrial base of the both countries. Soviet meat waves, industry + lend lease won Europe and US finished Japanese.
> meat waves
sigh
Thank you for your esteemed presence. I've got an unsatisfied hankering for kneeling since george Floyd died, but now that you're here, take that kneel.
That is probably true, but if they are selling at a loss, it can only go on for so long.
Ukraine might have less time than Russia does. Russia only has to survive 1 day more.
I agree with your point overall but realistically speaking, its not like the death of Ukraine will fix Russias economy, even if it did: not in a single day.
You can exhaust yourself completely and be dead on your feet.
Doomed, is the expression.
There is a strain of thought in Russian political circles that they'll be doomed anyway due to lack of defensible borders if they fail to capture Ukraine. This could explain some of their actions that otherwise seem irrational and counterproductive.
Ukraine is also very hard to completely destroy, either militarily or economically. And Ukraine is in an existential struggle, I don’t see the Ukrainians caving.
But then what, become a part of China? I don't think Russia could defend themselves from an attack of a lesser nation right now, and I truly wish one of them would take opportunity
They still have nukes.
Why do you imagine Ukraine's desire for sovereignty would be exhausted before Russia's stomach for economic hardship? Do you really think the Russia public has the stamina even for the 4 more years it will take them to capture the rest of Donbas?
Russia doesn’t have any other choice, than to continue.
Same applies for the West.
Russia can retreat inside its internationally recognized borders and negotiate a ceasefire at any time.
russia has a choice. putin doesn't.
Russia could end the war today if it wanted to.
Same for the West.
If they do, they loose. That sets their position in the world.
Who’d fear them? They can’t even win over a country which is much smaller and weaker than they are.
How can the West end the war today?
Russia has almost 1 million casualties, West hasn’t even arrived.
Huh? Which "West" are you referring to? No NATO member state has invaded any Russian sovereign territory.
Who fears, say, Canada? Lots of countries go on perfectly well without being feared. Russia could, too.
The problem isn't Russia, inherently. The problem is Putin. He cannot survive (probably literally) without being feared.
It’s very difficult to utterly destroy a country’s military force, particularly a country as huge as Russia, which has also a sizeable population. Ukraine cannot do it on its own and I see no appetite from anybody else to do it, so I think it is unlikely to happen.
Of course, it is also very difficult to utterly destroy a country’s economic power. Unfortunately, in Russia’s case, they have the raw materials and a population they can basically enslave. Hitting hard at refineries is a good strategy, it’s a weak point in the whole structure. Hopefully it’ll be enough.
Honestly, I don’t see an easy or clean way out of this. One possibility is that they’ll grind themselves badly enough to become completely irrelevant. Unfortunately that means a good chunk of Ukraine gets ground down along the way. One can hope for a coup, but then whatever comes after might well be worse.
Then, hopefully Ukraine can rebuild as a free nation.
Russia's military force currently relies on men willing to die for money. That could change. But Putin seems reluctant to force the general population to die in Ukraine.
Classic economic theory suggests that the amount you need offer to people willing to die goes up over time.
For Ukraine the main thing is to get to the point that Russia doesn't attack any more. There is no need for Ukraine to concur any part of Russia. Even getting the currently occupied land back is mostly optional.
This war has already changed. Near-stalemate on the front lines, exchange of strikes on civilian infrastructure (Ukraine made to Belgorod what Russia made to Kiev). It‘s a nuclear war without nukes, aiming at strategic defeat without advancing armies. And Russia definitely has more resources for it.
> Even getting the currently occupied land back is mostly optional.
That's only true in the short term.
If Russia gets out of the war with Ukraine with territory gains, that only serves as incentive to start up again after Russia can regroup. After all, Putin's stated long-term goal is to take the entire country (among others) and restore the USSR.
Of course, taking back the occupied land is also easier said than done, as it would severely weaken Putin domestically to have expended all these resources and lives for nothing. There's no way he can allow that.
Both countries are in a catch-22.
That's misunderstanding the model of actors. "Russia" isn't "Putin". "Countries" act in the best interests of their power structure, not their leaders.
Basically: the way this ends is when the collective will of the power centers (generally the armed forces, though not always) decide that they'll be wealthier and happier with Putin gone than by following more orders.
And obviously that's an unstable/unpredictable equilibrium, because groups don't decide collectively like that and exactly how a coup works is never known until it does. But it's the way literally every other government of every other failed state has fallen[1], and there's no reason to think this one will fare any differently.
[1] Well, there's "unexpected death of the leader" thing too.
> That's misunderstanding the model of actors. "Russia" isn't "Putin". "Countries" act in the best interests of their power structure, not their leaders.
No, I am not misunderstanding. For all intents and purposes, at the moment Putin’s will is Russia’s will. And it looks like he knows his weaknesses within the country and is willing to let marginal populations bear the weight of his ambitions while keeping his power base comfortable enough. Of course he might end up like Stalin, at which point who knows? But it might not be much better for Ukraine, and in the meantime Putin keeps giving the orders.
> Basically: the way this ends is when the collective will of the power centers (generally the armed forces, though not always) decide that they'll be wealthier and happier with Putin gone than by following more orders.
He can get most soldiers rich enough for this to drag on for quite a long time. They probably would be happier elsewhere, but they don’t have a say. The generals is another problem, but so far Putin is quite effective at finding loyal ones.
"There will not be a coup" is on the tombstone of like every failed leader ever. Economics doesn't change. Countries aren't people, even if the people running them try desperately to make you think so.
I'm not saying that Putin is going to be deposed next week, or year, or even ever. I'm saying that the Russian government is no less susceptible to the circumstances that produce coups than any other failed state, and failed states are the circumstances that produce coups.
At the end of the day, all government is ultimately by the consent of the governed. But predicting how and when that consent will be withdrawn that's is hard part.
Except that Russia isn’t failed state. It’s politically stable (even more than before war), can mostly serve its population. The fact that it’s currently engaged in an expensive war, changes nothing.
Even more so, they actively capitalize on the state of war to unite population.
As someone with no firsthand knowledge at all, I am inclined to believe your position is correct. But I also think the Economist is making an important point: Russia's continued prosecution of this war will shred their internal economy with consequences lasting for decades or centuries. What people often underestimate is just how much damage an economy can suffer before breaking down entirely.
But Putin doesn't care about that, so the war will continue until something changes militarily.
The EU is rich enough to support Ukraine for a very long time. During that time it is likely that Ukraine develops better and better weapons. This requires Russian army to improve as well.
It's not clear how the Russian army will improve when the economy declines.
The EU is rich enough but will they stay "willing enough"? Unfortunately, many EU parties that are gaining popularity are also against spending money on Ukraine
EU may be “rich enough” to support Ukraine forever, doesn’t mean it will or should do it.
The EU, well NATO has the problem what Russia will do when it is no longer at war with Ukraine. There is also the question what the US would if Russia attacks a NATO country.
So European NATO countries basically need to keep supporting Ukraine while they try to becomes militarily independent of the US.
The article is not as unrealistic as that, the author does point out that Putin is not just looking at the state of Russia, he’s also looking at the relative state of Ukraine and its support from the West.
The death zone isn’t the point at which they die, it’s the point at which they are consuming their own long term strength and capacity to recover in order to sustain their effort .
To our utter shame, we have never actually committed to Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat, but merely to tenuous Ukrainian survival. I firmly believe this war would already be over, or effectively so, if Ukraine’s allies had spent what we have up till now in the first 2 years. Even from a cynical financial point of view it would have been the better policy.
I don't think doubling the support would have been nearly enough to ensure Ukrainian victory.
The fundamental issue is that Russia has not fully committed to winning the war either. While losing the war would be an existential threat to the Putin regime, not winning it is not. As long as the war drags on, there are more effective uses for Russian resources to ensure the stability of the regime. But if the war becomes an existential threat, Russia could mobilize its entire economy.
A regime change in Russia is the only way Ukraine could win the war. Maybe by a coup or by military force. Or maybe by an arrangement, where the current regime can retire comfortably in a third country without having to answer for its crimes.
> A regime change in Russia
For $5 billion, like for the regime change in Ukraine (2014)?
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nuland_Testimon...
[flagged]
> If your competitors are also weakening—and if you believe you can tolerate the pain longer than they can—the calculus flips. Economic pressure that should drive compromise instead reinforces the logic of persistence.
I think everyone underestimates just how much misery Russia, and Russian citizens, can endure.
I think the problem is that there is not much data presented in this article - or other articles of that kind.
Systems are resilient - until they are not, and exhibit sudden factures and fast collapse.
The question is not whether Russia collapses or not, but who would be making profit from such a scenario, and who is keen on keeping the current state of affairs.
Russia is a glimpse into the future of America if nothing changes substantially in American political system. It’s a digital surveillance state, an oligarchy which co-opted technocratic elites into a ruling class and exploits mildly oppressed population without going to extremes. It has the technology and resources to maintain status quo for a very long time and absorb moderate shocks like this war.
Yes. A few get rich. This has always been the case - see Smedley Butler's old analysis about this.
On top of that current Russia isn’t actually “suffering”, certainly nowhere near 90s levels. Cheap crap from Russia replaced Western produce and those with money can buy grey goods. Putin is doing a “good” job insulating general population from the war.
A "dead" centrally-planned economy can continue lurching forward like a zombie for a long, long time. No one should count on this ending the war any time soon.
Any insights (anecdotes) from those in Russia and willing to opine on whether the economy seems like its collapsing presently?
I am not in Russia, but I have friends in Russia and visit Russia once a year or so.
From what I see there is no visible economy problems in Russia. Yes, there are some temporary issues in some areas, but generally it's resolved promptly.
There is some decrease of real salary/price increase, but not that significant. Probably situation in EU is worse.
It looks like economic block of Russian government is really professional and know what to do. It's not typical for government in Russia ;)
Also it helps that people are locked in country by western countries, so many stays in country and drives the economy.
Edit for the good metaphors.
> It has entered what mountaineers call the death zone: the altitude above 8,000 metres at which the human body consumes itself faster than it can be repaired.
> Over the past four years the Russian economy has bifurcated into two distinct metabolic systems... The body is metabolising its own muscle tissue for energy.
> A recession is like fatigue: rest and you recover. Russia’s condition is like altitude sickness: the longer you stay, the worse it gets, regardless of rest.
> But Vladimir Putin is not only watching his own oxygen gauge. He is watching the other climbers.
Always a fan of the writing style the Economist promotes.
I found the metaphors / analogons rather disturbing e.g. metabolism, etc. Does the human body have a Chinese assistent with an oxigen tent at 8000 metres?
So several sources report this. I assume this may be more "realistic" than in the last 3 years ago or so.
My problem with this is that many of these "news media" have a certain propaganda spin. Yes, Russia's propaganda puts any other propaganda to shame, but that does not mean others don't use propaganda either. The most prevalent change is how suddenly in Europe, more debt will be made by upgrading arms. I am not saying this is not understandable, so I am not necessarily against that; in fact, Europeans need a nuclear arsenal under EU control anyway. But at the same time one should not blindly adopt propaganda used by others. One always has to look what happens to taxpayer's money or who finances something.
Russia‘s international reserves are at all time high at the moment (800B$), of which only 300B are frozen by sanctions. Doesn’t look like a sign of a death zone. The arguments for it are questionable:
>Consider the arithmetics of descent for the Kremlin. Russia’s defence sector now accounts for around 8% of GDP. Demobilising without falling into a crisis would require five conditions to be met simultaneously: credible security guarantees that satisfy the Kremlin’s threat perceptions (which in turn will determine the extent to which it rebuilds its military capabilities);
Likely result of a peace deal. Trump wants to sign it and focus on China, so some pragmatic arrangement to be expected.
> mass demobilisation with effective retraining programmes;
The easiest part. The scale of mobilization was relatively small compared to total workforce. Not sure why effective retraining sounds like a problem.
>at least partial sanctions relief for technology access;
Russia has gaps in electronics (can buy from China) and in aviation (sanctions likely to be lifted in exchange for opening transit routes). In software it is still ahead of Europe, having strong national players in AI, banking, marketplaces etc. It may need Western tech to roll out 5G, but given that they already plan it, they probably already have access to Chinese tech.
>a revolution in defence procurement that prioritises efficiency over budget absorption;
Not clear why this is relevant. The defense spending will wind down gradually, it is likely already more efficient than before the war.
> and a healthy ecosystem of small and mid-size firms capable of absorbing reallocated resources and boosting innovation.
Will likely happen as soon as tax relief will be affordable, i.e. in 1 or 2 years after the peace deal. Resilience of Russian SMEs is something developed over decades. It might happen that Dubai and South Caucasus Russian tech hubs will go home. Most importantly, there will be a huge amount of money spent on new territories similarly to infrastructure investments in Crimea, which will add few percentage of growth to GDP.
> The probability of all five converging is near zero.
This is the most interesting part of the article, but it left unexplained. Why?
Remember the Economist Indicator - always take the opposite side of what Economist prints.
what does this do to the Russian citizens? is cost of everything going up to ridiculous levels?
It’s interesting, of course, but for example the Ukrainian budget depends on donations for about 60%, yet this dump doesn’t seem to rush to publish articles with equally loud headlines about Ukraine. Or about the US with its trillions in debt, or the UK, France, and most EU countries with huge debts exceeding their annual GDP.
Same story for 4 years long. "Russian economy is at the brink of a collapse." Yet it Somehow just keeps ok going year after year.
The truth is that the sanctions are only hurting the Eurozone more than Russia. Small minority (EU or the political west) cannot force meaningful sanctions on much larger group (BRICS). Unfortunately this is not the narrative anyone can say out loud lest they be labeled as "Putin's trolls" so the wishy-washy keeps on going on.
How do you think sanctions work? Economy is not powered by electricity, it took 4 years to crack down on their shadow fleet, God knows how many more escape hatches they have. China and India, and now US support them.
How does Russia have $73 billion dollars worth of debt. Who is buying Russian treasuries? Also how did the GDP grow by 1% in 2025, is that a function of the internal Defence spending activity?
> how did the GDP grow by 1% in 2025
Build tanks -> increase GDP
Send those tanks to burn with men inside -> increase GDP per capita
It's the classic issue of any metric: there are assumptions behind it's usefulness.
I think national growth minus growth in the military sector was negative last year.
It looks like Russian bonds are largely bought by Middle Eastern based hedge funds and family funds or trusts.
I guess $73 billion is actually a pretty small number at the end of the day when you compare it to even a developing nation like India with $1.5 trillion of bonds issued.
> is that a function of the internal Defence spending activity?
Yes, pretty much. But even that peaked at some point in 2023 and is trending downwards now.
Déjà vu …
Since Crimea Invasion
Russia’s Economy Is On the Brink of Collapse" – CNN Business, December 2014.
"The End of the Putin Era? Russia’s Economy Is Tanking" – Newsweek, December 2014.
"Russia Heading for Economic 'Colossal Collapse'" – BBC News (quoting Alexei Kudrin), December 2014.
"How the Oil Price Collapse Could Topple Putin" – The Guardian, 2015.
"Russia’s Economy Is a Mess" – The Atlantic, February 2015.
"Russia’s Coming Economic Collapse" – Forbes, June 2015.
Since Ukraine War
Post-Ukraine Invasion (2022–Present)
"The Russian Economy Is Heading for a Meltdown" – The Economist, March 2022.
"Biden: The Ruble Is Reduced to Rubble" – Associated Press (reporting on White House statements), March 2022.
"Russia Faces its Worst Economic Collapse Since the Fall of the Soviet Union" – Bloomberg, April 2022.
"The Implosion of the Russian Economy" – Foreign Affairs, July 2022.
"Russia’s Economy Is Dying a Slow Death" – Business Insider, 2023.
"Is Russia’s Economy On the Brink of Collapse? Why Trump Might Be Right" – The Guardian, September 2025.
"Stormy Weather Pummels Russia's Economy: Cracks Are Appearing" – CEPA, February 2026.
"The Russian Economy Is Finally Stagnating" – The Guardian, February 2026.
All true, but I remember several articles in the Economist in the first year warning that no collapse was imminent, and basically that the Russian central bank had plenty of options to recalibrate the economy in the medium term. They made comparisons with other countries that have been subject to similar, or even much more severe sanctions.
Overall I think they’ve been the best source of analysis on this I’ve found. They were explaining what CDOs and such were, and why they were a systemic risk years before the collapse in 2008.
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth-annual
It does look like the war is taking it's toll, though. It is said that the annual growth in GDP is expected to be negative for 2026.
Do you keep a collection of these? What for?
Probably organized propaganda or fanatical support of Russia. My bet is on the former.
I'm actually in awe. I wish I had lists like these for other "hot-button" issues where the common narrative is that things are constantly on the brink of some kind of catastrophe or resolution. Really puts things into perspective.
Yes, it seems like that’s the propaganda. The free speech democratic West, instead of reporting about the objective truth, tells us half truths for their own benefit.
No.
1. News outlets look to sell stories - and so catchy headlines. Real value is optional.
2. I expect you could find a range of contrary views over the same time. I've read good analysis saying economy will just keep going.
3. Try going to Russia and see what you find in the way of half-truths or free speech.
I hope you’re not serious.
The point of media is not to sell stories. Even if it is, the stories should not be made-up, biased or distorted.
Just because in Russia it’s worse, it doesn’t mean we should keep our media shit.
Western news resources aren’t controlled by government, unlike Russia. So they have incentive to post what generates clicks, not necessarily what reflects reality.
Yes, they are controlled by money.
Employing people and reporting costs money, news at 11.
economist.com is a website. It's not, and doesn't represent, the whole of western civilization.
Are you sure? Which western media says different opinion?
90% of the media in the US is owned by 6 companies [1]. We, the people of the western civilization, are not those 6 companies. Most of us don't trust the media [2]. With that freedom of speech, these "news" agencies can be as biased as they want, lie in all sorts of ways (omission, etc), they mostly just can't slander/defame. Almost all are strongly aligned to the republican party or democratic, and all of them are aligned to common goals like oil and Israel. It's best to watch the news knowing that there's an attempt at manipulation. Luckily, with the anti-alignment of the news agencies, the "other side" will often loudly point out flaws.
The only hope for reasonable context/nuance over here is through independent journalists.
Don't just the world through the lens of a few billionaires.
[1] https://pwestpathfinder.com/2022/05/09/the-big-sixs-big-medi...
[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/695762/trust-media-new-low.aspx
So glad we don't have propaganda, only independent journalists who just coincidentally parrot the same think-tank talking points. See the wealth of articles that are even more obviously wrong predicting China's collapse.
[flagged]
Not that you aren't factually right with regards to all modern technology being funded thru MIC, but USSR/Russia had exactly the same kind of MIC and has miserably failed at converting it to something profitable in the past. No reason to expect anything different this time - it's probably even worse because every successful entrepreneur that wouldn't leave the country ends up in prison. That said, there isn't much of good news for Ukraine either, sadly. The fat man slims down but the thin one starves to death.
GUIs are weaponry that we point at one another? You seem to be captive to some overriding viewpoint, to the point that you can't actually evaluate reality.
[flagged]
> Debt
That is the very basis of our currency, and the basic idea is a good one in an idea-heavy economy more reliant on innovation than natural resource constraints. Also, if truly becomes too much we will just have one of the many many currency changes. My grandparents lived with about five (could be as many as seven) currencies throughout their (German) lives, for example.
As long as the real values remain, the factories, the people, the roads, the buildings, that is not a problem overall. It's not like people can emigrate to alien worlds, and on earth the places with the best real economy will be where they will go - have to go.
Money is the carrot dangled in front of us to keep us moving and to create real value things. The carrot can be updated and changed if the current one starts to lose its appeal, it is not what ultimately matters. The point of view of an individual and the big picture are very different things.
And I'll just use this opportunity to recommend David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" - a wonderful book about the history of economy, demonstrating how it always boils down to effective use of debt.
There are tons of great parts in it, but one that really stuck with me is his analysis of the social dynamics whereby when someone brings you a gift or otherwise does something expensive for you, you are temporarily in debt to them, and the polite expectation is that you always pay it back in a way whereby you give more than you owe, such that they will then be in debt to you (generally for approximately the same amount), and the relationship can continue oscillating, with each of you being in debt about half the time. Paying back exactly what you were given and not a penny more is thus considered to be an indication that you want to discontinue the relationship.
So you say, that current debt levels are good?
I'm not sure why you ask me what I say. I left it as a written comment for you to peruse at any time and as many times as you want to see what I'm saying.
Don’t bother responding, it’s one of the Russian trolls:
- nuclear threat rhetoric
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47051983
- news are propaganda
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47052056
- Unsustainable debt
Yeah, my bad, the question might be for some other comment.
There’s a decent article in the Economist right now warning of Brazilification in the west. A particular kind of debt fuelled economic death spiral on which Brazil is unfortunately a pioneer.
I think you do not quite understand what debt is. Just like most people in our beloved Russia.
Or maybe you don’t understand what debt actually is.
Right, it must be biggest country in the world with the economy size of Italy, ostracized by everyone except other outcasts, fully dependent on selling cheap carbon fuel under market rates, and that struggles to occupy Donbass for 12 years.
Say I produce furniture.
I borrow from you. I now have debt.
I sell furniture. Now I can pay you back some part of it (up to 100%).
You (and other parties) see that I'm quite good at what I do and my products sells.
I now can borrow from you and other parties again to produce more (and possibly diversify my business).
I sell more, I open new businesses etc. I pay you and other parties back. And borrow again.
I can and will have debt (and it will grow over time) because this is what allows me and my business to grow.
I can borrow and be in debt till the day I die.
This basic concept is too foreign for people for whom "debt" is just a sum of money they borrowed from their friend and somehow now feel ashamed.
I didn’t say debt is bad in general.
I say the current amount of debt and the promise of we have unlimited money is what’s wrong.
>I say the current amount of debt and the promise of we have unlimited money is what’s wrong.
What does this have to do with "unlimited money"? USD is just a "contract".
A trillion in debt is not the sum of fiat paper the US owes anybody.
> we
Of course мы do, tovarisch.
Debt is the money supply.
The West's part in this is also part of the article making the content of your comment superfluous. You'd know if you'd have read it.
So what's the point of the comment? Your fear that it might be superior?
[flagged]