Talk:Economy of Belarus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Belarus		BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Poverty

In the Belarus article it says it has fallen, here the opposite? Where is the truth? 83.5.184.116 19:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article is completely biased. It leaves little mention of the high economic stability and growth in Belars and focuses completely on groups like the world bank and people who think Belarus should privitize its industries. This article seems to be the IMF/CIA viewpoint on the Belarus economy, containing huge amounts of criticism and little support. It needs lots of editing or even a rewrite to make it NPOV. See the far more neutral economy section in the Belarus article. 72.139.119.165 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to write something better, then. Generally speaking, the IMF and the World Bank have a pretty good idea which country is on sound economic footing and which isn't, though. 195.210.192.73 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Really do they now? Stiglitz has pointed out on numerous occasions that they simply do not...User:Wejamire

I can see what you mean about POV; despite the doom-and-gloom assesment of the Belarussian economy, the graph shows GDP growth rates hovering in the 9%-10% range; whilst neighbouring Ukraine, a comparative darling of the world bank, is growing at about half that rate - both countries having started from roughly the same level when the USSR collapsed.

I'm not saying its all coming up roses. But we need to balance the world bank view, with an alternative opinion. Damburger 11:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The odd thing is that some of it doesn't even make much sense... how can internal consumption be mainly "stimulated through the administratively-imposed growth of average salaries"? I would think it would take far more than that... a similar strategy isn't working so well for Zimbabwe at the moment. Also, what about this: "the economy remains dependent on Russian subsidies. Until 2000, subsidies to state enterprises ... constituted a major feature of the Belarusian economy." So is it dependent now, or was it dependent until the year 2000? It's contradictory... Esn 08:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If this article is biased, it is biased to make the things look better. In general, it is pretty objective. Esn, internal consumption was stimulated through growth of salaries indeed: labour efficiency was growing 5-7 % per annum and salaries for 20-25 %. with more income, people started to buy more expensive things, like cars and real estate, electronic gadgets etc., but much of that money were going abroad because ALL cars and most consumer electronics are imported. this caused strong negative trading balance, and growth of internal prices. short before the crisis realty became incredibly expesive - more than 2,000 USD per 1 square meter (keep in mind that typical salary was $350 monthly). 2."the economy remains dependent on Russian subsidies". Russian gas price for Belarus in 2006 was $50 /1000m3, for Europe - 300 $. Russia also let Belarusian government to buy oil by reduced price without export taxes, and refine and reexport it to Europe by market price. 3. "subsidies to state enterprises ...constituted a major feature of the Belarusian economy." Yes, state industrial enterprises were bankrupts in fact, government was printing money and using Russian "oil money"(see #2) to keep them working with losses, and even to increase production and GDP.

82.154.197.117 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)nikolay82.154.197.117 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)