Meanwhile, "The Guardian's" economics editor Larry Elliot has had this to say about reports that the Russian central bank may have intervened to prop up the ruble (you can find the original article here):
So much for letting the ruble find its own level. The Russian central bank was reported to be active in the currency markets on Monday as it sought to arrest what was looking like the biggest one-day fall in the ruble since the debt default of 1998.
It’s easy to see why Moscow backtracked. The ruble was down by more than 6% against the dollar in early trading and is vying with the Ukranian hryvnia as the world’s worst performing currency of 2014. The word "freefall" is much overused in financial markets. Not this time.
More than two-thirds of Russia’s exports are from the energy sector, and the cost of crude has dropped by 40% since the summer. The selloff has accelerated since the Opec oil cartel decided against production curbs at last week’s meeting. Downward pressure on the ruble intensified amid market speculation that there would be no intervention.
There were reasons for adopting a hands-off approach. Chucking a chunk of Russia’s sizeable reserves at a rapidly falling ruble could be an expensive and ultimately pointless exercise. Intervention is normally more effective when it is going with the grain of market sentiment, and the ruble is currently toxic.
What’s more, a weaker currency should help to support growth and take some of the pressure off the budget by boosting the ruble value of Russia’s oil reserves.
So why did Moscow blink, given that the central bank’s official line has been that it would only step in to defend the ruble if there is a threat to financial stability?
That, though, is precisely the point. A ruble in freefall does pose a threat to financial stability in two big ways. Firstly, it increases the foreign currency value of Russia’s foreign liabilities, currently worth around $200bn (£127bn). Secondly, a continued fall in the exchange rate will encourage Russian citizens to convert rubles into dollars and euros, thus increasing the risk of bank runs.
Russia’s banks are in better shape than they were in 1998 and the government has the financial firepower to help them out should they get into trouble. But a plunging oil price and a plunging ruble still make the banks vulnerable. Hence the need to intervene.
It will come as no real surprise to those who have seriously considered investing in Russia, but the seemingly mercurial -- or worse yet, politically targeted -- application of the law highlights a very real economic obstacle for Russia that goes far deeper than any Western sanctions:
The case puts into relief the unpredictable business environment in Russia, where thousands of people have ended up in jail as the result of business disputes or raids by business rivals. Even seemingly petty crimes are routinely used to keep people in Russian prisons for months or even years.
It is difficult to determine who is right and who wrong in the murky property dispute. But Zaltsman's treatment, advocates say, is excessive by any standard: "The fact that he was jailed for a broken window — this is cruel and sadly typical of Russia," said Yana Yakovleva, founder of the advocacy group Business Solidarity. Moscow police and investigators refused to comment on the Zaltsman case.
Zaltsman, who has dual Russian and U.S. citizenship, was accused of hooliganism — the same charge leveled against members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot, landing them in a remote prison camp. If convicted, he could be imprisoned for up to seven years.