Soon to be held is important for all Russians an event — performance in the government National economic recovery plan (prepare it before June 1 Vladimir Putin instructed during telesemana may 11). This plan, judging by his name, comes from the fact that the country’s economy is not in great shape — and, apparently, is to identify those reforms that are needed to “bring it to life”. However, the hope that the White house will focus on the development of serious reform measures, small. Not only that, for three weeks, such large-scale projects were not created in any country of the world. According to numerous leaks and given the steps to fight the crisis, which we have already seen, it is logical to assume that the authorities will try, as before, to save “systemically important” corporations — from the oil industry and defense industry to large industrial enterprises, whereas the solution of problems of small and medium business will be delegated by the Federal government to regional governments.
This approach reflects a consistent unwillingness to understand the two are pretty obvious, in my opinion, the circumstances.
first, the fact that the modern economy is based primarily on sustainable consumer demand (in the US, consumer spending accounted for in 2018 82.3% of GDP, in Japan — 75.3 per cent in Germany, 72.1% and in Russia even before the crisis, with 66.7%), and this is why the most effective method of restoring crisis-stricken economic system is the increase in final demand, not subsidize the proposals, especially in the fields of mining and heavy industry. Will be supported by consumer demand — will start and all of the production chain; no — released by budget loans products have to buy again for the budget.
secondly, the fact that in a crisis you need to try to achieve recovery in the shortest possible time to maintain existing standards of living, while investment in heavy industry or infrastructure will give (and even then — maybe) returns only in the distant future (we know it’s sports infrastructure, pipelines and railroads).
it is worth Recalling the conditions under which governments tend to invest in large-scale infrastructure projects, as it was during the “New course” at the exit of the great depression in the United States: the main reason for such investments is a budget surplus amid the collapse of the private sector. In Russia today, the opposite is true: the budget is a huge deficit, and a competitive private business did not collapse during provoked his own mistakes of the crisis, and murdered by the successive actions of the state from over-regulation and Zamora��Ivan retirement income forced to “stop” economy in the context of the pandemic.
And here I have a question: why the Russian authorities consistently reject all modern methods of dealing with the crisis and are constantly trying to prove that they probably do represent a special — almost extraterrestrial — civilization?
to Explain their persistence alone close a bunch of bureaucracy with the owners (or front man) blagodenstviya corporations would be too primitive. Today, I think, the government’s actions are determined to a much greater degree of political and even not afraid of this word, ideological factors. Therefore, the origins of the current “crisis” policy I see the following.
on the one hand, they are rooted in a specific understanding of the domestic bureaucracy of the nature and functions of the Russian state. The state is not the Creator of rules and the guarantor of their observance (just the rules we change on the first whim of the authorities), and the most important economic entity. As in Russia, as elsewhere in the world, it cannot produce anything, and the establishment of a legal order is not in the interests of its beneficiaries, the main focus was on distribution.
I may be subject to criticism by many opponents of the current regime, but I do not think that it is a exclusively based on brute force dictatorship. Power in Russia is not so much forced citizens, how much to buy them as retail and wholesale, and for the success of such a policy requires funds that are minimally dependent on the Russians themselves and would be regarded by them as a kind of “gift from above”.
Actually, it is this political nature of our government and makes it committed to the rental economy, will describe the conceptual idea of an “energy superpower”. Oil, gas, other natural resources, including land, as well as what is elegantly called “natural monopolies” — that is what gives power resources, which bought the loyalty of his subjects. To buy the easier than, first, fewer people are required to rent (in Russia today is in mining, which in one form or another provided in recent years to half of Federal budget revenues, it employs a total of 1.14 million people and 1.5% of the total economically active population) and, secondly, less than other citizens have opportunities for normal earnings. It is this economic logic of Russia’s policy and requires a subsidy of profitable and large, and not caught in the plight of small businesses — and, apparently, this mechanism will be used in 2020, despite the fact that now��tions “pandemic” crisis is radically different from the financial disasters of 2008-2009 and 2015-2016.
the Current economic policy, I think, in large measure can be attributed to Soviet and minds of the Russian leaders. I studied at the economic faculty of Moscow state University and well remember the course, called in the distant Soviet past, “Economics and sociology of work”. According to this concept, the whole sphere of services — from catering, hotel industry and used by private persons and communication systems to education, health and science — were considered “non-production” on the grounds that its products “do not take material form and cannot be accumulated, thereby participating in the formation of national income”. Soviet researchers went even further and argued that “in contrast to the product material for the production of useful effect of labor workers non-production sphere has a social dimension and serves as productive work only if it is organized in the dominant form of production relations and implements the purpose of the [corresponding] mode of production”.
I specifically cited these quotes in order to show that the Soviet in their mentality of the people who settled in the Kremlin and the White house, it is extremely difficult not to perceive the services as something worthless and small and medium-sized businesses seeking to remain aloof from ruling the state-oligarchic mode of production — as a class-alien phenomenon.
the Concept of “service sector”, largely to justify the inefficient planned economy of the USSR, was one of the most odious creatures “historical materialism” that led to the growing economic backwardness of the Soviet Union from the advanced countries because of the deep neglect of accumulation and development of human capital. People in Soviet times played not so much as a person, but as a labor force, which ultimately led to the historic collapse of the Communist system.
In recent years, the Russian elite treat the people with even greater disregard for their policy on science, culture, education and health confirms this. Now, intending to save the “captains of the industry”, they are driven by reminiscences of the Soviet era, when all else was considered to be not significant, and if it came to the chance of people to earn a living for themselves — and just hostile.
the Dismissive attitude of the authorities to small and medium businesses, individual entrepreneurs and self-employed, in my view, inescapably rooted in the Soviet consciousness of the higher layers of the national bureaucracy. And, given that this sector works is 19.2 Milli��per person is 17 times more than in the “backbone” of the commodity sectors of the economy and almost four times more than all large industrial enterprises, — we should recognize that none of the Soviet ideological vestiges of no cost to our generation more than the relic of Marxist ideology. Pseudoinverse experiments, games in great power and similar excesses are nothing in comparison with attempts to recognize tens of millions of our fellow people “unproductive” and once again try to rely on the mining sector in an era when the main production resources have become initiative and intelligence.
